The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1920-10-25
ARGUMENT AGAINST THE ADOP.
TION OF STATE QUESTION
NO. 100.
INITIATIVE PETITION NO. ~.

For the purpose OF maintain
| ing the Common Schools of this
] State, the State Board OF Equali-
zation shall, each year, levy on an
ad vslorem basis. a tax not less
than six mills and not more than
ten mills. upon all taxable prop
| erty within the State not exempt
from taxation as public, church
| charity or fraternal property"
The asp'ssed value OF property &C.
tually taxed advalorem for the cur
rent year Is ti,664.745. Six mills
cine minimumD applied to this
The serious--the insurmountable
| objection 10 this amendment Is to be
| found In the first five words OF the
second paragraph. Until otherwise
provided by law" This money, raised
! by uniform tax upon all taxable
| properly, IL to be "apportioned and
| distributed as ather common
school funds" until otherwise pro-
viGed by aw"--that is, until the
legislature meets. Under this
amendment the Legislature will have
absolute power to use any portion OF
| this money FOR any purpose which
they may deem helpful to the COM
mon schools
/
lature would have the power to APP
propriate, set aside and segregete a
sufficient amount from this "com-
mon fund" to establish a Lecture
bureau in each county In the State
with chief lecturer and three as
sistancc, or nine assistants, or nine
teen assistants. whose duty II would
be to visi. each common school
once month. once a week. or
twice a day, and lecture the chill
dren upon why the CRASH opper
does not sing like the katydid. ="
or Where did white mice orig
mate No, the Legislature probably
would not do that but they couid.
The Legislature could appropriate q
enough Of this fund to establish u
training school for lecturers. with
an auditorium and Billy sunday
sounding board. They could build
one, seven, thirteen 60 seventy seven
such training schools--as many as
I'm their judgment" the good of the
comon schools demanded" with dor
mitories for the lecturers to live In.
No, they probably would not do that:
at least not to begin with.
| What woud they do? We shall
nor undertake TO answer, nor do we
believe that ANYBODY else can an
|
would do until he has encountered
the swarm of lobbyists who would
tutter around every legislative ses-
sion with an unending assortment
OF 'uplift schemes" Everything
would be suggested, from n travel
Ing dish washer TO a poultry farm at
each school. Sure, some OF these
suggestions would be good-they
would be just grand. How many OF
these suggestions .he Legislature
would adopt, and which ones, no.
body knows.
How long. do you think, would
this fund he 'apportioned and dis
tributed as other common school
fundsg No persons Imagination
can conceive of all the things that
would be suggested as helpful to
the common schools and for which
appropriations woud be urged from
this fund. No one person can pro-
phesy with any degree OF accuracy
as to what portion of this common
fund" would be appropriated for
trying out pet schemes and fads. 1t
Is not only possible. but probable,
that legislation would be promptly
sought designed to deprive the local
school boards OF practically all au-
thority other than the making OF
acquisitions and approving claims.
1t is well known that some Of our
leading educators believe that local
school boards should be relieved of
control over their district school and
the authority concentrated in the
County and State Superintendent.
When the funds are apportioned out
from central point ''as provided by
law 1t will be much easier to con-
| centrate control. This point is well
worth considering.
This immense fund, which is held
out so atGactively before us, Is not
provided by the fairies. but as a di.
rect tax upon all taxable property
not exempt as public. church, char
ity or fraternal."
Are we ready to contribute annu-
ally Ten to fifteen million dollars to
be used for common school purposes.
as the Legislature may provide?
Let not the public be soothed 70
rest with the suggestion that veal
thy districts and wealthy centers"
are 10 contribute large portion OF
this fund.
| Applying the minimum levy (six
mills) to the property OF Cimarron
County-now paying advalorem tax
ss.2Sl, ,l70--we find that Ciniarron
County would contribute $55,627 to
this fund. The 1857 school children
In Cimarron County could not hone
to secure one-third of this amount
as their per capita.
| The second county In the state I'm
per capita wealth, as shown by the
adValorem tax rolls, Is Grant. The
minimum levy In Grant County
would produce s187,O00. Grant
County's apportionment for her g..
z5s children would be less than half
or this sum, Fifteen counties nav
more advalorem tax per capita than
does Tulsa County. Among these are
Texas, kingfisher and Woodward
There Is not an oil producing
county in the State that paws as
much advalorem tax per capita as
Cimarron, Grant or Alfalfa. Woods
county pays more per capita than
Washington. PayHe County pays
more per capita than Okklahoma.
1t will be interesting to look up
Just where the wealthy centers"
are when 1t comes to paying ad.
vaIorem tax.
The farmer has "A hard time keen
ing help on the farm now. This
amendment says. In effect to the
farmers helper. Come on into
town and educate your children, we
VIII tax the farm to pay for their
education even though you have
moved away from H." The tenden.