The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1898-07-20
srec;aI Tax On Fectiliz:ss.

Fertilizers Than Ever Before.
The recent remarks OF Hon. George
D. Tillman at one of the campaign
meetings in reference to the fertil-
izer tax has called forth the follow
ing reply:
Clemson College, July 1, 1898.
The attack made by Col. Geo. d.
Tillman on the management of the
fertilizer department Of Clemson
College, also the letter of Senator S.
L. Connor making similar charges,
seem to demand statement from
this department OF the real facts, so
that the people Of the State may
know how the law is enforced.
Col. Tillman is quoted as saying:
"The college only admits having
raised 100000 from the fertilizer tax
last year, whereas it is believed she
ought to have at least 500, 900 more
than that if the tax had been faith.
fully collected and honestly account
ed for. But there is something
wrong, very, very wrong, about both
the collection and disbursement OF
that tax" He. further says: "Prior
to that time the State agricultural
department had faithfully and eff
ciently executed the fertilizer tax
law, not only in analyzing guano, but
in collecting the tax, paying it over
to the State treasurer, collecting
more in proportion to guano used
than Clemson acknowledges she re-
cei7ed last year
Col. Tillman is either densely ig.
norant as to the facts Of this busi-
ness, or is trying by misrepresenta
tion to make political capital for him
self at the expense of the officials Of
the department. I prefer in charity
to take the former view OF the mat
ter. In contrasting the present ad-
ministration of the fertilizer law with
the State agricultural department of
the past, he would have you believe
that under The old system there
could be no chance for dishonesty in
accounting for the money collected,
while under the present system the
privilege tax money is collected by
irresponsible officials, and such re-
turns of same made as they see fit,
while the facts are. under the cid
system the tax money was collected
by the commissioner of agriculture
and his agents, and turned over by
them to the State treasurer, and
under the present system every dol
lar of this money is paid direct to
the State treasurer, and no official of
the department is allowed toreceeived
any part of it. The law requires
that it be paid to the treasurer
of the State, and in our in.
structions sent out to fertilizer
manufacturers we state that all ap-
plications for tax tags must be made
to the State treasurer, and all cheeks,
money, ETC., in payment therefor
must be made payable to his order;
so if there is any failure to account
for the money collected under the
present system, the State treasurer
must also be party to the trans
action. In the foregoing statement
I do not wish to be understood as
making any charge against the old
agricultural department. [ mention
it only to show that there are more
safe-gu .rds in regard to accounting
for the money collected under the
present system than under the
former.
Again, Col. Tillmau's statements
as to the amount of fertilizers con-
sumed in the State show plainly his
ignorance on this point. He esti-
mates that $4,000 tons were con,
sumed in this State last year. Geor-
gia uses by far more fertilizers than
any other State in the Union, and ac-
cordiDg to the most reliable stats
tics she used about 100000 tons
last year. South Carolina stands
next in the amount consumed, but
she has never used more than 250,-
900 tons all this year. One of our
State Senators, who has taken great
interest in this fertilizer question,
has recently compiled report show
ing the total amount Of commercial
fertilizers delivered at all points IN
tie State, and he finds the amount
to be, in round numbers, $4,000
tons. Privilege tax has been col
lected this year on 254.0(O tons.
This small difference can easily be
accounted for by the fact that maoy
oil mills, also many dealers, buy
large lots of fertilizers from the fac
tories and sell and reship the same