University of South Carolina Libraries
THOS. J. ADAMS, PROPRIETOR. EDGEFIELD, S. C., THURSDAY MARCH 17, 1892. VOL. LVn. NO. IO. pg MAKES M. RIGHT KIND OF REA SONING. PACTS AND FIGURES THAT / ARB ABSOLUTELY UNANSWERABLE. AND TILLMANITES And Sheppard! tes Alike Must Be Convinced by Them-A Powerful Presentation for tHie Tillman Administration. (CONTINUED FROM LAST.WEEK.) Many of you.are poor men, you possess but little, and what you? have is easily seen. You could not cover it up' if you would. You arc honest, and you make honest returns. How can you bo expected to continue to do so if other people do not? 1 must ask your close attention while I indulge in more figures to show that these charges are not true. HORSES. Now I turn another leaf in the records, sud I find horses first, so 1 take up horses first, and then take up the others in the regular order in which they come. We find that we had listed for taxation 62,095 horses last year, with a valuation of $3,728.336, while but 58,855 were returned the' year before at valuation of $3,392,945, an increase in the number of horses returned for taxation of 3,240, with an increase in the whole taxable value of $335,363 on horses alone.* We may bring in the extra horses, and increase the taxable value of horses, and it is all right, but we must not .attempt to bring iu the surplus and undivided profits of banks. Now exGovernor Sheppard tells you that the reduction of one-half mill in the State levy does not help you , a reduction from 5? to 4? mills does not lessen'your taxes on your horses. Let us see if this is true. Last year you paid taxes on 58, 855 horses at an assessed value of w -$57.^^e^amo?ning to $3,392^^ on ph i ch you paid 5? mills, making $17,812 96 taxes paid on horses: This year your horses are assesed at $69.04 each, $'2,40 a head more than last year. You returned the same 58,855 horses you returned the year before. This same 58,855 horses were returded laBt year at $60,04 a head, amounting to $3,533, 654, on which you paid 4f mills, irking $16,784,86 taxes paid on the same'58,855 horses, a less tax on the same hoses than you paid the year before by $1,028.10. But the story does Dot stop here. We brought in 3,240 horses at $60.04 ahead that had been escap ing taxation, amounting in value to $194,536, which, at 4| mills gives us $924.01 taxes. But the $1,038.10 that we saved you on the horses you had been returning is more than the $914.01 taxes on the horses we brought in which had been escaping taxation by $104.09. So, on all the horses of the State returned for taxation, includ ing the 3,240 horses we brought in-on all you paid a less tax of $104.09 than you paid the year be fore, while we have saved you 1,028.10 on tho horses you were be fore returning. Are you satisfied with the refutation of the charge that you are paying more taxes than you did the year before? A saving of $1,028.10 to you on the horses that you honestlv returned,which added to the $104,09 that nobody had to pay, because the levy is that much less makes a total Baving to the I people" who had been paying : on their horses $1,132.19. MULES AND ASSES. Now I will take up the mules and see how they came out. Year be fore last there were 73,837 mules and asses returned for taxation, at an average of $63.69 a head; mak ing a total valLe of $4,457.531, on which you paid ?mills, making a total tax paid on mules of $23,402. 03 Last year we reduced the average price per head from $63. 69 to $59.26, a redi ction of $4.43 per head. You returned the same 73, 837 mules that you returned . the year before, but not at the sam?; average price, for the average price had been reduced $4,43 per head. These same 73,837 mules "were assessed last year at $59.26, in stead of $63.69 as the year. before, making a total value of $4,375,580, . on which you paid | mills, which makes a tax of $20,784.78. The year before you paid on these same mules 123,402.03, and last year you paid $20,784,78, a saving taxes on these same .mules of i 61*7.25. But this is not the end of tl story. The records show that the were returned last year for taxati< 85,399 mules as against 73,837 tl year before, or, in other words, 1 452 mules that had been escapii taxation, at an average value $59,26 per head, amounting to total value of $679,238, on whi< was collected ? mills, making $ 226.37 brought in far- State tax< from mules that had been pay ii: no taxes, and making a tot increase of taxes on mules ( $609.12 over the ametf?t collecte the year before. Bringing in 1. 