The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1913-08-16
Mr.. Richardson Fires Parting Shot.

Editor Coltar Chronicle.
As my article of last week against
the proposed school tax seems to have
to add few words.
No insinuation was intended that our
school funds had been diverted from
school purposes, nor that any one has
been guilty of misconduct in their dis
bursement, but / do assert that our
Superintendent financial report shows
that funds have been placed at the dis
posal of certain districts to such an ex-
tent that these districts appear insol-
vent. and if forced to pay these over
drafts, will be compelled to curtail ex-
penses or close down for a while alto
gether. Nor does said report show
where these funds came from. AS
matter of bookkeeping this report
should balance, /. e., the amount of
funds to the credit of districts together
with the amount of over drafts in the
other districts, must equal the amount
Of cash in the general fund, which it
fails to do by $50, 900 in round figures.
Now, do notice a card from Mr.. VIM
LaCrolx, calling on the Superintendent
for an apportionment. LII there has
been an unapportioned sum of $50, 900
carried 10y the superintendent, well
and good, but WHY?
AS to having argued this question in
circle, will now state my position
clearly and in few words.
First-I oppose Capitalization and
the consequent deterioration of country
schools, and verify believe that the pro-
position as presented will work toward
that end, whether so intended or not.
Second-I believe that our present
system is correct. BY it the equivalent
OF mills tax is apportioned per capt.
Ia, and if more funds are needed they
are had by the levying OF special tax.
1t has worked satisfactorily so far as
know, and believe it to be just and
equitable. Hold fast to that which is
good. The consolidation into District
81 will operate thus: The tax will be
levied on the whole of 81, and pro rat
ed, per capita, to the schools as they
existed prior to consolidation. This is
certainly clear and clean cut, and no
man can make any other Interpretation
of the ordinance, and is exactly what
oppose, for reasons stated in my first
letter and just above.
1t would take up too much of your
space to reply to your arguments in de-
tail Let my original argument and
yours stand or fall as they are. But
as to the economy of the election as
ordered, and as proposed by me, will
say that the only extra expense to be
occasioned by my proposal will be about
Sl00 for extra commissioners and clerks,
the extra publication of notices of cleo
ton, ETC. and would remark in pass
ing that up until quite recently quar-
ter column advertisement served to
bring the notice of an election before
our people and is yet serving in our
sister parish of Rapides. Q understand
that you publish copy as presented.)
Now, as to 80 to 80 per cent of this |
tax being paid by non-residents, etc,
this brings US to that vexed question of |
who does pay the taxes, and / will only |
call attention to the fact that only pro- |
whose hands turn the actual money
over-its origin is in the producer.
In conclusion, Mr.. Editor, | will say
that if the school board desires to re-
arrange this tax SO that the tax on the |
property be placed to the credit of the |
district in which same is located, | will
come down and support it, although in
so doing We violate one of our vested
rights, the right of '.squatter sovereign
ty."
Hoping that the epidermis you COM
plain of my removing has ere this re-
sumed its normal texture. and assuring
you that which you trimmed in turn
has ceased from troubling, have the
honor to be r. w. RICHARDSON,
IN. B.-Nephew Bob.)