The Lancaster ledger. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1852-1905, 1852-04-14


persons, n much larger share of the Free
School Fnnd in proportion to their white
population; and to the poorer Parishes and
Districts, where there is always a larger
white population less share in proportion
to their white population.
And in this. place, we remark, that
this discrimination does not extend to the
Districts and Parishes as opposite interests; ;
it applies as well to Parish when compared
with Parish, as when compared with Dis
trict; and to District compared with q Dis
trict or Parish The principle is the same,
which entities Parish or District to men,
Der in the House of Representatives, CTaxa-
tion and population.) The inequality among
the several Parishes and Districts results,
not from the principle of Representation it.
self in the House of Representatives, for
that principle is the same in all,) but because
Representation is used as the basis of distri-
button, when, at the same time, it depends
upon two principles (Taxation and Popula-
tion) which vary, equally, in Parish or Dis
trict, as one or the other of these principles
predomnatcs. The Parish of ST. Helena
with white population of ] ,O78 is entitled
to receive no more than st. Andrews with a
white population of only $40.
The present mode of distribution of the
Free School Fund is supposed by many to
have some connection with the popularity of
Representation in the Legislature, under
the constitution ofthe State and in that way
it is viewed as an cup country" or GLOW
country" measure, and the amount ofTaxes
of the upper or lower division is introduced
to have its weight in settling the question
But such is most certainly mistake. The
difference in the principle of Representation
affecting the up country and low country, is
found in the Senate alone, there each. cleo
ton District parish as well as DISTRICT is
entitled, under the Constitution, to one men,
Der except the Parish of st. Philips and ST
Michaels, which. is entitled to two. IT"
apportionmcnt Of ....elnpers in the Senate has
nothing at all to do with the distribution of
the Fund. The distribution depends upon
Representation in The House Of Representa-
fires, and not in the Senate. a..
1t likewise discriminates between the cit
liens ofthe State, who are the subjects of the
Fund, and interested in its benefits; and il
is thus partial in its character
The subjects of the Fund are the people
of the State; and they arc benefited or in
jured, by the distribution in their several re.
lations either as individuals, the recipients
of the Fund; or as Tax payers and citizens
If the State residing in the different Parish
es and Districts.
1t operates partially upon the INDECENT, the
recipients of the Fund, in this, that those
who happen to live in a Parish or District.
where Taxation contributes more or less to
membership in the House, receive more or
less from'that circumstance. Where taxation
prcdominates in emitting an election District
to membership, there, fewer number of in
digent persons are to be found and the con-
sequence is, that this class of persons is eli
ther fully provided for, or it is extended and
made to embrace within it, those who in 9th.
er Parishes and Districts, where population
predominatcs would be either but partially
provided for or altogether excluded. In this
feature the present distribution is unequal, if
not, unjust.
1t operates partially upon the Tax paying
citizens of the State, They arc interested
in the fund, not only in its general object
and purposes, but as means of cffecting the
education of their neighbors, and thus con-
tributing TO their social advantage. AS cit
izens of the State, and Tax payers, they are
entitled to n more equitable distribution
The present mode of distribution disappoints
them not only in its failure to accomc,....C.,n.. m,..Cn
the general purpose of the Fund us an c..,,,
nary to the gcnC1.al diffusion of education,
uut in this, that it does not contribute, alike,
to the enjoyment of the social advantages,
which result from education upon their neigh
borhoods. And besides if the argument be
good, that as Tax payers they are entitled
to the full benefit Of their taxes, it fails in
this respect, and produces moreover an ine-
quality, which is unjust. To illustrate this
latter view: A. lives in one of the Parishes or
Districts, and pays in taxes to the State,
One Hundred Dollars B. lives in another
Parish or District and pays the same tax
BIS Parish or District receives perhaps, dou-
Bile as much of the Free School Fund as AS.
Is A. and b., both ofwhom are equal as Tax
payers, affected alike? Does it not produce an
inequality? Ifthe principle be just one, that
as property pays the tax, therefore, the
tax payers should receive the corresponding
benefit Of such tax then, the present distri-
button initiates with this principle, in that
regard, and the argument, if good in the one
case should be good in the other and apply
there also. But this principle which Taxa
ton calls for will be considered again in its
proper place. 1t is merely used here a6 ar
guendO.
There isno reason founded in justice,' 'or