The record-union., 1897-02-21
FALSE CONCEPTION OF STATE
INTEREST.


sake it is assumed to be true, should be
opposed by San Francisco on the
ground that none of the money is to
be expended in that city and county,
though the property in the city will be
taxed for the scheme. That is to say,
San Francisco has no interest in the
matter because the outgo for the benefit
of San Francisco is not immediate.
For four years we have heard this
plea set UP. 1t was a fad of our con-
temporary, the San Francisco "Bulle-
tin," under it's old management, that
San Francisco should be taxed no more
for the support of the State free school
system than it receives from the State
in support of ITS local schools. 1t was
claimed that 1T was an injustice to col
lect more money in Sam Francisco for
school purposes than was expended up
ON the schools in that City.
So now, the Cali contends that San
Francisco should pay no part of the
tax necessary to promote economic
communication and movement. ease of
reaching rail and market and the
creation Of conditions that will render
rural life more desirable and tend to
develop and upbuild the agricultural
and mining sections.
It should scarcely be necessary to call
the attention of intelligence to the fact
that this is an illogical argument, one
that if carried out to it's ultimate would
make every community an Independent
cy. and destroy every semblance of
statehood save the name State inter-
ests know no division or boundary lines
within the exterior bounds of the COM
monwealth. State interests are not to
be viewed along the line of horizon
50 low THAT 1T compases only the i'm
mediate environment of the individual
citizen. The interior pays a far larger
proportion of taxes necessary to sup
port the State prisons and the charity
asylums than is measured by the num-
Der of wards the interior sends to those
Institutions That is to say, the CEN
te1's of population furnish most of the
inmates of these institutions, and re-
misery but pay disproportionIatel for
the prisons and asylums and asylums
necessitated by that fact.
If the doctrine of the Cali has any
spective counties and towns should
maintain their own schools and receive
no State aid. The entire machinery for
the collection of revenue and it's per
capita distribution might as we'll be
abolished if the contention of our San
Francisco contemporary is sound. This
would leave the sparsely settled sec
tions, the poor counties and the weak
communities, without the educational
facilities that the theory of the State
holds to be essential to the growing of
good citizenship for the State.
Fortunately for the State as a politi-
cal body, the people take a broader
view Of the matter and esteem the edu-
cation of youth a matter of common
concern, and hence the bachelor as we'll
as the parent is taxed, and each COM
munity receives precisely the same per
capita allotment of the educational
fund. SO too, as common education is
for common good the development, up
building and betterment of the interior
are common interests. Indeed, criti-
cal examination Of the question will
develop the fact that the larger cities
have even a greater interest in promo
ton of internal development and econo-
my than have the rural sections, be-
cause in the centers of population the
wealth of the State lis reservoired, and
congested populations find their highest
financial interests in the prosperity Of
the contributing sections. So true is
this that at the East, where this fact
is fully appreciated, cities and large
towns not only submit to but volunteer
taxation and contribution for rural bet
terment.
Indeed, in some California communi-
ties be it said to their credit, this inn
preston upon the public mind that the
same consent and volunteering is mani
fest. In Sacramento County this is not
able. where the city of Sacramento
finds it so much to her material inter
est to conserve good road building that
il has offered to aid the ruralists in
that work. and begged to be taxed to
that end. 1t is regrettable that so
many people in rural sections fail to
look at the matter in a correct light,
and reply to the city: Take care OF
your streets and we will take care of
our roads"
This is precisely the argument Of our
San Francisco contemporary In both
cases there is no explanation of the
title or authority under which the ru-
ralist claims sole ownership and con-
troll of our roads" We had supposed
until this odd claim was advanced that
the public highways are for the use of
an the people, and that they have
equal and common interest in them.
But our contemporary claims that to
tax the people alike for common gain, in
the case Of roads. is taxing one person
for another's benefit. To certain ex-
tent that rs true. and always must be.
Sacramentans are to-day taxed for the
benefit of San F'ranciscans. and the
latter are taxed for the benefit of the
people of this city. Political econo-
mists and statesmen have never been