Arizona republican., 1921-08-05
An upeon.id.r.d con..qu.ne.


 We do not know whether the gentlemen from this county who demanding horizontal sweep ing cut of the appropriations made by the legsla- have thought of it not but if their demands should met, there is cut which would add to the tax burden of the people of this county We speaking of the proposed reduction of the state school fund In adverting to this not trying awaken sectionalism. We merely speaking of the disadvantage this well the other asricu turaI counties resulting from any reduction of the school fund.
 For some years the sentiment in favor of state school fund has been steadily progressing against opposition from the mining counties whose great taxable wealth dsproportionate to the number of their school children. They demanded that each county should bear it's own burden of educating its youth. The modern notion, however, that providing the business of the whole rather than that of communities. of which weak and unable to make adequate provision, slowly pre- vailed until to the last legislative session the state paying to the fund SIS per capita count ing every chtd of school age.
 Under the present law the states contribution is se5 per capita but the the attendance of children school The principle though is un- changed
 Under the law previous to the present the countiea of Marcopa, Yuma, Graham. Pima. Apache, Navajos coconino and Santa crus drew from the fund than they put into it. The counties of Cochise. Gila GreenIee. Pinai, Yavapai and Mohave contributed more than they drew In the cases of Of the counties dissrence was not great on either But in the counties of Maricopa Graham and Yuma there considerable margin in favor of the counties. Marcopa received something in cess of s1oo.ooo above what it contributed.
 How much it's excess is under the present law have not calculated Though the per capita is $7 more the bass of apportionment the average atten- dance instead of the number of pupils age is different Whether that difference would be for against say. but we think that our ratio of attendance to number of pupils would be at least great in any other county. guess rather than calculation places our gain under the present law at s125.ooo.
 Any detraction from the state school fund throws proportonate burden back upon the agricultural counties. and Hghtens the burden of the mining counties So if the whole state school fund should be wiped out, it would fall to Maricopa county to raise sl15o0o by the taxation of citizens. Or if the state school fund should by whatever per centsge. would have to make up by local taxation the into share of the state fund it stands now. for just much money will be required for our schools. We may roughly place our additional tax rate to make such deficiency at cents on each s1oo less whatever for the fund
 These figures sufficiently accurate to make plain that any reduction of the state fund is dsad- vantageous
 And of one thing we sure. that if there should be special session of the legislature and the state school fund should be successfully attacked and it would be attacked. successfully not for it is of the two big the reductionists aiming-the rate of taxation for county would be increased in consequence by more than 1t could possibly be lowered by the reduction of any other appropriations The other big item, the road fund is already beyond the the legislature how disposed it might be cut it. There is nothing within reach of the knife the appropriations for the various departments and institutions
 1t may be argued that we could get along with less money for the schools. The Republican fre- quently conveyed the belief that much of the money for the schools is wasted; by which we meant that ii not expended to secure the greatest eff ciency. We finding fault the system rather with prodigality of appropriation for the schools The system remains and it would flourish however meager the appropriation.
 Save He An.i