Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1907-12-31

be worded as follows "Shall the
University of Oregon annual appro-
prlation be raised from $47,5OO to
$125, 5,000?"
| The university people want the
, wording, Shall the annual appro-
priation of the University of Oregon,
as enacted at the last Legislature be
} placed at s125,000?"
Both contentious, of course, mear
exactly the same; but the wording
desired by the grangers j. muob more
: explicit. IL expresses exactly what
the act of the legislature has at
tempted to do; that Is to say, to Ia
crease the amount OF money appro.
prited continuously. and paid annual
ly. from $47 500 to s125.0OO The
university peoples contention Is not
explicit. lt does not inform The peo-
pie THAI the university now receives
. $47,5O0 from the state aud over $1O,-
900 from other sources each years.
The university people yant the ques-
tion as stated on tn, bellot that the
voter, who Is not posted, will sup
pose that the university will have no
financial support at all, unless the
S125,000 appropriation, TO be re-
pealed or changed. is allowed. No
other Interpretation can be given TO
the university contention than that
they expect to be benefited by de-
ceiylng the voter. In other words.
they want the appropriation and
want It badly, regardless as TO
whether II Is obtained by foul or faif
methods.
II makes quite a difference from
what viewpoint this appropriation
matter Is nsdered-whether you
wear the taxpayers or taxeaters spec
tacles. Senator Frank j. Miller OF
Albany states that the entire appro-
priation for the school years Of
19O4-5 was 100000 for each year;
and 70 rthe years 1905-6 and l906-7
II was $7S,75O for each year. The
senator cites these figures for the
purpose of showing that the increase
Is but a matter $4,000 per year, and
mo great sum after all. Senator
Miller neglects to state that special
appropriations were added TO the
continuous appropriation 90 produce
the sums above cited and without
other special appropriations, the
amount would fall back TO the con-
tinuous amount of S4750O per year.
The proposed s125. 900 Is to be con-
tlnuous, and unless repealed, would
be a perpetual tax upon the people.
Let NJ see just whatlit Is costing
the tax payers per student at th uni
yersity The average attendance OF
heretofore $50 students, would give
at cost per student f$175 to 5000
under the appropriations heretofore
made. Under the proposed increase,
the amount per student would be
1850. The university people are
padding the student rolls IN every
way possible to increase the number,
so that the cost per student Will not
appear so cut of reason to the tax
payers. But to compare the cost OF
a student at the state university with
tn cost of the public school student
makes a parallel that is not at all
pleasing to the taxpayer, To take
all of the expense of the public
school, buildings and all. and esti-
mate as extravagently as the .tacts
will allow, it will be found dim cult
to reach a cost of $50 per common
school student In the country dis
tricts. nor more than $100 for the
city public school student. To com
pei the taxpayers to pay seven times
the cost OF educating their own boys
and girls in the common schools, 10
educate somebody else's boy or girA
at the university is TO say the lie asst
negotiable and unjust.
The News believes in higher fedu-
cation and would be glad II every
boy and girl could be equippedi ior
the battle of life with an university
education. AS under present { onui-
tions this cannot be; IT is man 'iestly
unjust TO make the burden beaver
on 95 per cent of the people in order
that the other 5 per cent may ENJOY
the benefits thereof.
The graduate of the university
having been fitted for the o'a'tle Oh
life with the best edueatio'nal aa-
vantages, is able to command oev'eI ~
and more profitable position ; than
he, who must from fore ol .','ai az
stances. be content with WIN at 1ne
common school can giv5 NO 7 @ uOe'