The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-06-20

of Baltimore, filed a bill in equity in the
United States Circuit court against the
Board of Agriculture for the purpose of
enioining collection of the fertilizer tax
of % cents a ton, on the ground that it
was unconstitutional and an interior
ence with the interstate commerce and if
permissible at all, as an inspection tax,
lit was three times what it ought to be-;
that the real purpose of levylng this
heavy tax was to indirectly support the
A. & M. College and many other objects
which are foreign to the inspection of
commercial fertilizers; that $4,000 a
year would be amply sufficient to pay
for the inspection and analysis of fertl-
lizers; that this is more than Virginia
and South Carolina pay, and in Georgia
tax of 10 cents a ton has proven more
than sufficient
Judge Seymour refused the injunction
and the plaintiff appealed to the Su-
preme court of the United States. The
case was argued there in March, 1896.
The court took an adversari and now,
after considering the question for over
twelve months, they have directed re-
argument, although elaborate briefs
were filed on both sides. This means that
the court stands four to four, with one
of the judges, who was not present, I'M
decided.
In this case the plaintiffs were rep
resented by Col. John W. Hinsdale, of
this city, who is perhaps more familiar
with the case and the questions and
facts involved in it than anyone else. L
called upon him yesterday and asked
him this question:
HAS the Board of Agriculture the
right to lend its fertilizer tax fund to
the college and to pay the college for the
analysis of fertilizers at three or four
times more than actual cost, with view
to helping along the institution"
THE State Board of Agriculture" he
said, depended, i'm the suit instituted by
the Potapsco Guano Company, now in
the United States Supreme court, upon
the ground that the fertilizer tax of %
cents a ton was necessary for the actual
expenses of inspection and that they had
no right under the law to make any
other application of it, and that in fact
they were not doing so. This was the on
only plausible ground upon which the
suit could be defended. The law which
permitted them to aid the A. u Nj. Col
lege was repealed by an act passed in
1891. They have no right to do by side
wind what the law forbids them to do
directly And a suit for an injunction
would lie at the instance of any tax
payer to prevent the misapplication of
the fertilizer tax funds and | am not at
all certain but that if such misapplica-
ton should be made the several members
of the Board may make themselves indi-
vidually responsible, although acting
conscientionsly in the premises.
Il am well-wisher of this institution.
1t has done noble work in North Caro-
lima and want to see it sustained, but |
think it ought to be supported by di-
rect application, and not out of a tax
which is ostensibly levied for a different
purpose.
The farmers of North Carolina are
paying this fertilizer tax, which this
year will amount to between $4,000 and
$50, 600, without knowing it, just as the
consumer of an imported article pays
the duty upon it in blissful ignorance.
OF course every manufactures of COM
mercial fertilizer adds this license tax
to his price per ton. Now these State
institutions ought to be supported by
the State at large, and not by the farm
ers alone"