Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-01-24
r1HKERINe THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

Mr.. Farley Is from county sparsely
populated. He desires that his county
should receive the poll taxes which go to
the school fund sooner than now. Under
the Constitution the poll taxes are paid
into the State school fund. He proposes
by an amendment to the Constitution that
they shall be paid into the county or city
school fund. Mr.. Farley's bill is another
example of ill-cOnsidered measures. Os-
tensibly 'of benefit to his and other
counties of light population, the amend
ment will have precisely the contrary et-
feet. Oar school system is State system.
Counties cut no figure in it, except so far
as their geographical conformation and
local government conduceE to convenience.
The State proceeds upon the prin-
ciple that to all the children in the
State, SO far as is possible, like advantages
shall be guaranteed in receiving instruc
ton, and that there shall be no distinction
made between rich or poor, remote, sparse
or densely.settled sections. 1t goes with
out saying, that this is the only correct
system under our form of government.
The aim of the State is to raise up useful
citizens wherever located in the State, and
to limit the opportunities of none. To in
sist upon local support wholly is to punish
the men who are contributing to the up.
building and development of the interior
sections. We had thought that the whole
question was thoroughly understood, and
so well settled and so emphatically closed
by constitutional provision, that no one
would be found willing to again open it.
The school system provides for per capita
distribution of the school fund among all
school children. For the fiscal year end
ing June 80, 1881, San Francisco con-
tribpted to the school fund 1923, SIS 50,
and received from it $4S4, sos GS
Her contribution to popular eduoa-
ton outside her limits was, therefore,
Sl3S, 976 81, and OF the whole sum Sll5,-
S2l IS were collected in poll taxes. In the
fiscal year just closed she paid in $685..
740 10, and drew out S49l, 074 65, and
hence she contributed TO other counties
$37, 665 81. Her poll tax contribution
was 81, 255 %. Had the principle con-
tended for by Mr.. Farley prevailed, size
would in that year have made no cOntribu
ton, and her payment to the State fund
would have been but S4S7, 484 a.
Sacramento county in Ike manner in
1881 paid in 500, 422 80, and drew out but
SCI, $50 46, while her poll taxes amounted
to Sl3, 469. In 1882 the situation was re-
versed, and she paid in SCI, 376 &C, and
received back S64, 223 IS, her poll taxes
being Sl4, 693 05. While the poll tax con-
tribution in San Francisco fell from Sll5,.
600 to S4l, eco, in Sacramento it increased
from Sl3, 400 to $4,000.
The counties receiving more than they
paid in 1881 were Alameda, Amador, Gala
veras, Contra Costa, Ell Dorado, Humboldt,
Lake, Los Angeles, Mariposa, Mendocino,
MOdoc, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer.
San Beni.o, San Bernardino, San Diego,
San Luis O5ispo, Santa Barbara, Santa
Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siski.
you, Solano, Sonoms, Tehama, Tulare
Tuolumne, Ventura and Yuba. In 1882
these counties came into The category
Butte, Del Ncrte, Inyo, Sacramento, Suit
ter and Trinity.
II the majority in the Legislature desires
the funeral obsequies of its party to be
held at an early day, let It favor ti1ksring
with the school system, such as is pre-
posed.