The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1879-11-19
The Press and Banner,
Wednesday, Nov. 10, 1879.
Local observation-disclosures, Legislators.

Local observation-disclosures, Legislators.
In the calendar of our House of Repre-
scn,ativcs, we find among the unfinished
business continued from session OF 1913
TO session of 1870 the following:
NO. lG. A Bill report favorable, with
amendments, to provide for the estab-
"lishment of new school districts III the
..scveral cities, towns and Incorporated
..~yillarcs of the State, and to authorize
1.-THE levy and collection of special taxes
"thcrein. For second reading, MI
"Bacon.')
We think it right to call the attention OF
the public and OF Il Legislators 10 inns
Bill. and to put them on their Suaro
,rainst it. 1t is nothing more nor less
than a Bill to revive the odious ana lniq-
uitous local taxation power. Ncarc sur
nriscd that it was reported on favorably
and stands now for second reading.
Surely our people have not forgotten
t,,,t tho W to levy a local tax for the
suppor of public schools was conferred
on School Districts by Statute Gen. Stat,
Chap. XNNIN, Sect. Is, 4th.)
Surely our people have not forGotteh
tho abuses to which the local taxation
mower led,-thc heavy burdens which III
its exercise were laid III the shoulders OF
our people.
Surely our representatives have not
FORGOTTEN that onc of the first things done
bv our legislature in the extra session Oh
1877 was to pass "An Actto amend Sec
ton Is of Chapter NNNIA OF the "cher-
al Statutes, relating to the power III
School Districts to levy and collect spe-
cial taxes for school purposes by "hlcn
Act the said Section WAS amended bN
striking out all of subdivision 4,'-ln
other words, that the powert to levy a 10
cal school tax was revoked.
And vet here is a Bill for second read
ing, reported on favorably, which pro-
poses to ~re-instate in 70 what was repeal
cd in ~. Do welive in circumstances SO
different and so improved as to warrant
this?
True. the promoters of this Bill may
say that it will not be exactly the same
as the one repealed /; that whereas under
the old law all voters could vote at a
School District meeting, by the pfov's'
ions of this new Act lone but property
holders will be empowered to vote. Say
ing nothing about the unjust and undem-
ocratic discrimination against n certain
class of voters which this involves, we
would beg our representatives to consia-
or wisely and we'll before they vote 1of
the resurrection of this old enemy with
q new face, even if that face is white.
Is it the purpose Of tho supporters OF
this local tax Bill to provide for the en-
tire supporter public education by
If so let them first count the cost. Ihey
do things cheaper in the North than we
ever can in the South and in the econom-
ical Northern States the annual cost to
the tax payers of each child at the pubic
schools is not less than 80. In many
places it is $40, SIS, SIG or even more.
Our present School Fund, made up OF
two-mill tax and poll-tax contributes
Sl.65 a year for each school child. DO we
propose TO burden ourselves with addl-
tional taxation so as to raise the other
S7.35? Are we willing to submit to a nine
or ten mill levy?
Another thing worth considering is
this:-by our Constitution, iii made the
duty of the general assembly to provide
for the compulsory attendance at school OF
all children Of siX-to-sixteen years, just
rs soon as facilities have been afforded for
free education. Now, local taxation Plus
State school fund means absolutely free
education. But free education means
compulsory attendance for a period not
less than "twenty-four months in all.
Are our people ready to submit to this
and send all the boys and girls, white
and Black in the country to school for at
least Asix months in each year?
Let our representatives consider this
also-ttsat while local taxation suits large
cities where property is valuable and
pDpuf&uVVl OeuSc, y optCiiS
to an agricultural State like this. 1t suits
Charleston very well it does not ult
small towns and villages. The rule in
local taxation is almost a paradox, but
facts show it to be that where the tax on
the dollar is highest the amount furnish
ed per school-child isgreatest: where the
rate per dollar is lowest the rate per child
is highest. Bes.on's local school tax is
only one miM On the dollar ; this yields
SIG. a year for each school child. In the
rural districts of Massachusetts. on the
contrary, where the local tax is nearly
three mills it yields only Sc per school
child. The cost of public education in
Charleston is about 80 per school child.
Small towns could not get it any cheaper,
and TO raise 50 per school child small
towns weuld hsre to he taxed at least
three times as much as Charleston.
Is it not worth our while to think OF
all these things, and TO ask our repre-
sentatiges to think Of them also, and
look before they leap?
One more questien-Have not the tax q,
PAYERS Of South Carolina, in already con-
tributing about s335o, 900 a year for public .
education, done their duty to the public !
x,h,nJ,0 r.