The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1898-09-14
u. NTLI4 ANH
FOR r. ". Simpson,

tHgS IOT lcTtlIlZeTS.
Respectfully.
J. P. Smith,
for r. ". Simpson
Pres Trustees G. A c.
Some time s.er this l received the 100
tags from 8 printer in Charleston.
Now, if have obtained tax tags in an lie.
climate way, the State treasurer, J. P.
Smith, R. W. Simpson and the Charleston
printer are particeps criminis parties to the
tleit, unless it is illegitimate to obtain them
attached to fertilizers, as these are the only
two ways that have ever obtained them.
On receipt of the tags sent my order for
100 sacks Of dissolved bones, but kept the
lOOncw tags and sent one hundred old ones
with me order, for which | received credit,
thus proving that the consumer pays
the tax, and that neither the manufacturer,
nor aEy one else, could distinguish old tags
frcm new ones, neither could any one ques-
ton the va idity of the tags, for though they
had be>n used once, they were to ell appear
ruIer nor had violated any statutory or
moral law, as paid for 100 tags, and only
u..d 100 tags, the 100 new tags being still
IL my possession, having never been Used
When the bill was before the Senate en-
deavored to make all this plain by exhibit
ing the new tags, my contract and inv ice,
and tried 20 convince the committee aud
Senate that with the cancellation feature
.ad with the other provisions of the bill
rig'diy enforce !, tae tax could be reduced
and even then sufficient revenue be raised
from tie tax The bill was reported on ia
rdrably by the committye except with regard
o tie reduct on feature, and so placed on
the Calendar. For days after l was ap-
preached by Col. Norris and others, making
suggestions as to the reduction feature Of the
Dill. Col. Norris offered to compromi.e
with me and assured me if the reduction
feature were stricken oat be uld help to
pass the bill. But hesays, nothing could
influence him (myselO to do so, and there
was no alternative but to vote against it "
He does not saJ why could not be ihdu
enced 10 accept this compromise; OF. no,
out leaves the public TO infer that 1t wa-
esot;sIn or stubbornness on my part. told
nim and others that ctu'd not honorably
accept such g comprouise, and gave them,
as thought, full and sutfcieyt reasons
assured him that rather tn n have the bill
defeated | would compromise on a reduction
of cents per ton, but could not honor-b!y
abandon the entire reduction feature. lie
replied that Ee would not as K me to do any
thin: thought dishonorab!e. l was urged
every day to reconmit the bill under the
plea to perfect al the details in the COM
:nit,ee. AS l had never claimed that the
bill was perfect, and had time aud again
asked for suggestions aud aid, agre 10
recommi,tal for the above alleged reasons.
But was there auy real etTVr. to pe.fe I the
b. j? say not, TO my knowiedge. The
bill came back with IA unf>vorao!e report.
The position was thea taken that it was a
matter of 100 reatimportance to sct hastily
upon, and that it was better 10 postpone
and let the board oftrustees appoint COM
mittee to cooperate with me IN pertecung
the bill. Therefore the bill was continued
to the session OF 1928.
Col. Norris says the committee was ap-
pointed, yet to this day, not one member of
that committee has ever mentioned the sub
i.ct 10 me- Col Norris saw fit last session
10 upraid me for not cooperating with the
committee, yet he says in bis article the
committee was 20 iovite Senator Connor to
cooperate with it. During the session OF
1898, the same tactics were brought into
use.
Since Col. Norris seems offended at the
expression, '.bcllly in the Senate chamber
to defeat bill proviiing for the cancela
ton Of the tax t,gs,' let me ezplsin here
On the 25,h Of last j an ,ary, while the bill was
I'D for discussion and after the only propo-
sition in the bill which Col Norris sSys was
Objectionable to him had been stricken cut,
and vas Try ing to amend and correct me
errors in the bill, ny attention was called
TO The fact that Col Norris had left his sea:
and was sitting on the outside Of the bar,
earnestly consulting with bevy OF fertii-
zer manufacturers was asked If this was
the same Col. Norris who wal few years
ago cham pioning the cause OF the poor, over
burdeued farmer, pleading for equal rights
for al and special privileges for none, and
trying to carry the subtreasury to Washing
ton congress- on the 0cala wagon for the
special benefit Of the ''poor farmers.
Now, for one who had been identified with
the farmers movement and alliance from
tie beginning to have such questions asked
him under the circumstances, was 1t not
enough 10 make him feel humiliated?
Al er the bill had been shorn OF the reduc-
ton feature which was 50 obnoxious to Col
Norris, the Senate having stricken It out, ne
SAYS "there was no alternative left but to
vote against il"
Was not this the time for Col. Norris to Try
and do what he says he had hoped to d.,
amend the cancellation cause? Did he try:
On the motion 10 indefinitely postpone the
bill after it had been rid of the reduction
clause Col Norris voted for the molten, and
also voted it beyond resurrection for the ses-
sion. Did not this show a willingness or
desire tc leave this gate wide open; thus
inviting fraud? Yet he says The utmost
good faita was kept with Senator Conner,
and his approved two features carefully
guarded -
As 10 the reduction feature ne says