The herald., 1898-10-12

mary funds to this competing nlgn
school system could by no reasonable OK
pectation give good nigh scnooi system
or one in any way as good as what exists.
All the teachers unite In this opinion. Mr..
Bulla favors this amendment on the
ground, 40 understand, that country high
schools would thereby be supported by
diversion OF The state school fund PAID by
the cities TO them. II this were so 1t should
be opposed upon that ground. As 1t Is the
cities with generally low birth rate and
comparatively few children now have the
taxes raised In them applied to the support
Of the country schools. II the cities DO not
like this they can have more children and
thus perpetuate the American people IN
stead of exterminating their citizens by an
Inadequate birth rate to meet tho deaths.
But 1t is unjust to deliberately attempt to
tax cities for country schools. believe
from an examination Of this measure that
the people who would pay for this new
high school system would be the country
people and especially the sparsely settled
districts. The present method permits
cities or districts to establish. maintain or
relinquish high schools to suit themselves.
This is quite enough and generally salts
factory. The essential injustice OF this
amendment can be illustrated by its effect
on the University Of Southern California
and Stanford. These institutions and all
their resources are already taxed to sup
not remarkable for its fairness. Under the
amendment they would be taxed to support
a poor high school system that by the
amendment would be exclusively confined
to preparing scholars for the University OF
California according to lines that 1t would
determine. This Is unfair to the other uni
versities.
Senator Bulla opposing amendment No. a.
which IL 80 necessary and advantageous
and advocating amendment No. g. which
is without any merit.
No. T. This II an experiment in legisla-
tive procedure. It provides for q divided
session Of the legislature. In the first half
bills are to be introduced andl then comes
a r.cess II ~ least thirty days and not to
exceed sixty days. In the last session no
hill can be introduced without the consent
Of three-fourths of the members. The leg
islature would cost more than now under
this scheme. Some of the addition would
be In mileage and most in the pay Of at
taches and other incidentals.
The recess of congress at the holidays
does not help legislation nor Is this scheme
likely to do So 1t Is even probable that
but little difficulty would exist In obtaining
the consent of the requisite number to the
Introduction Of new measures in the last
part Of the session. The mutual interests
of members would probably make them
polite about the introduction of bills. There
can be little expectation that the average
member would give much attention to bills
during the recess. In fact few good meas
ures have ever originated with members
Of the legislature. Committee work would
be at a standstill while the attaches would
continue to draw pay for nothing If there
is any special advantage to any class OF
legislative promoters that could be anti
cipated from this proposal 1t would be to
those private interests with sufficient
stake to induce these to send agents to the
homes of legislators.
Our committee was neutral on this
amendment but further reflection makes
me an avowed opponent of the measure.
It should not be adopted. The tendency
of the people by the referendum and by re-
leiving cities Of special legislation, by TAX
Ing claims against the state into court
and by relieving counties from legislative
tinkering Is to remove much Of the lobbying
and confusing work from the legislature
These things will improve the legislature.
The need Of this costly experiment is not
evident Vote no.