The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1903-02-11

No communication OF a persona: e esas..e 'e'
viii be published eNceps rs an adrertlsenlenv'
Entered at the Postoface at Manning as Sec
ond Class matter
WE TOLD YOU so!
A bill passed the senate last
Friday which might have rea-
sonabiy been entitled "an act to
deprive the poor man OF his
rights" We refer to the bill
which requires a license fee OF
$500 to buy seed cotton between
August 18th and December 1st.
IN the first place, we do not be.
lieve the act can stand a test OF
the supreme court, and IN the
second place, if it can be sus.
tanned, it is an assumption OF
power, which gives advantage
to one class Of citizens and op-
>presses another. Any law
which prevents a man from dis
posing of the legitimate product
of his honest toll in a manner as
suits him best, IS oppressive:
and should not be in d land
which boasts of freedom. Il
such a law had been enacted by
the English Parliament, for the
benefit of Irish landlords to keep
their teaa1try in subsection, it
not be surprising, but for
a law to pass a American senate,
which strikes at the liberties Of
the people, is appalling, howey-
er, We must confess, we are not
surprised, because the mem
bership of that body is composed
Of large planters, professional
men, and those interested IN ad-
vances. Sometime ago, we pre-
dicted the passage of justsuch a
measure, and having always op-
posed any legislation that does
not bear equally on all, and we
have watched this bill with par
ticular interest. The bill points
a tendency towards establishing
a landed aristocracy, as the
-ff..ll text ofsit will disclose,
so much that we note the
amendment proposed by the Sen
ator from Clarendon to require
all applicants for licenses to be
freeholders," which at first the
Senate agreed to, but its fagran-
cy was exposed by the Senator
from Orangeburg, after which the
Senate recanted, and left the bill
so,t ,thatno one can secure license
without a petition signed by
Landowners" in the vicinity.
The plea for such legislation IS
to prevent stealing from the
fields; we have no idea such a
result viii be accomplished; its
effect viii be to inconvenience
and harass the poor man IN the
disposition Of the results Of his
honest labor.
We can very well understand
the good policy in the exercise
Of control over a product which
has been outlawed and declared
a nuisance-whiskey dynamite,
.gur-powder and other products
which come under the police
power, but a product which is a
legitimate article Of commerce
the money crop of the people: to
be thus taken in control because
it sometimes happens that it is
stolen and sold, is not a proper
exercise of legislative control,
and we believe the courts will so
hold, if the question is ever
brought to a test. We admit
that seed cotton is stolen from
the fields, and the law should be,
if it is not, severe in its punish
ment for the crime. If the Leg
islature can impose a license
upon the purchase Of seed cot
ton, it can also prohibit its sale,
and we do not believe there is a
member of the General Assem-
bic who will argue that the Leg
islature has a right to prohibit
the purchase of any product Of
this country. By the imposition of
a severe license for the purchase
Of seed, cotton, the poor man,
whose necessity often forces him
to sell, will have it to pay, be-
cause the licensee will reckon
the charge in his expense ac-
count and pay for the cotton ac-
cordingly. Baled cotton is some
times stolen; would anybody
argue that the purchasers of
baled cotton must pay a heavy
license and thus drive out com
petition? There is as much rea-
Son in imposing a license for the
purchase Of bale cotton as there
is for seed cotton, and there is
as much reason to impose a
heavy license for the purchase
of cotton seed, as there is for
baled or seed cotton. We do not
believe a bill to impose a heavy