The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1889-04-23

this. to the Florida farmer? 50 far AS am
aware The Florida farmer pays rs much per
ION for his icrillzeT rs 90 me farmers in other
States where TAX j. imposed. | wish to make
another quoa'ion ORepo' Of Commissioner of
Aericuilurc South Carollnl 1882, page 2241
Il IS co.. mon impression that this tax ulll-
maicly comes OH of the consumer, hut as "a
matter of fact il does noi. In proof of this, we
have only 10 say tbat when there was no tax in
South Carolina oar local companies shpnrd
their goods to Moth Carolina, paid The differ
cncc IN freight, r,al the state license ot 5000 for
each brand offered inr S.l-, and sold nj the
same prce that they did in South Car lima"
Honest nanulac lureIS d. not ohlect To a tax
provided only The law hc upt Il farce, provided i;
really do Y hat il underia X s., namely. drive from
thc market spurious goods, ana relieve them
rrpnllh,e mnnut cturcr> from competition
Wlih fraudulent ones.
ThiS letter is already too long, but | wish to
say a word as 10 The best method oi imposing
mas tax. y tax ior So much per each distinct
brand IS preferable 10 50 much a ton, for the t0l-
lowing reasons | allow gentlemen who have
worked under each system 10 speak. a ormer
director 81 the Month Ca.oina Experiment Sta
Ton SAYS: The lie ~" TAX plan as we have ii
Is toi III" simplest 10 administer and most bro
duc'Ivc "t The results oesIfcd. The TON tax
pan looks lar on paper, but Is open 10 too
WI@A r"Ilupl!"N and almost impossible to carry
Nut IN a spAr~ciy settled community Oar tax
IN. Y be top l1j-A, but the license lax Plan is the
"blF feasible ore. Il give HE State lhe advan-
'aec from tht Sfttl and as he tcrt. liz + men
!" Inc hArnr>~ fion ljc beginning. Thc toN tax
Is a c''ch-n~ II >on can g'm-, with All The ad-
y"n'ag,~ .3n hp ; .tr ot fhe fertilizer men"
gentlemen who l;tl bad long expert
cncc under The lon irX system saws
oar system has worked with satisfactory
results And III my np:lilnn II can scarcely be I'M
prvel upon wherever il is desirable to use The
lax tag OF any similar : stem. Personally, how
ever, | am disposed /" favor the brand tax
system, and tor Tie fulnwing reasons: The
c"ilec'lun of the brand tax is much simpler
than the other system, and its evasion is neces-
sarl!y, more dillicult. The income derived from
the tax is cs~ liable to tluctuaton on account ot
increase or falling of in Tie use O! commercial
Ier'lllZclS, due respectively 10 an increased or
diminished crop Lastly and chiefly, The num-
Der OF brands offered for sale is much smaller,
Their supervision is easier and the labor OF the
chemist Is much diminished. In explanation OF
the la'ler reason, | would say that wherever the
tax tag system is used there is of course no OBJ
ject IN restricting the number of brands The
consequence is that the market becomes flooded
with small lots of goods, OF which it is al times
difficult TO get samples, The same article is sold
IN the same town Nndrr ii half dozen names, and
The farmer is generally 50 confused on the sub
Jcct that he takes anything that is offered, with
out regard 10 lis analysis
rs 10 h"W much tax per brand i, imposed de-
pcbGs on the amount OF money Ii IS mtendcd 10
raise. North Carolina, " = =. license of 1900 a
hftnd, faioee %'U0c0 lo > 10 00U - veal / have
10 dI'a on hal.d a. to AoE muuy brands per
year are offered io! sai~ in Foruia l. South
Carolina, n 'h- year lSS9-S3 lGJ brands were
sofia. Ia y Drh Cuoilut Sky to ctgblv
brands axe offered for sale caeh year r her
OF those Nj.tcS nr- n1uIr Ian three time,
lie inhabitants tAr Florida h4, ana con-
sumo, ltitnP>. .l,ec tuIr, the qHlnfi.v Of
c"iHinrtVi.i l'it.l IN. Su.poo tAa1 fifty ll:-