The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-28

ways received special privileges from the State of Alabama ought always to be recognized.
 Mir. Boone-Don't you. as lawyer, understand that The Supreme Court oa Alabama has distinguished between an ad valorem and a license tax? MT. Samford-1 suppose every lawyer knows that.
 Mir. Boone-wer then. sir. I win ask you this. reading from the amendment |~ that no tax shall be tnposed dlsJunc- lively now "Or license required, 1T that does not prohibit the imposition of any tax upon the manufacturer. Mir. Samford-Have you e copy of that?
 Mir. Boone--Yes, sir. MT. Samford~-Will you give it to me? Mir. BooneA-Now don't that prohibit the imposition of any tax. as the gem tleman from Lauderdale suggested. and
 also prohibit the imposition of any oc- cupation or business tax? MT. O'Neal--f asked the question in perfect good faith, If that Is not the
 provfsion--I don't think you intended
 1t that way, but I think that Is the
 legal meaning that 1t prohibits any privelege tax on corporations.
 MT. Samford--1 will answer the gem tleman's question by asking him another one: If we bring in ah
 amendment here that will take off the tax on fertilizers, will the gentleman
 from Laudardale support It. if 1t does
 not, have the effect that you object to here?
 MT. o'Neal--I am opposed to taking ! the tax off any commodity. Let me state why.
 Mir. Coleman Greene .)--Let me ask a question: If you can satisfy any lawyer here that that resolution will l stand the test of the court, I would like to hear the argument. In support of your proposition just now that It did not prohibit an ad valeren1 or privilege tax. If I understand the
 meaning of words. that is what think | 1t does.
 MT. oNeal-I understand the oppc-
 sition to this tax on fertilizer Is be-
 cause it is used entirely by the farm- CTS of the State.
 Mir. Samford-Paid entirely by the l farmers Of the State.
 MT. o'Neal--Does the gentleman ad- vocate incorporating in the Constitu- ton that taxation which Is paid ex- clusively by any claes of our citizens ought not to be levied? MT .Samford-I do not, but I do ad- NoCdIe tne pTinCipie tuAb uO taA ohooie. be levied for the ostensible purpose Of
 being for the benefit of any particular
 class. and then after having filched 1t from the people in any such style as | that to apply it to the support Of other | institutions.
 MT. O'Neai--That would be an arEu- | ment which should be addressed to the
 legislature. 1t would be a very strong
 one and which I would support. Mir. Samford-I win ask the gentle man from Lauderdale and the gentle | man from Greene, In reply to thefr questions If when the amendment of the gentlemen from Henry was up on yesterday limiting this matter to the l fertilizers of this State, if they did not | both vote against 1t?
 MT. Coleman-You want me to an- | swer?
 MT. Samford-Hes Sir. MT. Coleman-On yesterday I voted | upon . principle according to my com
 vlctions of what the Convention ought
 to do. This time oppose the resolu- ton because it Is vicious in itself. My position is this, if we are to have tax or prohibition of a tax, let us have 1t | in the least objectionable form possible.
 but don't put that in the Constitution. Mir. Samford-They have broken into I the thread of my argument by bring ing me at once to a direct considera. | ton of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Jefferson which read:
 No tax shall be imposed, or license | required, of the manufacturer or pro- ducer ofany commodity or merchandise | for selling or exchanging the same. '' The difficulty with the gentlemen who
 have made the arguments by their
 questioning has been, that in reading
 the substitute offered by the gentle man from Jefferson, they failed to go | far enough. Now, do say that this
 substitute would prohibit the levying | of a tax on the sale of gas; it would
 prohibit the levying of c license or d
 tax on the sale of ice; it would prohibit 1 the levytng of tax on the
 gale of cotton goods or cotton cloth; u
 would prohibit the levying or license
 or other tax on the sale of nianufac- tured iron, but 1t would not prohibit 1 the levying of an ad valoretn tax upon
 every dollars worth of property that | they have and also upon the corpora
 tions that do the manufacturing.
 MP. Walker (Madison)-Will the gen.
 tleman allow me to ask him a ques-
 ton?
 Mir. sanford-Certsinly.
 MT. waiker--Wiil 1t also prohibit the
 levying of tax on dirks. bowie knives, pistols, etc.?
 MT. samford-Upon the manufac-
 lures.
 MT, Walker-Yes. and by the dealers'
 Mir. Samford--Yes, sir. 1t would do
 that.
 MT. Howze-Would it prohibit the
 levying of a tax on sewing machines.
 etc7
 MT. samford--Yes, sir; and would
 ask the gentleman. in reply to that.
 If it would limit 1t to the fertilizers of
 the State, would he vote for It? | MT. Howze-I would not. 1 MT. Samfo.d-Then the gentleman has no right to interrupt me, if he does II 1 otherwise than for a good purpose-to the main issue.
 l Mir. Howze--I would ask the further | question if that would not. in effect. I be a repeal of the statute providing 1 for a license tax upon the sale of these
 Identical articles by the manufacturers MT. Samford-That 1t might do, but, MT. President, the main question that 1 has been before this Convention dur | ing the whole time, and the main argu- psnts that have been advanced by all
 of the advocates of this measure, have 1 applied to a limitation upon tax upon | fertilizers which were used by the 1 farmers of this State. and if these gen. l tIemen who are 30 anxious to avoid the l iniquities of a resolution which they | say will be vicious, then l ask them 1T | they would vote for a motion to take l the resolution Of the gentleman from
 Henry from the table.
 | The President-The gentleman's time | has expired.