The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-27

ny that. I know that the farm CTS in my section are ciamoring for iti repeal, and I know that the farme, delegates who have spoken upon thi, f1oor have appealed to this Convention to relieve them from this burden they are now bearing; and 1t so happen. that at least two of these speakers live in counties where they have schools and they see the practical operations or these schools. the state of affairs and the condition that exists, and ir answer to that proposition what dc they say? The opposition come ana say that this fight is the same old fight upon the agricultural schools of thi, State. deny it. MT. President, that is not it. Why do they resort to that argument? Because if they cannot de. fend their position on that line they cannot defend it at all, 1t is indefensi- ble. and they must so down in defeat Who here has asked that a single school in Alabama be destroyed? Not one, no delegate has asked that. But here is the proposition, don't tax one class of the people So as to make that class bear more than its pro rata oi taxation.
 MT. Graham (Talladega)-wnl the gentleman from Henry allow me to ask him one question?
 Mr. Espy-Yes, sir.
 MT. Graham-If we adopt this amend ment and ratify the Constit 1tion would 1t not cut off any chance of appropria- ton to those schools from the date of the ratification of the Constitution?
 MT. Espy-No, sir
 MT. Graham-Wkere would the ap- propriation come from?
 MT. Espy-Out of the general reve- nue. This amendment does cut you of from laying it on the farmers, but it does not cut off it's being appropriated out of the general treasury.
 MT. Graham (Talladega)-Thenw would 1t not be necessary for the protection and continuation of these schools for the Legislatude to meet and pass a special act?
 Mr. Espy-No. sir; this don't go into effect until 1903
 Mir. Graham-Would 1t not cut 1t off after 1903?
 Mr. Espy-I think it would.
 As I was going on to say, they say that this is the old light against the schools. In that they are mistaken. They are mak- ing false issue. lodging the real issue, And why! Because they know there Is no delegate in the Convention who Is in favor of tearing down any~institu- tion of learning. I agree with the gen. tleman from Talladega in his eloquent remarks as to the necessity and the beneficial effects of education; I differ with him as to the manner of deriving the revenue to support those institu- tions. He charged that the purpose is to destroy the schools: we assert that the purpose is not to destroy the schools. but to maintain them, but to require that the money should be got ten not from the farmers but from all the people. l think I have successfully demonstrated that the farmer is doub- ly taxed to the extent of $100,0O0.
 Now the next proposition the gentle man makes is that this is an improper place. to have this thing in the Consti- tuition. I fear my friend, with an due respect to his great learning, has but little. A Constitution proper should contain as nearly as possible commands and prohibitions. This is a prohibition. The people themselves do not need the adoption of the Constitution to confer power. That Is not the purpose of it. The purpose of State Constitution Is to restrict the Legislature from exercis- ing unwise powers. and that is exactly what We are trying to say here. Here | Is power that has been vested in the Legislature to tax one class of people for the benefit of another. The law has been passed. Legislature af- ter Legislature has been appealed to to repeal that law. They have not done so and those affected by the tax come here and ask this Convention to in- sert clause in the Constitution to pre- vent continuation or a repetition of that unjust taxation. That is all that IS involved in this amendment. | The newt nr0pnaftiOY 5~zI-. attention to is that they say we charge these schools are doing no good, No such a charge as that has been made, NO such charge will be made; but so Tar as the agricultural feature of the colleges is concerned, I do not mind stating to the gentleman so far as I have been able to find out from each one of them, each one is a failure from an agricultural standpoint. That is the proposition. I have one in my county and l say unhesitatingly that So far as the agricultural feature is | concerned it Is absolutely worthless. Yet it Is fine school and it is doing a great deal of good and do not ask this Convention to take any steps that | would destroy that school. But when | you come to me and tell me if you don't give us a tax from the farmers to support that school, the school l must 6OB LSA you 10 let IL go, It ought to go. It is not right to tax one class of people to support schools for the entire country. Is there any dele gate here who will contend that these schools are not equally open to the sons and daughters of every other class of men as well as farmers? They cannot make that statement. | MT. Jackson-I understand the gen. tleman to say that the purpose of his amendment is not to destroy fhe | schools?
 MT. Espy-Not at all.
 MT. Jackson-But is not the result to destroy the schools?
 MT. Espy-Not at all. If you want to keep up your schools keep them up out of the general fund. That is what you ought to do or let the schools go.
 MT. Graham-Win the gentleman from Henry permit an interruption? MT. Espy-Yes sir.
 MT. Graham (Talladega)-The prop osition has been made that the farmer don't pay this tax, but the manufac- | turer has to pay 1t. 1 want the gen. l tleman as lawyer to construe a statute.
 MT. Espy-Oh, the law says the man ufacturer shall pay it.
 Mir. Graham-That is not all Allow me to read It: Whenever any manu- facturer, merchants, or other person selling fertilizer shall directly or lndi- rectly include such tag tax in the price of the fertilizer sold, such sale is void" l ask you if that would not render GQl t@ Co