The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-09-01

CT 1t does or not. the answer that is
 made is the most complete non sequitur
 ever made. The Suffrage Committee
 who after long and deliberate consid-
 eration, were expected to bring In the
 most rational plan came In with one,
 and when you show 1t Is wholly ira
 tional in one particular. they say to
 you. give us . better plan. They say:
 You who support the amendment or object to our illogical plan. from North
 us a better plan." instanter. though we
 took two months to evolve the plan
 that has this fault in 1t. fault which think was cured by the amendment
 which this Convention ratified yester- day by vote of % to 70. Now. two gentlemen from the Black Belt have spoken and one tells you what l be- lieve the Tax Assessors books if here. would show throughout that section and that Is. that there are very few of
 the colored race who pay taxes on three hundred dollars worth of property in the aggregate; but if there are too many who pay on that amount of as- Sessed property, and that Is not large enough, raise 1t; but while doing so, in the nakne of God make a rational rule, that you can Justify Go your con- sciences. your reason and to the people that sent you here.
 Mir. Coleman (Greene)-I wish to read to you the provision. There is nothing in here that the owner shall pay the taxes. the very question wanted to call to the attention of the gentleman from Sumter. It reads: ''The owner is good faith. in his own right. or the husband of woman who is the owner in good faith, in her own right. of forty acres of land situate in this State, up- on which they reside; or the owner in good faith. in his own right. or the hus- in good faith. in her own right, of real estate situate in this State, assessed for taxation at the value of three hum dred dollars or more, or the owner In good faith. in his own right, or the husb band of a woman who Is the owner in good faith. in her own right, of per- sonal property in Ahis State assessed for taxation at three hundred dollars or more; provided. that the taxes due upon such real or personal property for the year next preceding the year in been paid" Not by the owner, but shall have been paid. The title remains as stated to this Convention before, and you know 1t as lawyer
 Mr. Pillans--I do not see that that relates to anything was saying, but 1t brings me to the difference between the learned gentleman and the gentleman from Sumter. who, while not a lawyer, displays a very great knowledge of law. as he does of all other branches of science and wisdom. 1 am constrained to differ with my distinguished and
 earned friend. who says that a man who buys a mule under a conditional contract does get title as an owner, and to agree with the gentleman who is not lawyer that where the title Is reserved the buyer is not the owner, and I know that. of the eighty-nine lawyers in this house. eighty-seven will agree with me. If there Is anything established in the laws of this State 1t Is that a man can make a contract for future sale of property with present de- livery of possession, and with . reser- vation of title in the seller, and that no title passes to the buyer until the final payment is made. see my friend from Chambers fully agrees with me.
 MT. Coleman-By paroI?
 Mr. Pillans-Recently there was a statute passed which required 1t to be material thing. That goes into the question of how you ciothe or evidence the transaction.
 Mr. Coleman--Don't the gentleman himself know in the very case he puts. the gentleman says he puts 1t on his book. there is nothing in writing be- tween them. that is not 6 conditional sale?
 Mir. Pillans-That may be so.
 MT. Duke-Isn't 1t a fact that 1t is a sale. even if 1t is not in writing as between the parties? Isn't 1t a good sale between the parties and haven't had notice?
 MT. Pillans-I thank you Ion the sug- gestion, That is true. had overlook ed 1t. It is only recording statute, for notice by recording 1t, so that a third person may not be de- ceived by the apparent ownership of the one in possession, because our courts had always heretofore held that the fact that there was an apparent title in the vendee did not give an equity to the purchaser from him as against the sellers reserved title and therefore the legislature intervened and required a writing so tar as third par ties were concerned. I will therefore move to table the motion to reconsider.
 Mir Coleman-I desire to ask the question if the statute does not declare t to be null and void?
 Mir Pillans-1 do not want to lose my opportunity to move to table. I suppose MT. Duke can answer 1t. Il make the motion to table the motion 10 reconsider.
 MT. Coleman--Upon that I call for the lyes and noes.
 Mr. Smith (Morgan M.)-Will not the gentleman withdraw that 
 MT. PiIlans-Yes sir. Being unwilling o cut of debate, will withdraw 1t.
 Mir. Smith (Morgan)-If there is any hing I am familiar with 1t Is this line If business, and rise to concur In the 'emarks made by the gentleman from Greene. If I have ever made a sue cess in business way, it has been in advancing mules and helping negroes o make crops, and 1 think notwith- Itanding Ecy friend from Sumter says md still own them. that this is a very dangerous proposition. can take half dozen business men in my county. md if I prefer to sell every negro on ny plantation or those whom I ad- Tance to, $500 worth of property, I can 'ote, with half a Gozen others like me. learly every negro in my county, and 'ou could not question this sale.
 Mir. Pillans-Isn't that true if you sell Jim two mules worth Sl50 apiece?
 Mr. Smith-1 understand that, but IS I understand 1t, we will not sell hem land. If they are required to lave $500 worth of real estate, that is 1 mother question.
 MT. Rogers (Sumter)-In the alterna- i've, as the Suffrage Committee has