462 mules that had never pai any taxes, and collecting fror. them $3,226.37. we could afford t savffyou $2,617.25 on the mule you had regularly returned*, an? then put $609.12 more "in th treasury, the difference betweei the amount we save you and th amount brought in from the mule that had not been before returned We have saved you $2,617.25 oi the mules that you returned, am added at the same time $609.12 t< the treasury. How is this for i rebuttal of the charge that yoi had not been saved anything b; the I mill reduction in the levy? HOGS. Now, I will take up hogs and se? how we came out on them. Th average price per head was th same last year that it was the yea before. Year before last you pai< on 232,012 head of hogs an averag value of 1.82 a total valu? of $422, 157, 5? mills, makin] a tax of $2,216.32. Last year yoi paid on the same 232,012 hogs, 4i mills, on the same valuation o $422,157, which makes a tax o $2,003.13, which is less than thi amouut you paid the year befor< by $213.10 ; identically the sam< property, with no change in th< average price per head. But this is not Jha-opn* W' added 19,3f^" . tl? tax list, ?: svV.'?age price ol ' ' collected 4i mills on avahial : m of $35, L39.3C making ata-' of $166.89, on ;hc-' extra hogs. on che hu., you re turne J i?e. ors of ^2iSui{) and the bringing in of $166.89. or the 19,316 hogs added Yet you are told you pay moi taxes, when the fact is when you put the figures together, including the amouut of the taxes on the hog* addad, they show that there was a less tax paid on hogs last year than the year before by $46.30, while there was saved to tha taxpayere who had made proper returns o? theirs hogs $213.19. How can they afford to continue to make this charge before the people when all the records prove to the contrary? CATTLE. I turn now to cattle, and here I find that the total tax paid on cattle last year, including $132.23 collected on 2,676 head added to the list for taxation, at $10 per headk the average price of cattle in the State, was less by $145.94.' The average price per head was increased from that ' of the year before by 70 cents on the head. Year before last you paid on 206, 301 head, at $9.33 per, head, a 5? mills tax on $1,926,052, amounting to $10,111.77 taxes. This year you pay ou the same number of cattle at $10.03 per head, a 4$ mills tax on $2,07,230, amounting to a tax of $9,833,59, a less amount than the year before of $2?8.18. While we saved you $278.18 on the cattle already returned,, we brought in 2,676 head additional, at $10.03, and collected from them $132.23. How is this? Does it show that the charge made against us is we or untrue? I let you answer. DOGS. How is it with dogs? Let us see, I do not believe they have a dog's chance to prove the truthfulness of their charge. But the figures will tell. It will be observed that we increased the average price per head last year 30 cents over what it was the year before. It was then $5.59, and now it is $5.89 per head. Year before lasfr you paid on 63, 326 dogs, valued at $354,169, 5? mills, making a tax of $1,859.39. Last year you paid on the same number of dogs valued at $373,382. 76, 4f mills, making a tax of $1,773. 57, a less tax on the same number of dogs paid last year than was paid the year before by $85.82. Yet you are told you pay more taxes. But this is not all. We increased the number of dogs for taxation by 2,548, and on them col lected $7136 taxes. Including tl taxes from the increase, adding to the amount paid last year o the same number of dogs, yet thei were more taxes collected on dog year before last year by $14.46, S they cannot prove it by the dogi even. CARRIAGES ANO WAGONS. Let us see about carriages an wagons. The average value c these was diminished by 38 centf /The average value last year wa $19.20, against $19.58 the year be fore. Last year there were re turned 113$475 carriages an? wagons, valued at $2,179,065, oi which you paid 4| mills, making i taxof $10,350.56. Year