Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1900-01-19
Friday. January 10, 1900.
THAT FERTILIZER TAX.

the outset that it was against the
interests of the farmer and our posi-
ton has been firmly established by
the testimony of the men who have
it in their power to squeeze the
farmer, and lastly, but very reluc-
family, by some of the supporters of
the bill themselves. We asserted
then that the farmer would pay the
tax aud we have been reinforced since
by indisputable testimony that he
would. 1t is good Democratic doc.
trine, and uncontrovertable, that the
consumer pays the taT. Let us see
by after testimony how squarely we
hit the nail:
When the bill was before the COM
mlttee testimony was taken from
farmers and manufacturers, and
they were almost unanimous in
agreeing that the tax of Is cents
per ton would be added 20 the ordi
nary prices Of fertilizers.
NJ. s. t. Morgan, president of the Vir.
ginia- Carolina Chemical Company, said
the concern he represented was as much
interested in the Agricultural Depart
ment asanyone in Virginia. 1t was will.
ing 10 contribute its full share toward
Keeping up the department. He objected
to the tonnage tax because il would have
To be paid by the farmers who use fertil.
fzers, and his company wanted 10 keep
prices down as low as possible.
lie explained that when the tonnage
tag is imposed IL is included in the cost
aud was charged up TO the cost of manu-
featuring and delivering the product.
MI. Herbert Bryan, of Alexandria,
manufacturer, of fertilizers, endorsed
practically all that Mr.. Morgan had said
lie was followed by Mr.. II. II. johnson.
president of the Richmond Gusno Com.
pany, who in opposing the bill said he
mad been requested TO do SO by two of
the largest farmers in Augusta county.
MIR. 5. ID. Crenshaw spoke along the
same lines as Mr.. Morgan. Mr.. Cren-
shaw said his company was wiling to
pay any reasonable sum TO keep MP the
Department Ct Agriculture, but IL did
object seriously to the system requiring
every bag of fertilizer 10 be tagged.
Messrs. Henry Kerns and Joseph IT
Duke, prominent truckers of Norfolk
county, objected to the hill. They sand
The farmers ia their section were almost
unanimously opposed to il. Mr.. Kerns
is probably the largest purchaser of fer
tilizers in Virginia. He spends almost
$4,000 per year for guanos.
The foregoing, taken from the
Richmond papers at the time of tie
inquisition, is the gist of the evil
dence that was brous ht out on the
subject. There is hardly well-in.
formed man in the State today but
that will admit that the farmer will
have to pay this tax, which will
amount to more than thirty thou
sand dollars annually. Then let us
see if he is to be benefited proper
tionately. Here is on excerpt from a
Richmond paper:
Some of the senator's and representa-
tives urged the passage OF the bill as a |
Christmas present for their farmer con-
stituents, and they have it. They gener-
ally agreed that the tax would come out
of the pockets of the farmers, but said
That the farmers were willing to pay it.
And this from the Alexandria
Gazette.
The Virginia farmer who imagines that
he will be benefited in the least by the
tax on the fertilizer he may use will be as
much disappointed as those who vainly
supposed they would be assisted by the
creation of board of agriculture and a
railroad commissioner. OF course, the
manufacturers will add the amount of
the tax to the price which the farmers
have 20 pay for their product. but moi
only that, but also the cost of inspecting
and collecting the tax, which will be even
moro Then, too, the State will be de-
prived OF some revenue, by reason of the
fact that as the tax referred 10 cannot he
imposed upon fertilizers manufactured
In other States, so many farmers viii have
IN al
those States. But when people are SCI
in their ways, they may as well be al.
lowed to pursue them, even though thew
are bad. How tax can possibly benefit
the man who has to pay it, Is what onlv
The majority of the Virginia legislature
can tell. To their credit be it spoken,
there are two farmers in it from this
congressional district who voted against
the Ex-senator Fairfax and Delegate
Ryan.
Now let us see Ex-Speaker Ryan's
reasons for voting against tie bill:
Mr. Ryan said that he had been taught
Ia the school of Democracy that tariff
was tax, and that the consumer paid
the tax. lie thinks il will be difficult To
explain to the farmer that the rs cents
per ton on fertilizer, as provided for in ,
the bill does not come out of their {
pockets. lie thinks If more money is !
needed in the Agricultural Department A,
Il should be taken from the Treasury of {
he State, and not out of the pockets of 1
\
v to the support OF the State Govern
ncnt. He says that every other depart j
nent in the State, including the colleges, u