The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1891-02-17

WOU4A WIN A4V4V WA&@I
ex sherifs of his county.
SHALL MINISTER'S WORK PUBLIC RoAEs z
The bill to exempt ministers from
working the public roads was taken
up. Mr.. Ray favored it, and believed
it was a compliment we W. to the
ministers.
Mr.. Briuson said that in the East
the colored race was full of preachers,
many of whom ought to work the
roads.
Mr.. Henry favored the bill.
Mr.. Alexander said his people were
not the worst people, but we have very
few preachers He moved to amend
that only those engaged in pastoral
work be exempted.
Mr.. Stancill opposed the bill and
thought no nan ought to be exempted.
The poor people do all the work on
the roads, and when there are any
exemptions these people do not feel
that they are treated with justice.
Many poor people feel that it is a
heavy tax on them to work the
roads.
Mr.. Mann was against all kinds OF
class legislation. 1t is a mere senti
mental matter. Tae road tax is a
evere tax.
Mr.. Cofield thought preachers could
as well afford to work the roads as
many poor men.
Rev. MI. Denny opposed the biI
because he wanted no exemptions for
ministers. Do not be uneasy about
the preachers as long as the people
are in sympathy with him. AS a
general thing the man who does the
least good, thinks he does the most.
Rev. Nh. Perry thought the State
ought to extend this little help to
ministers, phys!cions, railroads, and
all others help the preachers. We
ought to do so.
Mr.. Wooden moved to amend by
making it spplis liable only to ministers
who devote all their time to the work.
Mr.. McGil wanted to leave the mat,
ter to county commissioners. AT this
junction q message was received from
the Senate, and after reference Of bills,
the House adjourned.
x RAILROAD COMMISSION.
The Railroad Commission bill being
the special order for this hour it Was
taken up. Mr.. Grigsby fled a mi
nority report signed by himself and
Mr.. Walser, and offered a substitute
for the bill. The reading of the
substitute occupied forty minutes.
Mr.. Gribsby said that no~twithstand-
ing he had been instructed to vote
against a railroad commission, yet if
the Senate would adopt the substitute
he should vote for it. The substitute
embodied much that was in the
original bill, and at the anne time
eliminated the Objectionable features
of the bill.
He did not think, in view of Wha.
railroads have done for tue State, that
we ought to engage in any legislation
that would trammel or cripple them,
He gave notice that il the substitute
was not adopted he should offer various
amendments to the bill.
Nj. Walser said he did not specially
advocate the substitute. It is a copy
of the Inter State commerce law ad
apted to this State, by certain changes.
He favored a commission with Gd-
visory powers, but not a rate fixing
commission. Such q commission
would be- unjust and unwise. In a
majority of the States that have CON
missions they do not have rate fixing
powers.
He said he had about as many
objections to the substitute as he had
to the bill. If the rate fixing CLAUSE
was stricken out of the original he
should vote for it with pleasure, but
without amendment he preferred the
substitute. He attacked the Chronicle
for what it had to say about his
position two years ago. He thought
that one of the commissioners ought
to be a Republican.
Mr.. Aycock asked him if the Re
publisans two years ago did not, in
caucus, declare against all railroad
commission bills?
Mr.. Walser said that they agreed
not to vote for a rate.fxing commits
sion. He and many other Rapuoli
cans were here pledged to vote for a
commission that would treat the rail
roads with fairness.
Mr.. Butler asked him if the rail.
roads favored the substitute.
Mr.. Walser failed to answer the
question.
Mr.. Aycock called the previous
question and was sustained. The
substitute was lost.
Mr.. Lucas moved to 60 into com
mittee of the whole AMI consider the
bill by sections.