The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-27
MT. Espy-certain,y.

Mir. Espy-Certainly.
 MT. Graham-In arguing the propo-
 sition of what these communities had
 put into the several schools I over
 looked one fact and that is that these
 nine schools spent $20,000 last year i made up in their respective counties
 in supplementing the appropriation of
 $22,500 from the State. I desire that
 to go in as portion of my argument
 in regard to what the respective com
 munities paid
 Mir. Foster-May I ask the gentle | man from Talaldega a question? | The Presidential the gentleman from
 Henry will yield to you for that pur- pose.
 l Mir. Espy-Certainly.
 Mir. Foster-Are these schools sup ported entirely by the money from the 1 fertilizer tax?
 | $22, from the State each year and I the report shows that they supplement that by about $20,000. l Mir. Samford-But the $s2.500 comes | exclusively from the sale of guano tag l tax.
 | MT. Graham-Certainly. understand | the gentleman tn ask did the whole support.
 MT. samford-But the s22.5Oo comes | from the tag tax?
 | Mir. Graham-Yes. and the record
 shows that those people are adding as | much as that themselves approximate | ly.
 MT. Espy-In offering this amend l ment do not care to be understood as 1 being opposed to the amendment of- | fered by the gentleman from Pike. On l the contrary, I am in sympathy with l both the sentiment and the letter of 1 that amendment But since its intro duction. and it's discussion on this floor | it has become evident that large ma jority of the delegates desire that the | law should not be changed so as to prohibit the ,levying of the tax for an | amount at least sufficient to pay for | the inspection of the fertilizer. Another point has been urged here I that teachers have been employed for | these varloue schools. amo in-ing in number, believe, the gentleman from Talladega said, to fifty-thrce, and | agree with him it would not be right l to deprive these teachers of the hene- fits of their contracts already made. l Again. MT. President. 1 have heard | 1t suggested that the Lngis;a .ute in l providing for the revenues necessary to I run the State of Alabama locke to this l source of income which amounts to anywhere from seventy-five to one hum | dred thousand dollars per annum, | therefore my amendment seeks to oD- i viate the objections pointed out by fho | various delegates so as tD meut those l difficulties-to make the section become l effective on the first day Of Septembe', l 1903. and thereby remove the objection l that the revenue that the Legislature
 had in view would be taken rom the 1 treasury and so that the teachers ef the State would not be deprived or any rights that they may have had by vir- | tue of their contracts: Mr. deGraffenreid-I will ask is all of the fertilizer factories in the Unit | ed States are not in a trust? 1 MT. Espy-I understand they are. MT. deGraffenreid-Thev are al com | bined?
 MT. Espy-Yes, sir.
 Mir. deGraffenreid-They fix the Lrice of fertilizer.
 MT. Espy-To some extent. MT. deGraffenreid-Now | do net | mean to indicate by this question that dc not eympathize with this amend ment or that 1 do, but if we were to adopt the suggestion of yours, will not this be legislation in the interest of the trust?
 Mir. Ashcraft-I do not desire 1t to
 
 Convention that all the fertilizer fac tories are in trust. happen to know one that is not.
 MT. Rogers (Sumter)-I want 10 rise | any say that there are very few fer | tilizer factories that are in the trus1 MT. Sanders Iimestone)-I under stand the cost of analysis is about ten cents per ton7
 Mir. Espy-My understanding is in that neighborhood. Some say fiva and some say ten. in the different States.
 Mir. SaEders-Then after 1903 the ten cents for which your amendment pro- vides would only pay the cost of the analysis and leave nothing for the schools?
 MT. Espy-That is the proposition.
 MT. Sanders-The effect would be to wipe out these schools.
 MT. Espy-So far as this money is concerned. That is the purpose or my amendment, to permit the Legislature to charge enough to pay the expenses of the analysis only. The gentlemen has properly construed the amendment.
 Now, addressing myself to the mCiit of the amendment offered by the gen. tleman from Pike, as amended by my self, desire to say I favor 1t because as the matter stands now it 6 class legislation of the most vicious characa ter. The farmer pays tax npon his land and upon every other species of property just as any other man does, and when the Legislature prescribed the ra&e of taxation to produce the revenues by which the State of Alaba- ma shall be run, they lay an equa1y heavy hand upon the ian Is and alI other property of the farmer and he pays the demand. Now in addition to that the Legislature goes further and puts a special tax upon these tags which produce a revenue of from $76,- 900 to $100,000 per annum. Where is there a man within the sound of my voice who does not see that the far mers in the State of Alabama in addi- tion to what they pay on their prip- erty generally, are taxed additionally to the extent of $75,000 or $100,000. That is the question that is involved here. It is double taxation. As has been well suggested by gentlemen here, no tax is laid upon the products, no tax is laid upon the material or goods used by any other men in any other voca- tion in Alabama. If this statement is not corre@A l challenge any gentleman here to correct 1t. Those who operate coal mines and operate iron mines, pay nothing at all. Then what is this? It is a species of legislation di- rected alone against one class of men. It is true delegates upon this floor may say it is not class legislation. This is true. And why? Because every man who buys fertilizer has to pay the tax But practically 1t is class legisla-