before las there were 104,-437 carriages anc wagons, at valued $2,045,226, oi which you paid 44 mills, making) tax of 10,738.44, which is 386.81 more than was paid last year all told. But last year you paid 4^ mills on the same number o: carriages and wagons, valued a 19.20 each instead of 19,58 as th< year before, making a total valua tion of 2,005,503 and a tax of 9, 526.14, a less *ax of 1,212.30 thar you paid the year before. But wit! it all, you not only saved 1,212.3( on the same number of carriage! and wagons, but we added 9,038 at a valuatton of 173,556, with a tax at 4? mills, of 824.40 that had beer escaping taxation. With these figures, how can it be again urgec that your taxes have been increasec on them? You cannot roll such an incorrect statement on wheels even. AGRICULTURAL HALL. I will not undertake to discus? in detail the Agricultural Hal matter. Suffice it to say that then are some very difficult legal ques tion involved. The owners of those bonds can not sue the State. As a matter of policy, I am cleai in my opinion that the Governoi was right in the course he pursued, and, that the position of th? State ??*? . . muon bottei thitu it ?.U<IK] have boen bt<\ w? lose possession ?lS?SCXATi-COKX'tTiOS i - "T.*. - I i:o?:< ps*e lo iinoihor line si defeuse against ?head unjcsl char .- wade against us. Are these charges true? What are the facts? Let us look at them from a financial standpoint and see if they are. When we again open the books what is the first thing that meets the eye? Why, we find that the net cash indebtedness on first day of November,1890, wae 411,253.40, with only 3,943.07 cash on hand to the credit of the "Gen eral Account." Only 3,943.06 on hand to meet the current running expense of the government of this great Commonwealth of ours ! How does that strike you? Does that look like business? Does that look like your affairs were in a good condition? Let us look at the condition of of affairs one year-later, the end of the first fiscal year of the pre sent administration and see how they stand : Coming into power under great disadvantages, we closed the fiscal year, November 1st, 1891, with a net caBh indebtedness of 363,617. 81, With 22,876.49 cash on hand to the credit of the "General Ac count." How does this strike you? Make the calculations and see the difference. From 411,253.40 take 393,617.81 and you have 47, 635,59, the amount we reduced the net cash indebtedness in one year. From ? the 22,876.49 we had on hand to meet the cmrren t expenses, taxe the 3,943.06 on hand for the same purpose the end of the year previous, and you have 18,938.43, the difference in favor of our management. Which shows the better management, our or the previous administration? Which do you like better, the former or our administration which has in one year reduced the net cash indebtedness 47,635.59, with 18., 933.43 more cash on hand with which to meet the current demands on the State Treasury? Notwithstanding these facts stare them in the face at the very opening of the books, yet they decry us, and say we are not competent and are extravagant. Now, let us turn a leaf and see what we find. Here it is : We find that, on the 1st day of November, 1890, the beginning of our first fiscal year, tne net in debtedness of the State for all pur poses was 6,844,77112. When we look just below on the same page we find that, on th? 1st day of November, 1891, the end of our first fiscal year, the total net in debtednes? of the State for all pi poB?B s 6,770,223.81. Wh we make f . ? subtraction we ha a difference in our favor of 74.54 31, how in g that we have actual] reduced the indebtedness of t State to this amount in one yei Yet you are told, notwithstandi the fact that we have reduced t indebtedness of the State 74.547.? tnat we ought not be continued office because of our incompetent and extravagance. My fellow-citizens, are y< blind to the tnith, or have yoi eyeB -been already opened? A you to be led by prejudice co ceived in selfishness and egotisi and born in malice and spite, dig-a grave in which to attempt bury the truth ? If you are, Ht hi been said and I may repeat i that "truth crushed to earth wi rise again'" But let us turn another pag and see what is there to justit the charge