The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1902-05-15
ROCK R|l BVtt| fnz o F;;:4 :i:4 q S;%rf1x Ess7z
Mr.. B0stick Will Not Run.

Mr.. Bostick Will Not Run.
To the People of Bamberg County:-In
view of the approaching campaign and
the many inquiries have had from varl-
Gus quarters of the county as to whether
| I will be a candidate for reelection to the
house, deem it proper to announce in a
public way my purpose. After mature
reflection have decided not to offer fer
another term. wish to say, however, to
the kind people who have SO signally
honored me so soon after casting my lot
in their midst that will ever bear most
heartfelt appreciation of their generous
support in the past and while | have the
consciousness of having done all in my
power to serve their best interests, | re-
gret that I have not been able to accom-
plish more towards the betterment of
their material interests.
take pleasure in saying to all the peo-
pie of this my adopted county, that L will
ever have at heart their welfare, and If
ever again my services can be of value
to them it shall always be my delight to
serve them. If I felt now that l could
render any real and peculiar service by
standing for reelection, would lay aside
all personal and professional considera-
tions in order to do so, but feel that there
are many others deserving your conf
dence and Aonor who may serve your in
terests at least as well.
Before concluding I desire to refer, as
briefly as may be, to the bill introduced
by me in the last legislature relating to
the return of property for taxation. l do
80 inasmuch as understand that my bill
has met with misund erstanding and mis-
construction in at least some quarters.
My bill was designed to ameliorate to
some extent the harsh and unjust dis
tribution of public burdens as existing
under the operation of the present system
of tax returns. Under the present system
practically the whole strain of govern
mental expense is imposed on the over
burdened backs of the farming class, the
people of moderate means who earn their
bread by honest toll, and whose property
consisting almost wholly ofland and visi-
BILE chattels cannot escape taxation; while
those of ample means and more elusive
holdings, who enjoy to far greater extent
the advantages and protection of govern
mental agencies, escape from any proper
and corresponding share in the burden of
supporting the same. This principle Ct
unjust discrimination in the operation of
the present system strikes at the very
foundation of democracy, and is not only
a hindrance to material progress, but also
a menace to the whole political fabric. 1t
nullifies the most Vaunted principles of
republican institutions, which proudly
boast the doctrines of equal rights to all
and special privileges to none, of protec-
tion of the weak against the strong, the
against the oppressor; in word
the grand principle of freedom, equal par
in the burdens as well as the
benefits of government.
I conceive that it is nothing but fairness
and justice that all property, which is
fostered and protected at the expense of
government, should bear its fair and pro-
portionate share in supporting that gov
ernment. Is there any just reason why
land should be taxed and money 60 free;
why the poor land owner should be made
to bear the whole burden of government
al support and the wealthy capitalist let
off from all share in the burden? Who
gets the most benefit out of government
al agencies and for whose benefit more
largely do courIs and other expensive
establishments of justice as administered
by tn claw and institutions of the land
exist? What classof property holders can
best afford to be taxed in support of these
institutions? There can be but one answer
to these questions. What reason then
exists for throwing the whole burden of
support upon the class of moderate and
little means to the exclusion of the rich,
who participate much more largelyin the
benefits? Iwould not and do not advo-
cate the laying of any greater burden up
on the rich simply because they can best
afford it. 1 believe in applying to all
alike the foundation principle of demo-
cracy, justice and perfect equality to all.
All property should be taxed fairly, just
ly, and proportionately. If land IS taxed
at sixty per cent of its value, money should
also be returned and assessed at similar
values. Allproperty should
participate equally in supporting the
means of it's protection. This was the
object of my bill and its only object. Had
succeeded in effecting its passage l be-
Iieye it would have gone far towards ac-
this fair result.
Of course the bill would not commend
itself to the tax dodger, because this is the
class it was designed to reach. AS long
IS human nature remains the same, men
will grasp all the advantage possible
under the law, regardless Of consequences
to others. They are quite willing in the
general scramble to take to their indivld-
ual share the benefits and leave to- others
the burdens. 1t is precisely this charac-
teristic of fallen humanity, that govern
ment is organized to correct, and it be-
comes the high duty of public servants
charged with the creation and enforce
ment of public laws and institutions to
use all their best endeayors to effectuate
this high purpose.
In the solitary case of the owner of the
soil and the owner of mortgage lien on |
the same land, it may seem to some that
this would practically tax the same thing
twice, but this is not so. The land exists
as property and the money loaned by an
other exists as property in the lender, the
one Independently of the other, each en-
tirely distinct in itself. Suppose for the
sake of illustration that the same money is
loaned in the same way, except that mere
note of hand should be given without the
lien of a mortgage, all can see the sepa-
rateness of the cwo items of property.
Now the mortgage is mere security to
enforce the payment of the debt, it has no
part or parcel in the title of the land; it can
therefore make no vital difference in the
transaction from the point of view of
ownership as basis of taxation. Bethis,
however, as it may, there are several con-
siderations that must be weighed In this
connection. If the land owner is amenable
to taxation, why should this excuse the
wealthy money lender, who Is better able
to stand it? Would it not be more equit-
able and fair to tax both, when by so do
ing the burden would be shared by both
and lessened to both; inasmuch as when
both paw, in proportion to the increase of