Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-09-28

introduced in the Senate December 10,
1878. Early in February, 1874, the Com
mittee on Education reported it back for
passage, with some minor details amended.
Mr.. Bartlett at once ~antagonized the bill.
On his motion the consideration of it was
put off until the 10Th. On that day it was
considered, amended, and Mr.. Bartlett
moved to again postpone it a week, but he
was defeated by a vote of noes Is, ayes 16.
The question was then upon the engross-
ment of the bill, which was to test its
strength in the Senate. 1t was ordered
engrossed by a vote of 26 to 7, Washington
Bartlett uoting no.
In fighting the bill Mr.. Bartlett said:
He had-considerable suspicion of the bill. It
did great injustice to large cities. San Francisco
would have to pay q very large share OF the ex-
| penses of the schools of the State. Out OF ST.
279,0 according to his estimates) to be raised
under the bill, San Francisco would have to
pay SJ75,587, and would get back but S29S,655.
Fresno 81, 733, Kern 81 800, Marin s6,057, and SO
on. He claimed the bill was for the benefit of
outside counties, at the expense of San Fran
cisco dnQ u lew OlneIs.
Mr.. futile defended his bill at great
length, saying among other things:
The State should assume control of the edu-
cation of its youth. Wealth is unequally dis
tributed. The mass of the people have nothing
with which to pay for the education of their
children. but this very class furnishes the best
material TO be educated, and from this class
the laboring people-the school houses are filled
and graduates to the world of industry sent
forth From this class SDrinR MANY of orr most
successful business men. Inequality in the dis
tribution of wealth and the large area of the
State and its ~sparseness of population prevent
educational results attainable in fortunately
situated localities. The State had established a
system of common schools. 1t should direct the
course of educational matters. The welfare of
the State depends on the intelligence of its
citizens. 1t is therefore the duty Of the State to
provide the means with which to educate all its
children. Up TO that time the State had given
but 50 per capita per annum to this end. Under
such q system the counties had TO come TO the
rescue or there would not have been six weeks
of school in the State in the past year. In some
counties the school tax was as high as IS cents,
in others but 10 cents in some schools were
open ten months, in Others but two. Such in
equality could work nothing but injury. It was
not then a general or a common school system,
but a local one. He demanded that the State
secure to every school district six or eight
months OF school per year; but, whatever it is.
let it be uniform. Massachusetts raised Sl9 60
per capita for schools, aud the funds are dis
ACANS 1AAPNAoeaAA- " OPbOoiblOll W
the system comes from large and wealthy dis
tricts like San Francisco, whose wealth to a
large extent is drawn from the remote and
interior counties. All the State taxes are dis
bursed in five counties adjacent and near to the
Bay of san Francisco. 1t is but justice that the
children in the poor and sparsely settled dis
tricts should have sufficient to give them the
benefit OF a common school education. San
Francisco took her share of the 10th and Seth
sections of land donated by the United States
for school purposes. The intention was that
fhAFw AaAnnnAn ahaFtI ~A h rAhAA1 Itaerszt- 1-t
this State puts it all into a general fund. II the
money had gone to the districts large territorially.
as intended. the sparsely settled districts would
never have been compelled TO ask for appropria-
ton of money from the State School Fund for
support of their schools.
But Mr.. Bartlett voted to kill the bill.
Nevertheless it passed, and to-day no
legislator would have the temerity to pro-
pose to repeal it unless it should happen
that Mr.. Bartlett should be elected and
give courage to some representative from
a wealthy county, by recommending in his
messages the %abrogation of the school rev.
emu system and the return to the anti
quated local support method. Are the
people prepared to take the chances of
such a result by advancing Mr.. Bartlett ?
Certainly the people of the interior are not.
Very different was the action of Mr..
Swift in the same Legislature in the As
sembly. There the bill Bartlett fought so
bitterly passed by ayes y and noes =, and
Mr.. Swift voted aye. Which of these two
in the hour oftrial proved true to the free
schools of the State