that we are incompetei and extravagant. Here we fin that for the fiscal year ending 31i October, 1890, the total receipt for all purposes were 1,129,918,7: and the total expenditures for th same fissal year wer? 1,153,920.3' an expenditure of 24,001.71 OV? receipts. Actually ran the Stat government ata loss to the exter. of 24,001,71. But how was it with us for th last fiscal year? Our tota receipts were 1,073,752.98, and ou expenditures l,059o923.59, an ea cess of receipts over disbursement of 13,829.39. We spent 13,829.3 less than the amount we collected while our predecessors spent 24, 001.71 more than the amount the; collected. But it does not stop here. The; not only spent 24,001.71 more thai they collected, but they left a not of 50,000, with 500 interest on it to be paid in our fiscal year. Thi debt of 50,500 was paid out of th 1,073,752.98, the amount of tb r?.r.r:~tt~ for or?r f*?o?? year, and ve i we came out 18,S29.33 anead. . ac?? bog ti; &hp\i . charge "li nr?t~'?i*?2 ti ":?*???. s? Und organs. The average value-o these instruments was increase i RB i year oo cones, over that of the year before, being $59 83 each against $59.30 the year before Last year there were returned 8,426 against 7,599 the year before, ar increase of 827 in favor of last year, with an additional tax ol $235,09, aud yet you paid $206.2* less last year on the same nmnbei of instruments than you paid the year before. Their composition can't be set to music. WATCHES. You paid $2,529.42 on 27826 watches year before le??t. Last yeai you paid $2,230*75 on the same number, a saving of $398.57. Last year we brought in 1,923 more watches and collected on them $294.08, and, notwithstanding this addition, there were $204.50less paid on watches last year, all told, than the year before. Their story won't run with,the watches of the State. MERCHANISE. Year, before last on $6.765,158 merchandise there were paid $35,674,85 taxes. Last year on the same number of dollars worth of good there were paid $32,279, a less tax on merchants on the same amount 'of goods of $3,397,58. Thinks itl We have saved the merchants in taxes in one year $3,397.58 on the same amount of goods they owned the year before. But here is what makes some of them kick. We have brought in $102,550 worth of merchandise for taxation that had been escap ing the year before, and on this we collected a bax of $1,437,11. But even wHh'therrr addition there was a less tax paid on merchandise last year than the year before by1 $1,960.47, a net saving to the' merchants on all taxes of $1 ?960.47. PROPERTY OF MA UFA CT UK Eft 8. Year before last there were paid $6*328.46 taxes on $1,295,429 worth of property by the mannfacttirers. Last year on this same amount of property they paid $5,725.76, a saving to them of 1602.79. But here is where the shoe pinches with them. They were required to re turn property, not before returned, amounting in value to $538,575, on which they had to pay a tax of $2,558.23, which increased the amount of taxes of the year before by $1,955.58. MANUFACTUREO ARTICLES. On manufactured articles on hand one year or more, tools engines, &c, there paid ?31,018.44 on $5,908,275 worth of proper! year before last. On the . sam amount of property in value thei were paid last year $28,064*30, a actual saving on this class < property, on the same value, c $2,954,14. But here is what they don't lik< We brought in for taxation 1951 465 inore of that class of propert] and 'collected a tax on it of $4.519 53. But take off the $2,954.1 savings from this $4,519.53 brough in, and the taxes on this class o property have only been increasei $1,560.39. Yet what a howl i made over it. MONEYS, BANKS BILLS AND CIRCULA TING NOTE8. ' On moneys, including bani bills and circulating notes. $10, 701.82 taxes were paid year befon last jon $2,033441. Last year oi the ??me amount were paid $9, 682.60, a less tax than that paie the year before by 110,922. Las year; there were returned $246,23! more than tho year before, whicl paiera tax of $1,169.90. So all, tole the taxes on this class of property has been increased only 150,38 the difference between the amoun saved and the arnon ut brough in. ALL CREDITS. On all credits a tax of 25,106.4( was paid on 4,782,170 worth 01 prepferty year before last. On th? same amount of property a tax oj 22,715.31 was paid last year, a Ieee tax on the same amount by 2,891. 