The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1903-03-17

we should be very glad to give a really illumi-
mating vote on this question:, but the matter was
so badly muddled that we cannot. The vote Mon
day on the proposition to take this years special
$4,000 appropriation out of the State Treasury
instead Of out of the Agricultural Department
funds was as follows:
Ayes: Messrs. President Turner, Aaron, Bal
Ienger, Bellamy, Burton, Dodwin, Henderson,,
Hicks of Duplin, Hoey, Hunter, Mann, McBryde,
Mitchell, Norris, Pharr, Reinhardt, Walker, War
rem, Webb, White, Woodward-21.
Noes: Messrs. Allison, Balwin, Beasley. Blow,
Brown, Gillian, Glenn, Hicks of Granville, Hol-
ton, Lamb, London, Milton, Pritchard, Richard
son, Spence, Spruill, Thayer, Travis, Vann, Well
born-20.
Yet many of the noes were endeavoring to pro-
test, not against taking the money from the
Treasury, but against making any special appro-
~priation at all. This is indicated by Senator
Glenn's protest that "the purpose for which it
(the A. q M. College, was founded has been
changed from what was intended, and instead of
its being managed in the interests of the farmers
of the State, and the education of their children
in agriculture, it has been diverted to other inter
ests, and the agricultural features very badly neg.
lected. But the practical effect of Mr.. Glenn's
vote was to throw on the farmer a special tax
" tAA1Cd oil UudO liz was
discriminating against the farmer. And the
practical effect of his former fight against the
Agricultural Building to prevent the development
of the agricultural division that he professed to
desire! This illustrates the muddled situation.
If there had been in the Senate a half dozen ag-
gressive, well-informed farmers like Scott and
Daughtridge in the House, several serious errors
might have been avoided. This is the moral that
the farmers of North Carolina need to take to
heart just now.
What should be done? This: The extra $1O,-
900 from this special farmers tax should be used
exclusively, to strengthen, extend and equip the
agricultural division of the College. The Com
mittee on Appropriations understood that it was
to be used for this purpose, and justified it's spe-
cial taxation of the farmer on the ground that his
department was to get the money. Let the Board
of Trustees (whose members also compose the
State Board of Agriculture see to this. AS to
the Agricultural Building, it should be begun at
once, if the money can be borrowed, as it probably
can be.
Let us not lose sight of the\real principles in
volved. This fertilizer tax is a special tax for a
special purpose. It is not a tax to raise revenue
to support State institutions; it would be radi-
cally unjust if it we're, and it is radically unjust
to use it for that purpose. The National and
State appropriations are for agricultural and
mechanical education alike, and the agricultural
division of the College should have it's share of
these appropriations. Then any surplus from the
fertilizer tax may be justly and properly used to
supplement and extend this agricultural division
or to furnish it with buildings and equipment.
But it is not right to use this special tax, wrung
out of the farmer, on the plea that it is necessary
to prevent fraud in fertilizers, to support State
institutions and lessen the tax on the wealth OF
the State.