Mountain advocate., 1917-02-23

&N4a&9 80 VII w ~f*f~<tt %F~N ~
us examine this move in the light
Of the principles that have been
set out above. and see il It is in
keeping with them. Coal, | con-
tend, is q product of the soil just
as much as hemp, or tobacco.
When coal is taken from the
mine it is no more property than
tobacco or hemp. They all are
valuable. But it has been the
custom through many years not
to tax property in n transitory
stage. For instance it is an UNI
heard of thing to tax coaF in the
hands of the operator in that in
term between the times when ii
leaves the miners shovel and
when it is delivered into a rail-
road gon, sold to its consumer.
If a concern were to have a large
amount of this product stored up
for sale, | see no. reason why 1t
should not be taxed just as other
property, and the same is true
with hemp and tobacco. The
coal operator pays taxes upon his
plant and machinery and also up
on his privilege, or corporate
franchise, to operate. The produ-
ers of tobacco and hemp pay taxes
on their farms, but not upon the
privilege to farm nor have they
ever payed tax on their pro-
ducts between its harvest and
sale. But there are those who
may say that the coal industry
is now paying enormous piofits.
| do not deny this, but think of
the dark ages" from which this
business is just emerging. For
the past few years men even of
our own acquaintance have lost
fortunes in trying to stem the
tide of low prices and limited de-
mand. If they have had the
courage and business foresight to
hazard their money in trying to
develope this field of wealth is it
not justice now to them to allow
them to enjoy the fruits of their
labor without crowding them out
by tax burdens. So also it may
be said that eighteen months ago
tobacco could not be sold under
any conditions for more than ten
cents per pound. This has been
the standard price for first class
tobacco for years, but how about
the price now. Well the farmers
of the central and western sec
ton of the state can sell all they
produce at eighteen cents per
pound. If the coal industry
should be taxed because Of its
prosperity and the high prices its
products are commanding, is not
same true about tobacco. But
there is no true worth in this ar
we are undergoing a
rapid change, all commodities are
increasing in price. and this is
brought about in part by the fact
that the other countries of the
world are not producing and the
supply is not as great as the de-
mand, and in part also by the
natural progress and develop
nent of the class of people who !
produce the various articles Of |
necessity. They have raised their
evel of life and it takes more to
maintain them than before
Five cents per ton will be a
serious handicap upon this field
If activity. Five cents when
ooked at by itself is a small sum
indeed, but compare it with the
which the land owner gets
or his coal when it is mined. He
,nly gets ten cents per ton and
le can yet rich at that.
Now some of the legislators
re for taxing coal so that the
tate will get half as much as do
ii the owners of coal land, which
5 under operation put together.
his will curb this young proiita-
lie and promising business of
astern Kentucky. 1t willretard
he development of the greatest
interest which we have. Many
oncerns which are now running
n only a margin of profit will
ave to close down, others who
re planning to begin opel atiors
yill refuse to do so. The natural ,
esult of such a law will be to
ut the wages of the men who
abor in the mines and also in a
leasure raise the cost of coal.
With the way that the necessities
t life are selling the coal miner
hould not have his wages reduc-
d, and with the way coal is SELL
10 no one wants its price to 90