The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1911-07-25
PERTINENT FACTS
PRESIDENT RIGGS CALL TO THE
PUBLIC'S ATTENTION.


In View of the Recent Proposition ot
Mr.. D. II. Marchant, Jr., in Regard
to Clemson Funds.
Clemson College, July 18th.
Editor Times and Democrat:
1t is not my custom 10 write fol-
the newspapers in regard tol Clem
son College, of which thave the
ronor to be Pre3!den1. IL is uy
place to run the College with what
ever funds are provided, and not seek
to provide or protect those funds
from political aggression. However,
on the occasion of my visit to my
home county several friends asked
me to give to the local papers facts
which I mentioned in conversation.
I am breaking a fixed rule to write
this interview for the benefit Of my
home county.
I have no quarrel with Mr.. Mar
chant in regard to his plan to give
s125,000 of the fertilizer tag tax
TO tie rural schools, and no appre-
hension as to the outcome. Similar
propositions have been made every
year of the fifteen that I have been
at Clemson. Sometimes it has been
proposed to give part OF the tag
tax to Winthrop, sometimes to public
schools, sometimes to the rural
schools, and Mr.. Edwards bill before
the last session Of the Legislature,
was to establish an Agricultural
School in every Congressional Dis
trict. Such propositions have fail
ed to get favorable report from the
Judiciary Committee of the General
Assembly, for the simple reason that
any such division of the tag tax would
be in violation of the Federal Con-
stitution that prohibits the levying OF
a special class of commodity tax for
purposes Of revenue.
This question was fully fought out
in the celebrated Patapsco and Amer
lean Fertilizer Co. cases in North
Carolina. Here the State Agricul-
tural Department was doing fertilizer
analysis and inspection, and so long
as ihe act providing for this work
carried with it no appropriation OF
the funds arising therefrom to other
institutions or enterprises, the law
was undisturbed. But as soon as the
North Carolina Legislature passed an
act giving part Of the tag tax to
an educational interest of the estate
and to the Colored State Fair, the
Supreme Court declared the tax un'
constitutional, because of its obvious
purpose to raise a revenue.
However, in these same celebrated
cases, the Court decided that it was
not within it's purview to say that
there should exist an equality in
the cost of the inspection and analy.
sis, and the revenue arising from the
tax, so long as the purpose of the tag
tax was to protect the class who paid
1t.
Now the South Carolina law pro-
viding for the inspection and analy-
sis of fertilizers puts this work upon
Clemson College, and So long as the
College alone receives and uses the
tag tax, the Court cannot we'll raise
the question Of its legality, because
inspection and analysis is the exer-
else Of proper police function, and
is to that extent constitutional. The
farmers are receiving a service and
paying for it at rate fixed by the
Legislature.
If now the Legislature should pass
an act giving to the schools or to
any other interest 8. part of the tag
tax, the entire revenue would be an
nulled. Mr.. Marchant's project would
get no benefit, CENSOR College would
be hurt, the farmers would be de-
prived Of protection in the purchase
of their fertilizers, until matters were
again put in shape to stand the test
of the Court.
1t can be truthfully said that the
farmer does not spend twenty-five
cents in any way that brings him
so large a return as the twenty-five
cents that he pays for his fertilizer
inspection and analysis, granting that
he and not the manufacturer, pays
the tax. This applies to every farm
er who uses a ton of fertilizer, in
cluding the farmers Of the Pine Hill
section, whose large purchases OF
fertilizers are indicative of their
thrift and good judgment. Every
farmer gets his money worth In
the protection afforded him in this
purchase of fertilizer, whether he
sends a son to Clemson or rot. If he
sends boy, he receives that benefit
in addition to, and not instead of,
what he is paying for, by the tag
tax.
do not know of a single State
without laws requiring inspection and
analysis, and without such laws,
South Carolina would be the dump
ing ground for worthless stuff that
could not be sold elsewhere. It is
easy to make fertilizers worth $500
less per ton to the farmer, and he
would make had business bargain,