Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1852-1852, 1852-04-23
Free Schools.

It is presumed that the primary object Of law
is to do the greatest amount of good to the greatest
number Consequently, that system which can best
accomplish this end should be preferred Happily for
U.s. our laws generally not oppressive and are only
made really burthensome by our acting contrary to
their teachings. 1t is idle to hope for perfection
in finite things-we never can reach it. Yet W, may
improve upon old customs and laws and it is our duty
to improve.
In the accomplishment of State enterprises it is not
the policy Of the to look to the origin OF the
means by which they are to be attained but to the
end in view.
Railroads are public benefts-therefore it is but
right that tho State should tax itself for their con-
struction to some extent, at least. Colleges and
Schools are for the public good We must not say
that the section of country Immediately interested must
do the work-such institutions are generally those in
which the veal of the State is largely interested 1t
is right that aid should be drawn from the common
treasury while each has contributed its quota to the
common Stock for the public good. ....-
Having thus promised, we proceed. Out OF the
general tax levied upon each citizen of the State for
the support of it's government certain fund is appro-
pIlilcu IOl suPPoiI VI tiSo S>hooA- ~SoSAA NA'
rct and Parish receives for its dstrbutve share three
hundred dollars for each member allowed it In the
House of Representatives. For example, Kershaw
has tOo members, and receives six hundred dollars 1t
must be remembered in this place. that Kershaw pays
larger tax to the State than three fourths OF the
Districts and Parishes in the State. Charleston Dis
trict st. Philips and St. Michaels,) pays the largest
10 ontitled lar
ger representation, say ls members which at $500
each, would make $5400 Thus it will be perceived
that Charleston District receives nine times as much
as Kershaw and has nine times much political pow
er But Of course Charleston pays for this in her taxes
which are nearly ten times as much as Kershaw pays
The question naturally arises is there nine times as
much necessity for the application of this fund in
Charleston as in Kershaw? We doubt it for reasons
to be shown hereafter s
We believe the present system iswrong or rather the
distribution is wrong 1t should be applied so as to
meet the necessity nearly possible throughout the
State. Now the simple fact that Charleston District
pays such large tax and has such increased political
power is sufficient to warrant the presumption
that the necessity in the ratio is not as great as
in other less popular and wealthy portions of the Sate
for it must be remembered that Charleston has not
white population corresponding with her taxes which
arc paid The proportion to Kershaw is about four to
one as nearly as we can ascertain it. This therefore
shows that the application of the fund is not in proper
ton to the white population but is also upon taxation
writer in the Lancaster Ledger over the signature
of "Mc CohH" has satisfactorily explained this point
and clearly shows that "the present mode Of dstribu
ton misapples the fund because it is not made to de-
pend upon and follow strictly the subjects of the fund
the people-but also makes araon necessary for its
application" We have shown that taxation is ent-
tied to representation and therefore to distrbutive
share Of the fund.- not in fact but in a-is this right?
1t would not do to say that because Kershaw pays
larger tax to the State than three fours of all the 9TH
or Districts. that Kershaw should be entitled to
larger share Of the fund this would be giving to each
according to the amount paid into tho Treasury, and
the object would still be unattained. On this principle
the sparsey populated Districts would suffer mmcas-
urablv greater than they do at present So that it
seems about the best way to apporon the fund.- unless
used to ascertain directly the exact amount
Tor as nearly possible Of benefits needed in every
section Of the State Ifa census taken with view
oasceraining precisely the number of benecares and
the amount necessary to relieve their educational wants
no doubt the appropriations now almost indscrmi-
nately made, would be ample for the purpose The
present system is unwise it does not meet the object
as freely as it should; it ought to be remodded and
made to answer better purpose
The amount now appropriated annually, say thirty
TO forty thousand dollars, might be constituted a
Free School Fund, subject to be drawn upon by
q competent board Of Commissioners or Supervisors,
with such discretionary power would meet the wants
Of their several Districts. Tie Commissioners like
other district boards to account for all monies received
and expended. And the whole system overlooked by
general Superintendent elected by the Legislature
The Commissioners Of Free Schools should at least en-
joy some power, as much as other Commissioners en-
joy it is to receive and pay out the fund is all they
have to do.
We are welded to no particular view only that
change is necessary in the distribution Of this fund
Certainly among many wise heads in the State at
next Legislature something will be done; at least
to change the present system The plan pursued by
the State of Florida might answer the purpose; else.
where in our paper to-day it may be found
We think there is no injustice in the plan which we
propose. Where Districts are wealthy and popuous.
where they receive in the Councils of the State in
creased political power it is but right that they should
be taxed or at least portion Of their taxes be ap-
proprated for the moral and educational benefits of
those less favored, and more dependant. NOTHING
would be lost to the State at large for wa hold ,t;