The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-28

chandise. IT you destory that tax. you must at least double the rate of taxa. ton in those cities and towns of Ala bama. You must Increase the tax upon real estate. You must violate the pledge made hy the Democratic State Convention that you would not raise the limit of taxation. because you would in towns and cities be forced to double that taxation. It would, in ef- feet, destroy all license taxes save alone the exception that the substitute ailows--a license tax upon liquor. It Is a we'll known fact that a great part of the revenues of the cities and towns of Alabama Is derived from license taxes on foreign manufacturers and foreign corporations. Under the provisions of this law, they would es- tabiish branch agencies throughout the State of Alabama. do the whole business of the State of Alabama and escape taxation. Now, as to the argu- ment that the Farmer pays this ferti- lizer tax. If 1t be true that the com sumer ultimately pays all taxes, which deny, then abolish the tax upon your banks, because the poor farmer when he borrows the money 'ffNm the bank, must pay that tax. Abolish your license tax upon sewing machines. be- cause that tax must ultimately be paid by the poor women of the country who buy the machines. Abolish every other license tax of that kind, because it ul- tlmately comes out of the farmer. and then double the tax upon his produce and his land and then go home and see if you receive his thanks. When you do abolish these taxes you must of necessity double the tax upon his property.
 Mir President, I, for one, regard the pledges made by the Democratic party in the last convention. There are three pledges in the platform pre-eminent above all others. One of them was that we should take no backward steps in matters of education. Another was that we should not raise the limit of taxation.
 MT. Sanford (Pike)--Is there any pledge in there that you should com tinue a tax upon one class only of your citizens for the purpose of running nine little agricultural schools?
 Mir. Browne--I will answer the gem tleman's question: There is a pledge that you will take no backward step in the matter of education. There is another that we should decrease the limit of State taxation if possible. If you cut down this tax that you were not pledged to cut down--that vas not an issue In the campaign--and thereby destroy these schools and leave 1t ep~ tional with future Legislatures, to re- establish them, you do violate the pledge that said you would take no backward step in mat ters of education. If. on the oth- CT hand, the substitute of the gentle man from Jefferson Is adopted, you take away the enormous fund that Is paid into the treasury of the State of Ala you destroy our ability to comply with that pledge to reduce the limit of taxa ton 1T possible. If that substitute is adopted, you not only cannot reduce the limit of taxation, but you will nave to increase it. A
 The substitute reads, No tax shall be imposed or license required of the manufacturer or producer of any conn modity or merchandise for selling or exchanging" E MT, Coleman--You stop just 6 little too soon. The tirst line is No tax shall be levied or license required, and Just below there it says, NO tax for in- spection." if no tax can be levied, why put that mo tax for inspection?'
 MT. Browne--If we are not allowed to collect a tax on a mans business of selling or exchanging manufactures foreign States could do all the business in the State by establishing branch agencies.
 MT. Smith CNa. M.)-Are you willing to do a thing indirectly that you are not willing to do directly?
 MT. Browne-I do not fully under stand the import of the gentleman question. If he will make 1t plaiher, will answer. ...
 MT. Smith (M. M)--Are you willing indirectly to levy a tax on the farmer when you arc not willing to come out dire ctly and levy 1t on him?
 MT. Browne--In 1882 had the honor of being a member of the lower House of the Legislature. MT. Hawkins was also a member. I had the misfortune of heing on the wrong side of the question at that time. l fought the levy of this special tax and l recollect the argument made by the farmers in this House. at that time. that we law yers would not admit that the farmers know what they wanted, that they wanted to tax themselves to establish this agricultural department. They did create it. They fixed the amount of tax on each ton of fertilizer and to this good day l have never heard a farmer complain of it except upon the floor of this Convention. And under that self-imposed tax has grown up in the State of Alabama most magnifi- cent system of what are termed agri- cultural schools. Cal them local high schools. if you wish. but local high schools containing about 2,25O pupils from 5S counties of the State of Ala bama and supported by self-imposed tax upon fertilizers. And they are now sought to be destroyed by With drawing from them their only means of support without proposins anything in lieu thereof except the uncertain support to be provided by some future legislature. If these agri- cultural schools or high schools are to be maintained. and if the legislature will not appropriate anything for the purpose, tell me how they can be sup ported? Is 1t not better to let this matter alone for future legislatures? They were established by legislatures, the fund was provided by legislation, and the tax levied by the legislature.
 MT. Espy--You say the farmers de- sired this tax for the purpose of es- tablishing schools. Did they ask in addition to $25. 900 that the schools get. that they should be taxed an addition al sum of S500 900 to be paid iato the general treasury for which they get no benefit except as the other people also get?
 Mir. Rrowne-They fixed the rate at fifty cents a ton. And when the fund grew larger than was necessary to maintain the agricultural department in the interests of the aYriculturalists of Alabama these schools were establish ed I have been told that at Sylacau-