The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1906-09-07

expenses III attending the meetings. of
tic board. There has never been any
legislation which I have ever known
directing that the trustees should not
receive per diem, and I don't think
there is any such. '
remember that at one meeting this
question of per diem was discussed,
and ii was decided almost unanimous
ly that il was not an open question
and that no per diem could be paid,
and none ever was.
1t is charged that all the choice pro-
ducts Of the dairy, horticultural de-
partment and other supplies 60 to the
professors and not to the students.
The professors are not allowed to buy
any supplies from the butcher or ca
terer during the term. In fact one
cause of complaint among the profess
strs is that they are not allowed to
gel their meat from the purveyors Of
the institution.
1t is urged again that the privilege
tax which was pledged to Clemson col
lege for its support at the time the
Clemson bequest was accepted should
now be diverted and paid into the
state treasury, and so much as the leg
islature saw fit should be appropriated
by annual act Of the legislature.
There are two answers to this propo-
sition:
First. The legislature at the time
that the Clemson bequest was offered
and accepted, and as part Of that
transaction, pledged this privilege tax
in good faith without limit as to time
or amount to the support Of the col
legc. 1t was contract entered into
by thc state for valuable consideration
received. Whether wise or not was
question for legislative determination,
and the legislature, after full discus
sion and considerable opposition de-
cidcd the question and entered into
the contract. AS l have said, I OPP
posed it at the time, still I always
felt and do feel that it was contract
which the legislature had power to
make, and when il made it and rccciv-
ed the consideration The state was
bound in go"r faith to carry out her
part or The contract. do not think
the state has now either a legal or
moral right to go back upon her agree
ment.
Second. This privilege tax cannot
legally be paid into the treasury Of
the state as part Of the state income,
and appropriated as proposed. The
identical question as to the constitu-
tionality of such tax came before the
United States Supreme court i'll the
case Of Patapsco Guano company VS..
North Carolina, and American Ferti-
lizer company VS.. North Carolina.
The first reported in III United Stat
cs, 255, and the latter reported in 43
f. r., 600. The court sustained the
validity Of the tax only on the ground
that ii was an exercise of the police
power Of the state, and if it was paid
into the treasury as part of the income
Of the state and appropriated out, the
tax would be unconstitutional and in
valid The facts were identical with
those cf the present ease.
The demand for !hc payment Of this
tax int" the treasury and its appropri-
alton out by special act is based upon
the allegation Of extravaganza on the
part Of the management of the col
lcge. 1t is only proper to say that |
was IN the finance committee and l
never saw any evidence of such ex-
travagance. The affairs Of the college
were conducted in thoroughly bust
ness like manner, books Of double en-
try kept by thoroughly competent
bookkccper and regularly audited and
examined, and every expenditure
thoroughly scrutinizcd and examined
before it was made.
The fact that the college is rcquir-
ed by special acts of tho legislature
to conduct not only the inspection Of
fertilizers, but also to maintain vcter-
mary and chronological departments
for the state, maintain 124 agricul-
tural scholarships, coast experiment
stations and other matters, all Of
which seriously dcplcte the income Of
the college, is lost sight Of by those
who only regard the aggregate and
compare it with the necessities of 9th
er institutions Of infinitely more re-
strictca lines of duties.
nhn hoo I'd oH irl1ctnnc Of Clnn, con