The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-10-08
H0D APPROVED
BY COMMISSION.
ax officials Think Schools Would
q BE Benefited BY Mileage
System.
Bill OTHERS OBJECT
Are Not In Favor of Confusing
Interests Of Certain Institutions
and Fear Embarrassment.

The mlIlage school tax system as
proposesi Friday by Secretary Charles
1aAphis, of the Virginia Educational
& Gommission al the regular meeting et
4hat BODY, and which provides for
I 6prcial tax for all the schools and IN
3 &Gituticns Of learning In ,ne state ~
S6e derived from an assessment upon
8Xhe total State revenue, Is meeting
eSE3lh much favorable criticism, al
x8nA1xEh there are many who seem 70
s8&Mvof the old appropriation method
@SHeelAr3nr thai II the interests Of the
5rraNnan schools are confused with
Es&hef matters the educational system
E5k the State Is Liable To become en-
s&2xxAnsed through lack OF funds.
ii cpmmitee to look into the matter,
q nNfevor. has, been appointed This
SIGln4s OF DR.. Alderman. president OF
&& University VI Virginia; Speaker
M k1E1Snfd n. Byrd, Of the Virginia
Xli1e OF Delegates. and Secretary
H nUAie. OF the educational commits
4 &&, This confsuitee will report to
T. ~ board OF public instruction
q 601h the body which II represents
T. Gne time to be decided upon next
s& ~ most Important good 10 be de-
Viii enable th4 Institutions thus
1CEted n have a fixed policy which
u MN10 ~ In force for an indefinite
M6J&0s md to make iar-seeing and
II HlMns for future growth and
u 80 To quote the Maphs report;
T. uO0elstent educational policy can
r. N1Hxfed out without some degree ct
4nQence upon certain income.
1e1Sn0miniEtratiye officers of an In
III
f<4pAtion of the funds which can be
N1nAnded for use. IL they IRE to
zn Mlsely and economically"
Think Plan Good.
nM lax ts approved by the States
Os0cers who have examined the
rUF9. and Dr, Douglas =. Freeman.
fAc tax commission. who advised
&A III. Maphis in the preparation OF
feport. is firmly convinced of its
9lonl.
DE- Freeman said Saturday morn
Air. Marhis' plan s. In my judy
Mt the best that has Yet been
Nn&ht forward ar the proper main
MAnce OF our schools 10 insure Il
&yMAnent support 10 the schools il
Unnecessary thai the revenue devoted
their support be stable and that
be moi subject 10 fluctuations. No
SoaFGts III revenue meet THESE
keoretical and pra9ftcal demands as
XII as those which are to lie used
$At1er the constitution for the use OF
0r school system
Section las af the constitution
X Aach regulates this poiut In moi quite
6a<ar but Mr. Maphis has taken the
proper view IF the subject as see it.
kRe conferred on tho whole matter
Mn4 agreed that II would uat- LA -pae--
@&tble. under the provisions OF the
s5rganlc Law. to provide for the SUP
port OF the schools except by appro-
1Ftating a part of those revenue which
are specifically listed in the oonsti-
MUTTON as available Tor the schools
After Ia1a, when II Is proba ble
xhAt plan II partial tax separation
& Will become operative, the assembly
SGan make fiat annual appropriation
Tor public schools, hut at no time can
4 4he Assembly authorize the expendi-
furc OF q certain percentage Of the
( fetal revenue Of the State for schools
xIn such case. a mill tax. as proposed
4 by Mr.. Maphis, IL the only practicable
plan as II Is hi theory, likewise the
n most equitable.
II should not be supposed that this
I VIII mean great upheaVai in the
present method of appartioning school
'sIunus. II only requires the legal enact
fneht Of what has long been Gus
4 tom in the assembly The amount
4 proposed for the support of the
rchools. while 1t seems large is not
4 much more than our schools have
+ heretofore received.
The educational commission is
4 working In harmony with the tax
ssrommission and our recommendations
80 the next assembly viii In no sense
i conflict. SO far as We can see at pre-
4 rent Both commissions are working
4 Tor the same end-the sane and eeo-
numieal administration Of public
funds, equitably assessed -