09. But here is where the fight comes. We brought in 2,279,91$ worth for taxation that had not been paying taxes before. On this we collected a tax of 10,826.62, which increased the income from this source over that of last yeal by 8,438.53. VALUE OF STOCKS. On "value of stocks of any company or corporation out of thie State) except banks," a tax of 2, 802.27 was paid year before last on ??minot a tax of 2.535 39 t..;?t year OQ th? -meun! ot '<?tifi which ir- a xW'i hy - ;.-.?5 t.K-..thtt? v.-.ui j&fc-yaa? : -r-i fi!-t fTi.-f? wer* urti' A 93J *hick h-A.. 'j<*n ur-ying no taxGH. and on thin was pai! c. tax otf 1,7728,91, which increased the taxes on this class of property 1,462.03. BOMBS. Oh "bonds not exempt from taxation," a tax of 8,114,68 was paid year before last on 1,545,654 as against a tax of 6,342.05 on tho same value last year. Only 6,292 were added for taxation, which paid a tax of 29.90, making the taxes collected last year less than that collected the year before by 742,73. ALL OTHER PRRSONAL PROPERTY. Every man who ever made a return knows what is iucluded in "all other property." You know that it includes household i kitchen furniture, etc. On class of property a tax of 36,152.69 was paid year before last on 6,886, 226. Last year a tax of 32,709.57 was paid on the same amount ; a less tax than that paid the year before by 3,443.12. But 923,018 were added for taxation which had been paying no taxas, and on this a tax of 4,384.33 was collected. If we take from the 4,384.33 increase taxes the 3,443.12 saved, as above shown, we find that the taxes all told were increased on this class of property by 941.22. BEAL ESTATE. Some of you may think there has been no real estate added for taxation. Let me disabuse your minds of that, for there were added 310,406 acres outside of cities and towns, and some in cities and towns, with many buildings, mak ing a total increase in vlauation of 1,625,56. To hear some people talk, one would think that real estate had recived no attention. The fact is, that the assessments made had to stand because of the law making an assessment of real estate stand for a period of years, five, I think. But the officers have been diligent and have had put on the books all that has come to their attention that was off and escaping taxation. With this additional land now on, how are your taxes affected? Let me turn a leaf in the records and see. Year before last you paid 5i mills on 88,416,267, which made a tax of 464,185.92. Last year yon paid 4$ mills on 60,042,728, which made a tax of -i2V,702.93. When we take the 1 ??nnce we find that your taxp ast year on real estate were ' ?.99 less than they were the ,ar before. The labels put on for taxation,310,406 acres, and the city property, with these valuations, are . included in the above. But I would not do the subject justice didi not tell those of you who have all the time been making fair returns, and whose property, so far as real estate is concerned, remains the same for taxes, because of the law, that you paid year before last 404,185. 92 on your land, and on the same laud at the same valuation you paid last year 419,977.74, a dif ference of 44,208,18, which is a clear saving to you of that amount. The difference between the total valuation last year and the year before is 1,636,356 On this amount we col lee ted4| mil 1 s,which amounts to 7,705,19 If you add this to the net savings. 36,482,99, you will see that it gives the saving 44,308,18. RAILROADS. * I know but little abont howthe valuation of this class of property is arrived at. I ara told that it has been the aim of the assessing board to put it at a valuation that will allow its income to amount to 10 per cent, net profit on the assessed valuation. The valuation has been largely increased, and therefore the taxes are largely increased. I leave the discussion of this property to others who un derstand more aboutit than Ido. Despite all this increase that I have just shown you of all other property, comes the charge that we are trying to oppress the banks to the release of other property. I appeal to your reason and judg ment to know, after you have heard the facts, if it is true? I appeal to you, and leave the verdict' in your hands as' to whether or LDt wo have done right in trying to bring in the surplus and undivided profits of banks for taxation, and in requiring them to pay a just proportion, and no more, of the taxes with which to run the goverment, under whose laws thev are protected. Their receipts were ?. 