Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1873-02-19

rho had preceded him, had used the argu-
nent that the property Of the state should ed.
ncses the children. That sounds well; but
f6r only question Is, how shall that property
4 b1iaxed? In answer to that he would only
!. rsusaf what had already been said, let the
Z fSemers of the Constitution answer that
!. ouestion. They considered it, carefully, IN.
doubtedly, and state how the properly snould
be taxed to educate the children OF the state
The gentleman from Madawaska (Mr. Nee
gan) had made novel proposition, and one
10 keeping with the whole scheme, when ne
made the offer to break down town and coun-
ty lines, and 20 in for the state paying the
expenses Of running Aroostook county, that
section contributing what it was worth. II
was Is lust for the state 10 build the ROADS
md bridges in any locality Of the state or
pay individual expenses, as that 1t shoaiu
raise their school money. The gentleman
from Hartford (Mr. Alley had said he did
! not propose to increase the amount OF schooi
money, but to change the mode Of raising 1t.
That il, reduce the per capita tax that ne
should pay for schools, and keep his dime in
his pocket, to build roads with, replacing that
money in his pocket by the school fund.
Why reduce the per capita tax If interested
in education? He was glad that the
people of the State feel an interest in
education, but a proposition which will
raise an unequal tax, that will distribute the
money of the State to help certain locall-
ties, to the great injury of other localities
he could not support. He contended that
the proposed measure was not constitutional,
and that the constitution does not provide
that towns shall expend money raised by the
state. 1t says that towns shall raise the mon
ey for schools Then let them eypend the
money if they raise it, but if the state is re-
CURED to raise the money, give the state some
power over it, and not give the whole power
to the towns, to dispose of it as they see tit.
Mr.. WEEKS opposed the minority report,
for he did not deem it expedient to increase
the mill tax at the present time. lie moved
that when the question be taken, II be by yeas
and nays.
Mr.. CoRTHELL then took the floor and
spoke nearly an hour in support of the mi
nority report.
Mr.. RANDALL said he had the honor of
holding seat in the House of 1872, and vot-
ed in favor Of the mill tax. He voted in IA
vor Of it then as a measure of experiment,
and did not think the measure had been test
ed ~ yet. He came from the most rural of
all rural districts, representing some ten or
twelve towns and plantations. every one Of
which would be benefited financially by the
adoption of the minority report by the legisla-
ture. But there was something higher than
this. Are we doing even-handed justice to
the cities and larger towns3 He had consi1-
cred the matter carefully, and felt obliged to
vote against any increase of the mill tax.
Mr.. PUTNAM had the honor to represent one
Of the rural districts, and if the minority re-
port were adopted, it would benefit his con-
stituents, but he believed legislation any fur
Their in regard to the matter at this time to be
inexpedient.
The motion to substitute the minority re.
port, which provides for an increase. for the
majority report, reporting legislation ineype.
dent, was lost by yeas IS, nays 4S.
The majority report was then adopted.