The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1926-08-20
ASIXTY MILLION
DOLLAR FRAUD

Assuming a normal increase in tax
able wealth, if the proposed five mill
state levy becomes law, during the
next 20 years the people of Montana
will be called upon for additional tax
es in the staggering sum of more
than sixty million dollars. The boost
ers fer this outrage have just favored
me with a marked copy of Montana
Education, of which Miss Trumper is
an editor, in which the state superin-
tendent has this to offer on behalf of
the California distribution methods:
"The California; laws governing
the apportionment of school funds
were framed with the sincere purpose
of euualizing educational oppOrtun
ity by lifting the crushing weight of
poverty from the schools that were
rich in children and poor in money.
AS a rule, pOpulous centres have
large average wealth per child, and
sparsely inhabited areas have small
average wealth per child. The appcr-
tiOnment law for the elementary
schools was framed with that general
rule as its controlling factor"
Needless to say, this assertion that
the centres of population have large
per capita wealth, while as a rule the
thinly settled areas have small per
capita wealth, is a contradiction of
all the facts. 1t bellies the known
truth for every county in Montana, as
we'll as for every county in CalifOrn-
la. 1t is made with the deliberate
purpose of woodworking farmers into
the belief that school taxes are paid
in the cities and expended in the rural
schools. Moreover, it is self evident
that any scheme of school fund APP
portionment with this glazing untruth
as its controlling factor is nothing but
deliberate fraud on the rural
people.
The cities of Montana have taxable
wealth varying from $500 up to a few
thousand per census child; the far
flung rural areas of the state have
several times as much. For example
Golden Valley county has $4,000,
Mineral $1,000 and Meagher S7,298
per census child; but neither of the
cities of Red Lodge, MissOula and
Anaconda have only $500, $1,700 and
$4,000 respectively.
Side by side with the above men
toned article, there is another mark
ed contribution, in which attention is
called to these conspicuous differ
ences in taxable valuation, and in
which it is explicitly asserted that
such differences are of necessity re.
produced in like inequalities in the
opportunity for equal education. That
is to say, the chances fer equal edu.
cation must be about ten times better
In the rural schools of Meagher coun-
ty than they are in the city schools
of Red Lodge.
But are we, like stupid sheep, t.
follow the lead of Miss Trumper by
jumping to such ridiculous conclu
siOns? Certainly not. Such absurd
conclusions merely represent the des
perate efforts of the state superin.
tendent to justify the taxation of the
farmers for the enrichment of city
Scholastic ultimate purpose of he1
five mill levy.
AS just observed, the taxable wealth
of the city of Anaconda is $4,000 pei
school census child. But the officia
records which Miss Trumper stoutly
refuses to divulge show that Anacon
da, with enc of the very best urbar
school systems in the state, employ.
only one teacher for every 90 censu.
children; but in the five counties O.
Lewis and Clark, Gallatin, Parl
and Saltwater there are over 100 out
lying rural districts that must emplo,
one teacher for every nine census
children. In these typical rural area!
the average per capita expense o.
equal education measured in term.
OF teacher-cOst alone) is more thai
10 times greater than it is in Ana
conda. At the same time the av
erage taxable wealth for these rura
districts is only $4,000; while tht
taxable wealth back of every teachins
position in the city of Anaconda is il
excess of $207,0 00-that is, more thar
five times as much. In other words
while the ratio of taxable wealth t,
census children may be THREE time
greater IN such rural districts than /
1t IN Anaconda, the actual per capi
ia expense of equal education is NOR
than TEN times greater.
Putting the same case another Wav
~ mill levy in the Anaconda schoo
district would return an annual schoo
fund of $4,000 per teacher unit: bu
a ~ mill levy for each eff these need
rural districts would yield only $500
But this is not even half the stor,
Inns year, IN the way of county an
state appointments, Anaconda is re
celylng approximately $25 per censu
child over $4,000 per teaching posi
ton; but from the same source on
needy One-teacher rural districts ar
receiving approximately 1925 each
Apportioned in the same way. the fiv
mill levy would give Anaconda ST.
344 per teacher unit, while the sam,
deserving rural districts would b.
turned away with barely S126 each.
Thus the aggregate annual schco
fund for the city of Anaconda woul,
then mount to 1884 per teachin,
position, while the same fund 70.
each of these typical rural district
would shrivel away to the insignifi
cant sum Of S1,151.
But if the five mill fund were f.
De divided upon the teacher basis in
stead OF the census basis, Anacond;
would still command a maximum an
nqal fund of S6,83O per teacher unit
while our hard-pressed rural school
must be satisfied with only S1,375. Il
other words, after burdening them
selves with the maximal district lev,
OF 20 mills, and after receiving ever
cent of county and state apportio1
ment allowed by law, in these 1OI
needy rural districts it would still re
quire a special levy Of 12O mills OF
all their taxable wealth in order t,
bring their school funds up to tn,