Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-05-27

| ton In full of nv speech delivered in
Williamson county on Wednesday last.
| There is nothing in the same issue of your
paper to indicate that il meets with your
disfavor, at least it is evident that the
columns of THE GAZETTE as usual are
open to matters of general public interest
and that it regards the information OF the
people as one of its missions. THE
GAZETTE is located in one OF the
most enterprising and progressive
| cities of the state. Under your
control it has consistently labored for
the advancement and prosperity Of Fort
Worth. My conviction is, too, that the
prosperity and development of West
Texas has always been the desire and OBJ
ject of your paper. While I have not
always agreed with THE GAZETTE as to
what policy was best to secure this end,
still have never doubted but that the
advancement of the West was desired by
THE GAZETTE as earnestly and honestly
as by myself.
believe now that It Is the duty of the
state to relieve the west Of some of the
burdens 1t is carrying. The Demo-
cratic party of Texas has always meant,
1 am sure, to do equal justice to every
section OF the state. There has been no
Intention TO oppose any section or even to
advance any section at the expense Of
the other. feel it my duty, in consid-
GRAFTON of my present relation to the
Democratic party of our state, to call
attentisu to a few things in connection
with state finances wherein justice, as
Democrats understand it, demands that
there be a modification of certain laws
relating to state finances and taxation.
The comptroller's last report shows that
the fund apportioned for school pur-
poses for the year ending August 81,
1889, was derived as follows, to-wit:
Receipts from interest on state bonds -. s121 $40
Receipts from interest on county bonds. 163, 796
Receipts from interest on land sold, ..--. 61,661
Receipts from interest on railroad bonds go, 697
Receipts from leases of school lands. 234, 225
Total. 49,. 81, l82, 189
Making q total, as is shown, of 81 =
1872 ,189 derived from lands and invest
ment of funds derived from the same
source. OF the above amounts $500, 900
are from the lease of school lands and in
lterest on sales, and 1915 200 represents
interest on the investment of the per-
manenL school fund. The amount
received by taxes for school purposes
is about 81 200, 200. From the above
it will be seen that the annual
revenue from interest on lands sold and
lands leased was -fifths as much as
all the money raised By taxation in Texas
for school purposes. This $500 900 comes
from the West and is distributed accord
ing to scholastic population throughout
the state. The West also pays her share
of the taxes and it is safe TO say that Cen
trail and West Texas pay three fourths of
this. What would call especial atten-
ton to is the injustice of requiring the
purchaser of school lands to pay taxes on
the same as if it were his, while perhaps
his interest in the land is only one-tenth
or one-twentieth, or possibly only one
fortieth of the interest still held by the
state.
To illustrate: The settler who goes to
Tom Green county to make his home buys
a section of land at 81 per acre, paying
the state S32, which is one-fortieth of
Sl280, the price of the land. He gives
his note to the state for the balance, viz:
SPAS. This land is then assessed against
him just as if he had paid the $3.50 cash,
while really it represents but an invest
ment of S32. His yearly interest account
on this purchase is S62. 40, which must
be paid under penalty of forfeiture and
reversion of his home to the state. 1t
is the duty of the state to encourage
settlement and development of hers
unoccupied territory in the West. And a.
pioneer who converts a section of land
into farm and home is a public bensS5
factor. In many cases the 50 per aoE5'
the minimum fixed by law, is large psgEe
for the land. Certainly these settlers
homes should not be assessed for taxa
ton like it were his, but the amount OF
the state lien should be deducted from
the valuation. Let the law say that the
state lien on lands sold under the acts of
1888 and 1887, and the act amendatory of
the latter, passed in 1883, shall be de-
duced from the assessed value of same,
at least for taxation for school purposes :,
As it is now the state, while still owEt
ing twenty -nine-t hirtisths or thirty
nine-fortietbs of section Of land, taxes
the purchaser of same as if it were all Z,
his. This would not be SO grievousi
unjust if the money thus raised was spent
at home for the education of the chill
dren of the county where paid. But this
Is not the case. It Is taken tn ence ans
goes into the treasury at Austin whence
it flows eastward to be expended in coun-
ties remote, to the upbuiiding Of same
and proportional Impeachment of
the section from who it came. Let me
cite few examples:
Childress county paid into the state
treasury according to the comptrolzE
last report, heretofore referred sa,Sl479,
She received from the treasury S408 ,one-
half of which and little more was de-
rived from the land fund. In othe
words while ChIldress pays this amount
into the treasury she receives of money
raised by taxation and has returned to
her only about 5000; that is to say
Childress pays into the state treasury for
school purposes more than seven times as
much as she is permitted by the states
expend at home for the education of her
children. Tom Green county paid into
the treasury at Austin about
S7400 school tax and received back
thereof about $500. Jones county con-
rributed S2100 and was permitted to give
her children the benefit of but $500.
Frio county received back about half of
what she gave. Tarrant was required to
contribute $4,000 more than her share,
while Dallas under home rule might have
kept at home SIT 500 which through the
state treasury departed from her borders
forever The lack of g law providing
for local taxation for school purposes
compelled Donley county to gay sixteen