129:918.03.?j ?v: ours wnre oiiiy !,073,752.98?h ;u reetiip'is ,*J u -> ^?..' i mi ?hort 24.??I.72, ?'-.i'j Yt?iiT, a 50,500 (tobi to ;?e paid .-.?.; .... ihv - \ funds of o\ir fiscal VOST meir expenui?u?vj for ??. i year were 1,153,920.34, and ours 1,059,923.59, making a difference tn the amounts expended of 93, 996.75 in our favor although the 50.500 debt was paid in our fiscal year and is included in the amount j of our expenditures. Hold up ! you who are willing to declare to the world that we are incompetent and extravagant, until you hear the evidence, for there is more to follow on this very point. There came in also to be paid in our fiscal year 16,356.96 of election expenses incurred in the holding of the elections the year before ; also 128 for desks for the engross ing department purchased before we come in ; also 6,048.02 due to the Agricultural department; and also 14,283.93 for the completion of the State House-these four items aggregating 36,815.91. Now then, with all of this, start ing out with receipts 56,165.65 less than were the receipts of the year previous, we wound up with 13, 829.39 to our credit of receipts over expenditures, while our pre decessors wound up 24,001.71 of disbursements over receipts. Can you, in the face of these facts, ever again charge us with incom petency and extravagance? Pull the veil over your faces and hide them for shame for the injus tice you have already done us. WI J we come to sum it all up, how does it stand, and how do the charges against us for incompe tency, extravagance, and oppres sion of banks to the release of other property stand? With an increased* enrollment of 6,419 pupils in the public schools, and a possible less cost of cext books to the parents of 20,000 ; with a penitentiary self sustaining, having paid 8,000 on an old debt, pnt 19,514 on Clemsen College in ten months, with corn enough to run it, and running at 1,125 per month cheaper than formerly: with a net sav' 0 of 35,428.18 on the cost of the departments aad public institutions; with an in crease in the income to the State from fees in the departments of 26,438,85 ; with an increase in the number and assessed value of horses last year ever the year be fore, and a saving of 1,028.10 t. the taxpayers on the horses they paid on the year before ; a large increase in the number and assessed value of mules last year over the year before, and a saving to the taxpayers of 2,617.25 cn the mules they paid "Oft the year be fore; with a large increase in the number and assessed value of hogs first year over the y9ar before, with a saving to the tax payer of 213.19 on hogs paid on and assessed value of cattle last year over the year befor, with a saving of 278, 18 to tax payer, on the cattle paid on the year before ; with a large increase in the number aud asEGBBod value of dogs last year over the year before, and a saving of 86,82 to the tax payer over the year before; with a large increase in the number and assessed value of carriages and wagons last year over the year before, and a saving of 1,212.30 to the tax payer over the year before ; with a large increase In the number and assessed value of pianos and organs last year over the year before, and a saving. o? 206.28 to the tax payer over the pear before ; with a large increase, in the number and assessed value of watches last year over the year before, and a saving of 398.57 to ;he tax payers over the year before ; ?vivh an increase in the asaesssed ralue of merchandise last y??royei ;he year before, and a saving of 3,397.88 to the tax payers over the ?rear before ; with a large increase In the assessed yalu? of property of nanufaotttrerS last year over the -ear before, and a saving of 602. JO to the tax payers on the amount oaid on the year before ; with a arge increase in the as: -seed value )f manufactured articles on hand