The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-04-04
AnaOne.n Letter.

DR.: Edwin v Herman:
Sir in FIJI sypatlg With
Richmond address viii be productive OF
great good to- the cause. You strike the
will be required to carry out these. re-
forms. y on said 1t must be raised by To-
cal taxation. but would this alone be
call Your attention and through you. the
movement 10 the, following comparison.
othep sections Sof Virginia: Standing on
the! heights Of Lynchburg, one looks over
a thriving and wealthy city. It's assessed
values "a ne \, tA4ditor,s Report 1902 are ST.
6. fs5 lReport, 1929 II expends for pub
lio8educatio s43 oaa IS or Sc. IS per- capita
Of school opulatio9m.: ! The average pay pay
3schooltterm is sten months. It's total OK
penditures for schools is BAT mills.io IS
assessed va luation.. It Is reputcd sto, haze
State. From tlie same cminence. one
turns tonlook across the river oy era wide
seXpanseH Of. Door land, dotted. here and
hers county Us assessed valuation is
s197s, 10000. It ias n school 5popilntion Of
( 8, 073: ~ lt3expends forS,public educa ton
81, 435. 32 orts2a,G per canitaso Of school pop
ers is pTT scRoo
IS 5.27 gmonthss It's ttota, expenditure for
schools is S.&l5t MUS on JUS GusScSsel1Nd
alton. It's schools arc poor and many OF
Its people are Suneducatcd. Z.
q The above comparison, made from the
latest reports at &hand, 1oes-<not fully
represent the present condition. Lynch
burg has Increased It's wealth p per
cent since the. above assessment was
made, while Amherst acountyah hs not
+ mis- Isht would Would make the disparity stili
greater. "A further analysis Of the maj t.
ter reveals the, fact that IN the amount y n1J
sredted TO Amherst Is az fro ssS
ment Of an estates The local tax amount
"a 5000 aEp1yt 9sa y tax 39,lis
it Would siS d. only add $500 to the county
school S.fund. or 81 cents per capita OF
school popnla IN other. words, th !,
utmost The PrncPlte w4a
p pend, OF + NJ While Lynchburg would
have school y xrate Of 3s7 = - NJ
giving the country n boy. an equal oppor-
tunity with TIE tcawn boy?
To advise poir county dstrets t. ;o,, edn
ike ike advising ldys ns' drowning man save
himself by. swimming; 5, Would IT not Z, be
more practical to pitch him z plank? The 7 !,
fast a stesss wt mao
proof that 1t would give salts factory ro-
suits in Virginia. The conditions are r,
the wea state wo aTy wH
lit .t difference whether tho tax was 10
e.ll' or general: IN Virginia, the wealth
i largely c91bestSsd 1hq ner egsn
of the school population have nearly
half OF the wealth Of the State. Thus
the burden OF educating clghty-seyen per
cent Of the school population Is left
upon the counties 'of the state which
have aomethingg, more than. half the
wealth The case q isS even worse Il han
this would show, because much of this
wealth Is in rich counties. leaving q
large number of poor counties that, I'M
der the constitutional Limitation on tho
tax rate are unable to get the money
to educate their children. The local tax
remedy is inadequate TO meet nc needs
of the case, Would y not he better 70
commit ourselves. to the principle thnt
tho property of the state shall educate
de children q the state2 There IRE L t, no
APPROXIMATIONS should be increased until
tunity TO acquiresa primary g, sducnt ion;
where the wealth Is and distribute it &C
cordIng to school populat tom.
The movement In May would furnish q
most excellent opportunity FOR, arousing
the public mind to the necessity OF IN
,crcaslng both local taxation. nnd state
appropriations for primary schools, and
i respectfully suggest thnt tho leadera
of tho movement consider tho adHlsa-
hilty of doing so.
Is. With assurances OF esteem. am. dear
III Yours very respectf 4 y,,t1o,, / :