The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1910-08-02
INSPECTION TAX on FERTILE.
ERSs

to Clemson college, Wnere the WORK
of inspection and analysis IS done. IL
is such a cinch for Clemson, the tag
tax on fertilizers yielding last year
upwards of $4,000, that a consider
able feeling Of jealousy has sprung
I'D, and from all quarters we have
heard complaints and protests urged
against Clemson's getting so much
while other institutions of learning
are allowed very little in comparison.
With some show Of reason, the ques-
ton has been asked, why not put
the tax in the State treasury and let
the legislature make Clemson a def
mite appropriation, using the balance
for other purposes? 1t might be usec
for the common schools or for other
higher institutions of learning. In
whatever way looked at, it does not
seem right that Clemson should mono
police the whole of this inspection
business and receive all the profits
therefrom. The fair way would be
for the State government to make the
analysis, dividing up the roceeds from
the tag tax among all the colleges
supported by the State"
With reference to this and other
questions relating to Clemson college,
Prof. Riggs, of that institution, has
put out q little booklet consisting OF
questions and answers regarding the
college, Any one can secure copy
Of this pamphlet by writing to Prof
Riggs for it. We have read it with
interest, but we must confess 70 a
feeling that is not wholly satisfying
with respect to the inspection tax on
fertilizers.
In replying to the question suggest
ed above, Prof. Riggs says: "a spe-
cial commodity tax can not be levied
except for inspection purposes. For
example, you could not tax fertilizers
to run the State government or the
public schools, because neither the
State government nor the public
schools make the analysis. The act
sets forth that the tax is to be used
for the purpose of inspection, not to
run the college. The supreme court
has decided in another Stale, where
the question has come up, that an
exact balance between the cost Of in
spection and the revenue from the tax
can not be required so long as the
beneficiary Of the tax performs the
inspection and analysis. Such being
the case, and with the knowledge and
consent of the farmers of the State,
the college is to a large measure sup
ported by what is left over and above
the cost of I-aking the inspection and
analysis" "Now, if the act legalizing
the fertilizer tax set forth that the
tax was to be used for running the
State government or supporting high
schools, or anything other than for
inspection, don't you see it would be
unconstitutional on its face, and the
supreme court, as in the North Caro-
lima case, where part Of the tax was
used for the benefit of the common
schools, would so declare"
This reasoning is very specious, and
yet it fails to answer the question so
frequently put. For instance, suppose
it be stated that the fertilizer tax is
imposed for the purpose Of running
Clemson college and not for inspec-
ton and analysis, that would OF
course make the tax unconstitutional;
and yet We all know that while the
tax is said to be imposed for inspec-
ton and analysis, it is really the pur-
nose and intent Of the tax to create a
revenue for the college, kind Of
whipping Of the devil around the
stump, as it were. Now, no matter
who performs the service of inspec-
ton and analysis of fertilizers, it is
the State which imposes the tax, and,
as it is not necessary for the State to
designate to what use it will put the
overplus above the cost of inspection,
it has the right to do whatever 1t
pleases with it. If the State can not
do this without doing something un-
constitutional, neither can Clemson
college appropriate 70 its own use ali
above the cost of inspection without
also being guilty of an unconstitutlon-
al act. It is poor rule that won't
work both ways. But to obviate the
whole difficulty, it would be an cas-
thing for the State to take from Cle1n-
son the work of inspection and analy-
-. o,,3 b,1-a = 1ooo hv % Sra+a hoard