Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-12-21
MATTER STILL OPEN,
Committee viii Decide Finally
on Tonnage Tax Bill To-Day,
LONG HEARING LAST NIGHT,
Manufacturers and Farmers Talk
on The Bill.
INTERESTING FACTS BROUGHT OUT
Great Question as to who Pays the
Tax, Manufacturers or Farmers
INTERESTING FACTS BROUGHT OUT

The Senate Committee on Agriculture
and Mining spent several hours last night
h ring fertilizer manufacturers. farm
c.' and others, on the hul imposing a
tN of ID cents a ton on fertilizers sold in
Virginia.
Thc committee decided to meet again
This morning at 10 o'clock and consider
Che bin finally before reporting It to the
Senate when ii meets at noon.
The session OF the committee was held
in the Senate Chamber There were a
large number Of spectators in the cham
ber' in the expectation Of an interesting
contest They were not disappointed.
Tho members Of the committee present
were Messrs ST. Clair (chairmam Fair
TAX, Steele, Tate, Gold. LeCato. and Wal
lace. Senator Lupton. Senator Flood. and
Senator Class were present In advocacy
% tho bill.
DifuS41D by PRESIDENT MORGAN.
President 5. T. Morgan. Of the Virginia
Carolina Chemical Company. made a de-
tailed statement TO the committee. ana
was heard with very close attention. He
spoke very clearly and directly. lie said
no had never seen the advantage Of a tom
mage tax as compared with brand-tax.
lie was especially pronounced in his Oh
position 10 that feature of the law which
aid not allow a manufacturer of ferti
lizers 70 return tho tax-tags purchased
and unused.
Mr.. Herbert Bryant, q fertilizer manu-
iacturer Of Alexandria, followed Mr.. Nor
ktn ho said, SO far as he was concern
cd, ho had no objection to the law pro-
posed save the Inconvenience of attach
ing tne tags 10 the bags In answer IA q
direct question. he stated that ne should
regard the tax as an added expense. and
should go figure IL in estimating the cost
o. making the fertilizer. The buyer
would have TO pay the tax, Just as he
now has 10 pay the brand-tax.
Nj a. u. Johnson. of the Richmond
0uaho Company. which, no said, had no
connection with the Virginia-Caronna
chemical Company, said he was not per-
sllally opposed TO the tonnage tax. He
saroed 10 as a tax ON the farmer he
thought they ought not to be made TO
laf more than was needed TO support the
department OF Agriculture. He stated
chat TWO farmers Of Augusta county. who
were in his Office yesterday. had asked
BOTHER MAKER AND USER.
Air. s. Dabney Crenshaw. secretary OF
tAa Nirglnia-CarOlina Company. said that
SID Jar from reducing the number OF
brands, his company was more likely TO
Increase lie was willing 10 have his
company enter into a written agreement
not 10 reduce the number OF brands. He
said he was the owner of three farms,
and used from ~ TO $50 tons of ferti-
li1er every year. He wanted the Depart
ment of Agriculture maintained as a pro-
lection 10 the farmer and reputable man
ulacturer But he did not think the man
ufacturers should be made to pay more
than was necessary 10 SUPPORT the de-
partment
Phosphate rock had to be brought from
Charleston. s. c., and the freight there
on was $50. one ton OF the rock was
used in the manufacture of two tons OF
fertilizer u was possible 10 sell ferti-
AzCr at an intermediate point ln North
Carolina between Charleston and Rich
mond. owing TO less freight for IL shorter
haul, az "a price the same as in Virginia.
This was answer TO the argument that
Fertilizers We're sold I'm North Carolina at
tho same price as in Virginia He dWelt
upon the Inconvenience of being required
q" put tags on all bags of fertilizer. He
e'd tneie Was no question that any COM
kany outside of Virginia could shin its
lfiuuzerS 10 consumers in this State
Without putting the tax tags on the bags
ho aid IL was true that the prices of fer
tiiiZcrs would have to De- advanced the
coming season. This Was owing TO the
TACT mat the prices of au fertilizer in
6ieuichts had increased recently not less
than 70 cents per ton.
Air. LuptOn asked AIR. Crenshaw a
question, saying that as he understood
SIR. Crenshaw's company was much in
t.reftcd m the maintenance OF the de-
rfr'ment. he would Ike TO INQUIRE il IL
We're not true that a. paid nothing for its
support. as the farmers paid il all Mr.
Cr.a nav replied that the tax was not
'eacally added.
-r Henry Klrns, a trucker OF Norfolk
county, who said he paid from $1,000 TO
$4,000 year for fertilizers. addressed
the ,lmmiuee. saying he was opposed to
iNac tax on fertilizers, because ne
D.arn. the farmer would have TO pay
N. O1 last. lie thought the farmers
- section opposed tonnage tax bill.
ITO admitted. in response TO a question,
i.At he was a stakeholder Ia the Ameri-
can FERTILIZER Company OF Norfolk.
fAltAERS OPPOSED TO IT.
Air. j. r. Duke. another Norfolk coun-
- trucker, said he believed nine-tenths |
o4 TIE farmers OF his county were OPP |
posed 20 the bin. lie did not think the |
department OF Agriculture was worth |
anything 10 The farmer. Senator Flood |
ana Delegate Whitehead. Of Norfolk |
asked him 10 recall mat several years 1
ago tle department had been instrument |
ai in making "a fertilizer company refund |
several thousand dollars To q Nansenond |
larmcr who had sold MN worfhless
slaro MIR. Duke admitted ne WIS the |
general salesman for the American Fer
t.izer Company. but said his farming in
torcsts were much greater than MS In
terests IA fertilizer manufacturing inter-
ests
A TYPICAL FARMER
AIR. j. N. Barker OF Henry county
member or the State Board or Agric,.i,
uire. made a statement 10 the board
Dir. Barker made very strong impres-
zion. He IS said 20 DO the largest To-
bacco- grower IN Virginia. lie said he
used from seventy-five TO .One hundred
tons Of fertilizers year. lie only knew
that Virginia farmers had 10 pay the
same price as the farmers OF North Caro-
Ina.
There Was never finer-loOking Virginia
farmer than Mr. Barker. IL ~ hard 10
imagine one talking more sensibly. lie
Is an old customer Of the Virginia Caro-