Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1891-03-12

not over one.half Of whom attend
school, will get the same amount. to
a cent, that one like HALEY, with
BOG school children, an average Of
275 of whom attend, will.
In order to show how unjust this
method Of appo.tionment is, we will
assume that an apportionment is
about to he made, and that $1,000 is
to be- appor,ion-d. Que half Of this
amount will be appo'tioned equally
a'aong all tie districts at so much
per school child. This IS all right.
No one can find fault with that.
But tits is not the case with the
remaining half, or $500. To cons
plete our illustration we will assume
that there are 10 districts in the
county. Each district will then get
IS per child on its census returns,
and $40 per child actually attending
school; while fiailey, with over 800
children, would get about Is cents
per schoolchild returned by the cen
s"s>takrr, and only about Is cents
per child AZ tualIy attending school!
In Arco each school child gets $40
from the arportionm+nt, while in
HALEY it only gets lS cents per child
actua ly attending school! That is
the way in which the law will operate.
How body Of men claiming to be
intelligent could pass such u gross
ly njust law we cannot understand.
1t is stated that the plea advanced
was that it was for the greatest good
to the greatest number. This is the
tlmsiest of pretexts; because by far
the greatest number Of school children
live in towns, and if the Legislature
had been intent on assuring the greats
est good to the greatest number 1t
would have lcgislated rather for the
benefit Of the large districts.
Another reason is given for this crude
legislation-and, we believe, the cor.
rect one. 1t Is this: that tho legis-
la'ors, being SHOWN" on Boise City,
passed this law with the special view
of discriminating against it. This is
a splendid reason fer an act OF such
gross injustice, truly. Because some
lawmakers dislike Boise, they pass a
law which seriously cripples the whole
public school system OF the State!
The law cannot, it seems to US, be
CONSTITUTIONAL; as it increases the al.
ready grossly unequal distribution of
the school fund. 1t taxes the already
overtaxed large districts for the bene-
fit Of the smaller ones-thus unjustly
incre asing the burdens Of those who
have always paid the greater proper.
ton Of the taxes. And we believe
that all appeal to the Supreme Court
would inevitably result in the annul.
ment Of the law.
But "what is everybody's business
is rohody's business" We therefore
presume that the constitutionalltv OF
the law will not be tested. Hence
arises the necessity to do the best "
can under it.
1t is fortunate for the large districts
that they do not depend entirely upon
the public funds to keep their schools
going. If they did they could not
have over three or four months
schooling per year. But by levying
special school taxes they keep their
schools open nine and 10 months each
year, and thus confer upon the chill
dren within their limits benefit that
cannot be overestimated. The new
law, grossly unjust as it is, will not
make difference Of over $500 per
annum even TO such a district as
Haley, and that amount will doubtless
be raised by special levy. This ad-
dition to the special tax usually levied
will not make difference of over q
mills on the dollar; and this the peo-
Pile Of HALEY, with their usual public.
spiritedness, will doubtless cheerfully
vote.