me year or longer, tools, engines, kc, last year over the year before, md a saving of 2,954.14 to the tax javera ou,the amount paid on the rear before ; with a large increase n the assessed value of moneys, ncluding bank bills and circula* ;ing notes, last year over the yea* oefore, and a saving of 1,019.22 to ;he tax payers on the amount paid )n the year before ; with a laige in crease in the valuation of all credits last year over the year before, and i saving of 2,391.06 to the tax payers on the amount paid on the ?rear before ; with a large increase in the assessed value of stocks of my company or corporation out of ;his State, except banks, last year )ver the year before, and a saving of 266.88 to the tax payers in the imount paid on the year before ; wi th a slight increase in the assess 3d value of bonds not exempt from :axation last year over the year oefore, and a saving of 772.63 to ;he tax payers on the amount paid )n the year before ; with a large in crease in the assessed value of all )ther personal property last year. >ver the year before, and a saving ot 3,443.12.to the tax payers on the Lmount paid on the year ?before ; md with a large increase in the lumber of acres and the assessed iralue of the Teal estate last year *Vftr the yuar before,. and ? a saving o the tax pagers of 44*203.18 onj :he same property on which fcbej { . . . ^V~??*UL-2.? OSryO* " i>U ... aik?xtt- *?' '. j ; '...}: f -'j--tr !?;V . With this s.2o, c .. ?i?ulatie?.fiom kbc records then ?elves, will our opponents ever, lare to say again chat the reduc ion of from bi to 4| mills means lothiug? That it is the number )f dollars and not the number of nills that fixes your taxeB? Will ;hey ever dare again to say we lave not reduced the taxes of those of you who had made fair and liberal returns before? I appre iend not, but we will see what we ?dil see. With a reduction of. the net cash indebtedness of the State of 47, 535.59 in one ve ar, and. an increase >f 18,933,43 to the credit of the 'General Account" to .meet the running-expenses of the [State gov? nmment; or, a net reduction of ;he entire State debt of .74.547.31 n one year; paying a 50,500 note, 16,356.96 election expenses, 128 for lesks, 6,047.02 to Agricultural De partment and 14,283.93 on the ?ompletion of the State House, naklng 36,815.91 ; aggregating $7,315.91 of indebtedness incurred )y the previous administration >aid by us, and yet closing the refi.r 13,829.39 of receipts over ex )enditures, while our predecessors dosed 24,001.71 of expenditures nore than receipts; starting out ?6,165.65 ahead of us in receipts hey wound up 24,001.71 behind, yhilewe wound up the year 13, 129.89 ahead, although we paid 58,315.91 of their debts. They ipent 93,996.75 more than we did, md then left debts amounting to $7,315.91 for us to pay. Now, my fellow citizens, this is he way it stands. Yet you are old that we are incompetent, ex r a vagan t and oppressive on the: mnks, and that what you need is )usiness men at the head of your government. I am tired, and I know you are vorn out. I wish I felt like leaving his cold line and indulge in some 'eeling langauge, and that you were >repared to hear it. I would like o have a voice with power and doquence that would send these "acts to the hearts of the people 'rom the mountains to the sea. I vish I could reach all the people ind ?how them the fallacy of the jolicy and argument of the opposi on. I have tried to make them olain to you. If you accept them;' ipr ead them as far as your influ ince and opportunities reach. Excuse all for which I should ipologize, accept my thanks for rour kind and patient hearing; be iure to enroll your names on the dub list five days before the pri nary, for unless you do, you can't rote, and go out to the polls on August 30th and roll up a majority br us that will put the seal of Mour condemnation on the charges hat have been made against us, md we will show you greater things n the future than I have presented o-day. I appeal to the people of the StaK ' say if this showing looks like we mean to ruin the cred it of the State, and that our re-S?feetion means destruction. I appeal to them to close their eyes to all prejudice and to open them to the truth in its beauty and strength. Partisan