Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-08-21
THE SCHOOL TAv QUESTION

nandamus case against the Board Of
County Commissioners, was just what
most people expected who understood
the case and appreciated his legal acu-
men. The demurrer was sustained and
the case dismissed. The chief conten-
ton OF Attorney C.. S. Varian was that
after the commissioners had determined
the tax levy. and had passed upon and
announced IT, the levy could not be law
fully changed, as requested by the city
Board Of Education also that the tax
levying power for educational purposes
was vested IN the Board II County
Commissioners. and could no; be Ovid
cd with the Board Of Education. The
ruling Of the court settles thhe question
against any increase Of the levy this
year.
There has been much misunderstood
ing Of some features Of this dispute,
and reflections have been cast upon the
Board Of Education that were not iusti-
fed by the facts. II has been repeated
ly charged that the Board OF Educa-
ton made "a blunder In lis estimates"
at the first. and had 10 change them
afterwards. and that this was the cause
Of the trouble. Investigation shows that
the board Officially estimated lis nnan.
cial requirements TO amount to the sum
OF 1852, 500, In order TO assist the Coun-
~ Commissioners IN dividing this sum
among the different sources OF revenue,
the Board Of Education named them so
as to show what would be needed from
each. The state tax was expected to
yield about s6S. 600; land sales about So
0OO the county tax 100000 leaving
about $4,000 to come from the city
tax. cost OF collection covering the dit
ference allowed. make up the total.
This estimate has not been changed
as to the necessities OF the Board Of
Education, nor the amounts required
from each source of revenue, But when
the County Commissioners made the
levy for the county school tax, they
concluded with the County SuperIn-
tendenD that the county would not
need as much money for schools as
would be raised by the tax rate asked
for by the City Board OF Education.
In reducing that rate, the amount for
the board would only reach s6i 1000 in
stead Of the 100000 expected.
The rate fixed for the city school tax
five and two-tenths mills, was found
by the commissioners TO be enough for
the sum expected from that source,
taking into consideration the increase
n property valuation. But this still
left deficiency Of about $4,000 In ut
amount expected from the county
school tax, That IL why the Board Of
Education asked for the increase Of the
city school tax levy to FIVE and half
mills, so as 10 help make up the DIFF.
ference.
The great point in view on the part
OF that board In the litigation on this
matter, was TO have determined the
respective rights OF the two boards in
fixing the tax rates for educational
purposes In the city. Members Of the
Board Of Education say they ala not
care so much for the settlement on the
extra three-tenths OF a mill rate. as on
the point here mentioned, Although
the court has not directly decided that
parti Of the controversy Il appears to
us that further litigation, Just now
would be unwise and unsatisfactory
The whole ease Is dismissed on demur.
rer, and SO fer as that IS concerned
there does not appear a ghost Of a
chance 10 get a change by appeal.
As 10 any hindrance In the collection
of taxes, no matter what other steps
may be taken by the Board OF Eduoa.
lion, we think our contemporaries are
Nlstakcn in supposlng there can now
be any estoppel. The notices viii be
sent out and the collection VIII go on,
whatever may be thought or done
about it, IL there Is anything lmpcr-
feet in the law as 20 the duties and
powers Of the two boards it will have
to be rectihed by legislation; and mean.
while the city board win have 10 man
age with the funds that win be avail
able under the present levy.
Il is pretty certain that notwIth.
standing the increase In property yalu.
alton, there viii be a shortage Of funds
for city school purposes Tor the com.
ing school year. The board, in making
its estimate, cut down expenses az
closely az possible, economizlns at ev-
cry corner Whats viii be done can.
not now b. decided on. The shortage
however comes clearly from the differ.
cnce in the amount anticipated from
.he county school tax which in round
figures VIII be about $50 900. The Board
OF Education need not have divided ur
the total required into the various
amounts specified. but did 80 for IN,
convenience OF the County Commission.
crs. II Is Pity that the deficiency oc-
ours but It cannot now be helped.
We may be pardoned. We hope for
making a suggestion TO the sensitive
members Of the school board, who We
believe are doing good work, and nat
urally feel touched when anything 4
said that seems TO reflect upon theii
acts. Il IS that It would be better
10 cultivate the county board rather
than get Into a dispute too readily
That body lie, no doubt Just as anxious