New Britain herald., 1923-04-03

, legally lay. The time has now com
 when municipal needs have becom
 so extensive and numerous and muni
 cipal expenses, particularly school ex
 penses have become so burdcnsom
 that relief must be provided by mean
 either of q eurtaiiment Of expendi
 lures and impairment of service O
 by means of a different distribution
 of the burdens of taxation between
 the state and the local communitie
 or by providing new sources of rev
 enue for the state or the municipali
 ties or for both.
 | Permit me to elaborate further
 the foregoing statement. Under ouI
 government as now constituted, tht
 control and support of education i.
 primarily n function of the state and
 secondarily function of the town oI
 city so far as 1t has been delegated
 by the state to the town or city or
 school district. This principle oi
 state control and support has always
 been recognized by the state and the municipalities through a certain de- gree of state support and control of schools and has repeatedly been sus. tained by decisions of the courts It Is hardly necessary to call attention to tho fact that we are all first of all, citizens of Connecticut, regardless of the particular town or city in which We live, and to the further fact that education must necessarily be a con- cern and responsibility of the state as a means for the adequate training of the youth of the state for the duties and responsibilities of citizen- ship.
 Here then we have condition which provides for joint control of education by both the state and ,he municipality or school district, the authority of the state being original, primary and paramount. But what about the support of schools? These are the facts. During the past year, less than per cent of the total cost for school maintenance in Connecticut has been borne by the state and all of the remainder, 32 per cent, has been borne by the municipalities and raised by means of the general property tax.
 Admitting the fundamental right of the state to control in matters of I submit that the state is bearing too small share in the cost therefor. And this situation seems all the more negotiable and unjust when we consider that the state of Conaec- ticut which can employ any and all forms of taxation for the raising of | revenues except such as are reserved l 70 the federal government, i.e., duties on tonnage and imports and exports, s paying less than one dollar out of every 16 for the support of schools in New Britain, while New Britain is re- 'tricted by law to the general pro- ,erty tax for the raising of the other Is dollars.
 If education is a concern and re- sponsibility of the state, and if it is in order to insure an intelli- yent citizenship and protection for fife and property, then it would seem o be fair to conclude that the burden 'f taxation for education should be airly distributed and borne equally 'y each dollar of taxable values in he state, whether it be in the form of property, incomes, inherit ,nces, gasoline sales. bank stocks, in- ustrial stocks or other values.
 The facts, however, as may be 'lainly seen, show that practically II the burden Is borne by the gen. ral property tax. No wonder that here is general complaint of exces- i've taxation for school purposes and by the man whose sole possession is a modest home which he