Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-10-08
A LAME AND IMPoTENT DEFENSE
OF BARTLETT.

OF
Not long ago We gave the whole history
of Washington Bartlett's opposition to the
school revenue system of California, and
his vote and speeches against it in the
Legislature of 1873. Our statements and
citation of facts and declarations have
been quoted with approval throughout the
State, and no one until Tuesday last has
dared to question them, or had the temer-
ity to excuse Bartletts guilt.
Let us briefly recapitulate: Under the
present law, originating with B. F. Tuttle,
then a Senator from Sonoma, the school
system of the State is treated as a unit,
and for every child is allotted a given
sun from the State fund for free educa-
tion, no matter whether living in Modoc
or San Francisco. Under the old system
schools were supported by districts. The
result was that poor and sparsely settled
sections could have no schools, and their
development was just that much retarded
and public education that much neglected.
Lands were given to the State for school
purposes, and when sold the proceeds were
put into a common fund, from which San
Francisco, that had no public lands within
her bounds, drew her share. Had these
proceeds, as intended by the Federal Gov
ernment, been given to the districts large
territorially, they never would have need
ed to ask for State aid to maintain free
schools six or eight months in the year.
So, when Mr.. Tuttle proposed to treat
the education of children as a matter of
State concern, not a mere district affair,
Mr.. Bartlett rose up in the Senate and
fought the bill from first to last, and voted
against it in every phase, because, forsooth,
San Francisco would have to pay more into
the State school fund than she could draw
from it under the uniform per capita plan
that prevailed despite Bartlett, and that
still obtains, and which the people of Cali
fornia would no more yield up than they
would their life-blood.
Now comes the Santa Rosa Democrat of
last Tuesday, and defends Mr.. Bartlett, and
this is, in brief, what it has to say in the
course Of q labored and hating article:
"The law is a good one. Mr.. Bartlett did
vote against it, and fight it, and all that,
but the bill was unpopular in San Fran
CISCO" and as Mr.. Bartlett represented that
city, was it not his duty to obey the wishes
Of the people thereof? or was he to do, as
Mr.. Swift did, on the same bill, represent
ing the same people, follow the bent of
his own sweet will" (Which of the two"
asks the Democrat, was the faithful repre-
sentative?7
And we reply, as must all men who be-
lieve in conscience, representatives are not
sent up to the law-making body to repeat
the errors of their constituents or defend
their vices.
We like the mettle of the legislator who
made the halls of a Capitol ring with the
sentiment This tongue shall be palsied
my eyes be blinded my hands lose their
cunning; this frame wither and sink into
the grave, before my constituency shall
compel me, by petition or threat, or any
demand, to vote for that which my judg-
ment Of what is right condemns as wrong.
/ was sent here to represent the people of a
section, but | am also commissioned by my
oath to represent and stand for the truth,
right principle, honest action, and the best
interests OF the whole State, and all the
constituencies thereof, as coneeiyed and ap-
proved by such intelligence as God has
given me-
We echo the Democrats question, which
of the two was the faithful representative I;
Swift, who voted for what his Judgment
approved as best for all the people of the
State his vote was to affect, or Bartlett,
who voted against the best interests of
100000 people, because forsooth, a her
shortsighted press, and a selfish people
in a single city from which he hailed, be-
lieved an error, sustained a wrong and re-
sisted the enlightenment of the whole peo-
pie through the agency of common schools
supported in common by all the people
We have no knowledge that Mr.. Bart
lett did not hold sincerely with the people
of San Francisco on that question. If he
did not, then by his vote he wrote himself
down a coward, There has not in all the
sixteen years since that date been given
any intimation that Mr.. Bartlett has
changed his views. On the contrary, we
have every reason to believe, that he ha:
not. W. do not believe that he will TO.
day venture to assert that he has retracted
the heresy of 1873. A prominent journal
of San Francisco that has been accepted
as the immediate friend of Mr.. Bartlett
and as largely rejecting his views within
The last year, has declared the schoo
revenue system to be an outrage. and ha.
openly demanded that the uniform PEI
capita system be abandoned, and thai
each district be relocated to the old-tims
and abandoned scheme of supporting itself
precisely what Mr.. Bartlett eontended fol
in 1873.
If Mr.. Bartlett, however. has recanted
if the decade and a half of years has con