Belt Valley times. [volume] (Armington, Mont.) 1894-1977, 1923-03-08

maids and blame them for all the agi
Itation?
Another point made by the editor
Iial is the old stock argument that the
prosperous farmer in one part of the
county should not help to educate the
children of the INDECENT homesteader
in another part Of the county. An
irate Rhode Island farmer once threat
ened the life of Henry Barnard if he
caught him advocating such heresy
as the partial confiscation Of one
mans property to educate another
mans child. This heresy is now an
accepted principle and is applied ev-
erywhere throughout the nation. An
occasional setback when it extended
to cover larger units Of territory is to
be expected. If we were to adopt the
principle that each locality should ed
ucate its own children, to be logical we
should go still further and insist that
each parent finance the education of
his children. Education is a public
function and it's support should come
from all the people in proportion to
their ability TO pay rather than ac-
cording to their geographical location.
County unit, according to this edi-
torial and according to nearly all Of
its critics, has raised taxes. This
statement is open to the easiest kind
of test for refutation. In 1918-1919,
the last school year under the district
system, there was expended for the
districts now included under county
unit the sum of 1884, 93s. $50; last year
county unit cost $l94,72s.33. This in
dicates an increased cost of about five
per cent-surely not a tremendous in
crease in these days of mounting costs
and not at all unreasonable when we
consider hat the total number Of days
attendance of school children increas-
ed during the same time over 10 per
cent.
Rising taxes the country over are
all of us concern. Since the
schools take a large share of the pub
lie revenue, their costs have been sub
ject to much criticism. The writer
Of the editorial in question showed
heat than light, however, in his
criticism of this phase of county unit.
Il anyone advocating county unit in
Cascade before its adoption was fool
sh enough to make the statement that
he levy would never be over seven
Mills, sensible people should have de-
the self-evident fact that to
the levy there, other conditions
hould remain about the same. What
vas meant probably was that county
would not be more costly than
he old district system, and if so, then
he tax would be about seven mills. :.
10 we all realize that all Of our taxes I
re higher by at least % per cent be- |
of the delinquent taxes? County |
nit special levy would not need to be I
lore than IL mills if everybody paid I
ieir taxes. Do we also realize that |
lie valuation of the rural districts
as gone down from $16,013,432 to
3,787, 224 since the adoption of coun-
unit.
With the last statement in the
ines the writer is in hearty accord,
Any system that has a tendency to
i've our rural population off the =
nd and into the cities is a menace :
the health and prosperity of the
The question is whether under
unity unit we can maintain rural
that will make people content
til rural life or whether under the
d district system we can do this
pre- successfully. Good schools are
nat we want and by their fruits we
all know them. II is significant
at in 1918 we had in the rural dis
cts of this county 139 eighth grade
aduates, while last year we had GAG.
it'll the statements in which the
tiers infers that villages like Cas-
lie, Simms and Fort Shaw are cities -
d that residence in them make pu- -
s and mothers -city-minded and dis
there can certainly be an
nest difference of opinion.
Signed
c. II. Scherf.