statements and bitter denunciations are not what you ought to engage in or want to hear. Throw wide open the doors to the records, and with impartial minds investigate them,a?d when you have fouud the truth, stand by it. I have not said intentionally one harsh word to-day. See if I am as fairly treated by the other siae and % the press. Demand Of all that they meet argument and facts with argument and facts, and ' hot with abuse and vilificatian. Roll up the curtain, turn on the light, and let us see if I have not, in a measure, met the charges against us. In answer to a jmery, Sbe? pard said that if in a constitutional convention he would not favor a ' $1 poll tax. In answer to a direct query, he replied that he was not in favor of a $1 poll tax. He cornered Sheppard neatly on the bank cases. He asked Shep pard if he thought his bank's return of all it owned was ?proper. Sheppard replied that it' was. He asked if the r?turn of the Abebville Bank of surplus, undivided profits ond capital was right, and Shep pard replied it was. He then asked if the retumof the Germania Bank of 40,000 capital for taxation was right, when, in addition to that capital, the bank had a surplus of over 800,000, Sheppard replied that this was not right. "Tb?n why do you say it is wrong for us to attempt to make the Marlboro and Newberry and other banks pay taxes on all of their property." The 3rd Annual Convention of the Y. M. C. A. of Edgefield * County. HEADQUARTERS EDGEFIELD CO. ) COMMITTEE OF Y. M. C. A., > August 1,1892. ) DEAR BRETHREN: The 3rd an nual convention of the Young Men's Christian Association of Edgefield County will be held at Meeting Street on Saturday. Sun day and Monday, the 10th, 11th and 12th of September next. . Although not a full year h*a elapsed sine-'! the last c?nvsnt??j ir waf= thought advisable to hold ixaci ono -&i VtYi season of this .*.. better- .u.< hu .ne fannex?. binc?, -.?-o fttginniug of County ?rock in the spring of 1$90. seven - Young men's Christian Associa tions have been permanently organized in the county, namely, at Edgefield, Meeting Street, Good Hope. Red Hill, Mt, Willing. Batesburg, and Johnston, to say nothing of numerous young men's prayer meetings and Bibi' lassess. This work, the committee feel confident, has been greatly blessed .by the Master in the salvation of young men and in the develop ment of active, consecrated, and well equipped Chratian workers thus filling a long felt went and proving a powerful auxliary to the churches of Christ. Each Association is expected to send a large delegation of active members, and young men's prayer meetings, Sunday Schools, Young People's Societies of Christian Endeavor, and like organizations, are urged to send representatives. These, if members in good skiding of Evangelical churches, will be corresponding members of the Convention. Regularly accredited delegates, who will send in their names by ?September 5th, will be en tertained by the Meeting street Association and its friends. All Christians who are interested in this work for yonng men are urged to be present at this gather ing and to pray for the presence of the Holy spirit to gnide and direct. A. S. TOMPKINS, Edgefield. JAS. T. BACON, 14 A. J. NORRIS, " J. W. HILL, Rev. A. B. WATSON, " W. E.-LYNCH, " E. J. MIMS, " W. HARLING, Meeting Street. B, L. CAUGHMAN, Mt Willing. J. WM. MITCHELL, Batesburg. J. H. BURKHALTER, Cold Spring. L. F- DORN, Parksville. J LESLIE ANDREWS, Klrksey's.. JOHN LAKE, County Secretary. M,Tls not in mortals to command success, Bat we'll do more, Semproniai, we'll deserve it." In looking for a school for your daughter, we believe you would lite to find one That receives only enough boarders to make a large family : That thinks of the woman while it deals with the girl; That has a fair history on which Ao base its fair promises; That has a drst-class equipment for everything it teaches; That is high in its scholarship and low in it rates; That has many extra advantages and few extra charges. We should be glad to serve you, if you confer with us. Most Obediently, S. LANDER & SON, Williamston, S. C. Curtain Poles. We are closing out those lovely brass trimmed Curtain Poles at 20? each. W. H. TURNES & Co. Subscribe to the Edgefield AD VFRTI8ER.