The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1885-01-08


supplies, and tends to raise the price of
cotton. If there were factories enough
In the South to manufacture our cotton,
the farmer would get as much for it here
as it sells for in New York or Liverpool.
1t is, therefore, to the interest of all
classes Of our people to encourage the
building of factories.
Mr.. Scudday says If we have any
special favors to show, let Va give them
to agriculture. by all means. If Mr..
scudday knows of any legislation which
would promote the agricultural interests
Of the State, he should speedily bring it
forward and il he can show that II will
accomplish that result, me will have no
difficulty in securing its enactment, for
majority of both branches of the Leg.
islatnre are agriculturalists. 1t is no
argument 10 oppose doing something
that has definite benefits, in order to
wait and see If something cannot be
turned up 10 some other direction that
would be beneficial.
There are other parts of Mr.. Scudday's
argument which We would like to notice,
but for the present we must content our
selves with looking briefly vt his Consti.
tutional argument. He contends that
whenever bill to repeal an existing law
Is before the Legislature, it brings the
law before the body In all of its bearings.
This is correct If the word "bearings"
means it's effect upon the State, but 10
the sense Of bringing up the original
questions, as Mr.. Scudday implies, we
do not agree with him. A very strong
reason may have existed hgNiast q law
in its passage, and yet upoh bill to re.
peal the reason might not exist at all !;
rs for instance the enactment of the
stock.law might have been opposed for
Anderson County, because ofthe difficult
ty and expense Of building pasture fences,
and yet if bill to repeal the law were
now to be brought forward it would not
revive that original objection, or if it did
it should have no force. So we contend
that th Q bill to repeal does not bring up
the Constitutional question. Our laws
make it the duty of the Courts TO decide
matters Of Constitutional law and not
the Legislature. If one Legislature de.
cides an Act to be Constitutional, would
1t not have as much force as another
which says it is unconstitutional. The
Courts, however, can settle the question
lipally. IF the opponents of exemption
believe Tito be unconstitutional, why not
60 to the Courts and teat the matter.
They profess every confidence in their
case and yet take good care to keep 1t
out Of the Courts. The fact Is that fac.
tories are not exempt from taxation.
They pay their taxes just as other people
! do, but the State annually gives them for
ten years sum Of money equal to their
taxes to foster and encourge their devel-
opment. The State annually gives the
State Agricultural Fair $4,000 to foster
and encourage 1t, and yet it hag never
occurred to Mr.. Scudday, and those with
him, that tho same principle underliea
both. 1t Is bonus in reality, though It
is familiarly termed an exemption. It
may be an evasion of the Constitution
/ apparently, but it i not 80 in spirit.
Tho Legislature says, in effect, we wish
to give you bonus, but cannot afford to
tax tho people to do so; therefore, we
will give yon an amount equal to all the
taxes you pay, except the two mill school
tax for the term of ten years. We do
not pretend to cay how the Courts would
decide the matter, but tits little strange
that men who are as confident that the
! law il unconstitutional. aa anme nEofeae
to be, keep 30 persistently away from the
Courts. We believe it is good law, and
hope the Legislature will remain progres.
sive and broad enough 10 it's views to let
the exemption, as 1t Is fami!iarly termed,
remain as part of our law.
i