The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1897-04-21
PHOSPHATE ROYALTY.
A DELAYED LETTER FROM CAPTAIN
FRANK E. TAYLOR.
He Argues for Certain Relief il the Com
panles are to Continue in Business-The
Coosaw Company Going Out.


lesion correspondence of The Register
yesterday was an interview with Cap
tain Frank E. Taylor IL regard to the
phosphate interests, in which he said
ne had written Gov. Ellerbe his views
and that be would not give out the
contents unless the Governor did. The
Governor yesterday gave 1t to the
newspaper men, saying that although
it had been written before the Beau
fort trip, still he had not received 1t.
The letter follows:
Charleston. S. c., March 80, 1897.
Hon. W. II. Ellerbe, Chairman Board
Of Phosphate Commissioners, Co
lumhia, s. @.
Dear Sir: On the brief notice eXteu-
ded to me it was impossible for me to
make any arrangements to leave the
city, as I had matters OF great import
ance at home which demanded my at
tention. l therefore, at the last mo-
msnt, wired Inspector Jones at Ie-
massee that could not join the par
", and wrote him, confirming my
telegram, stating that would com
municate with you.
The petition, under date March 3,
signed by the Coosaw Mining Com,
pany and other companies, addressed
to yourself and the members of the
board, has had my earnest considers
ton. / have given the matter much
thought and, as far as I am concerned,
have reached a definite conclusion,
which conclusion I will as briefly as
possible state IN this communication.
First. I am in favor, in view Of the
depressed condition of the phosphate
interests, resulting from the develop
ment of the phosphate industry IN
other States, OF extending such relief
as would be jlst aud equitable AID at
the same time work no hardship TO
the State.
Second. am OF the opinion that a
royalty Of 25 cents per ton is reasona-
bic. and that the increase in said roy
atty should commence at figure not
certainly higher than s. per ton.
Third. I am OF the opinion that
whatever royalty may be decided up
Ou SnOO1O UC AACo AO4 q pSA4OS ~ AO1
less than two years.
Fourth. I have reached the definite
conclusion, in regard to the $4,000
tons or more of rock on hand, say
about as follows: The Coosaw Com
pany 80, 900 tons, the Farmers Mining
Company "A, 900 tons, the Beaufort
Com pany 5000 tons, that the State is
entitled to royalty of 50 cents per
ton upon this surplus product, which,
at so cents per ton on $4,000 tons,
amounts to $24, 500, for which said
amount the State has lien upon said
rock. I think, therefore, taat the
State should collect the 50 cents per
ton royalty upon this $4,000 tons of
rock, but obligate and agree that at
the expiration OF twelve months from
the date of the action Of the board, II
these each minded an equivalent
quantity of rock to that which they
now have on hand, then the State
will rebate to them 25 cents per ton OF
the so cents per ton collected, and will
charge 25 cents per ton royalty upon
the equivalent quantity that will be
mined during the time, VIZ: one year
from the date Of the action OF the
board.
BY pursuing this course the State
will be assured of its S24, 500, which IS
the equivalent of so cents per ton on
49, 900 tons of rock. It will not do to
argue that because plants are valuable
they are, therefore, going to be run.
This is simply business question that
is presented to US. No matter how
sincerely we may sympathize with the
PROSTATE condition of the phosphate
industry, there is no just reason, to
my mind, why the commissioners
should be at all philanthropic, and |
take it that it is not the intention OF
the mining companies to have the
board consider the question in any
other than business way.
To illustrate: The Coosaw Company
has $4,000 tons of rock on hand. 1t
pays royalty of SIS, 900. AZ the ex-
piration OF the year it shows that 1t
has mined $4,000 tons additional. 1t
receives back from the State 81, 500,
and is liable for 25 cents per ton roy
atty on the 80, 600 tons mined during
thlsyesr. Suppose, for instance, that
the Coosaw Company mined only 30
000 tons then it would receive back 25
cents per ton royalty on %, 900 tons
and would be liable to pay 25 cents
per ton on 20, 900 tons mined.
do not see why the State should
take any chances of any one OF these
companies shutting down. Il the
plants are so valuable and the compa-
MES do not intend to shut down, then,
under the proposition I present, they
will be perfectly assured that they
will get this rebate of 25 cents Per
ton. If, on the other hand, any one
company has ncintention OF going on
and makes up its mind to shut down,
or produce a very small quantity OF
rock, then the State of South Carolina
will have simply lost so much royalty
if they make the reduction in royalty
without agreement suggested by me.
There is no quid pro quo or take It n
is last analysis. Suppose all the com
SSAlCS SAOA-O SuON OSNN e>1S& t1AS~S~S~
no rock this year. The State would
simply BE- out Sl2, $50 on 49 900 tons
of rock. If they made reduction OF
25 cents per ton without binding the
companies to an equivalent further
production.
It seems to me, therefore, under the
views have presented we offer to ex,
tend to them IN good faith on business
principles all the relief that they
should ask. II they are going on to
mine and push the business, which |
understand they will do; they will, al
the expiration of the year, be refund
ed 25 cents per ton, provided they shall
have each mined an eq oal quantity Of
rock to that each now has on hand,
or, if not an equal quantity, then re.
bated pro rata.
In my judgment the best guaran
tees that the comp snies are going to
run is TO put them i . a position where,
/ If they do not run, they will lot get