The Wolf Point herald. (Wolf Point, Mont.) 1913-1940, 1926-10-28

cal Code. In other words, Their
has been no evidence of a 'scram
bile for money through Legislative
enactment"
Mr.. O'Shea grants that thu
equalization of the tax burden i
ga paramount ISSUE" but he sees
no guaranty whatever that thi:
five mill levy would be a substi
tute for other taxes, even though
he knows the companion measure
provides for just such equalization
in % limiting to SIX mills instead
of ten as at present. the levy
which trustees may place upon a
district and ~ by placing TIE
limit at twenty mills which the
residents cf a district may vote
upon themselves while now there
is no limit.
While granting the need of
equalization of the tax burden,
the sponsors CT the negative ar
eument assume that sll that is
needed is to lower special levies
70 twenty mills, and point out
that a fund Of $190.50O is all
that is required to do so. We
can not accept such inconsistency
as obtuseness; it is clearly anoth-
er effort to mislead the voter and
to induce him to believe that 49,
100000 annually is too large a
sum to use in the equalization of
the school tax load. Mr.. O'Shea
knows that most of this $780,
900 would be offset by reducing
the present 10-mill levy by Al
mills and by making it possible
for lev;es between IL mills and
20 mills to be materially lowered.
Anyone who stops to think forI
himself knows that special district
levies should be reduced as much
as possible below twenty mills and
that the unfair advantage of hav-
ing S137, 638.733 worth of proper
ty pay a special levy of less than
10 mills while a similar amount
pays in excess of II mills. should
be changed by some more uniform
method of taxation.
The impression is conveyed that
he figures given for school ex-
oenses in 1918 and 1924 should
discount the significance of the
report for 1918 and the
ater report for 1924. No elbow
is made in the negative ar
yument for the difference in the
purchasing power of a dollar for
two years. If costs of
.chools in Montana for 1920. or /;
921 are compared with those of
1924 or 1925, a marked decrease
S shown. But those figures
wouldn't have served the purpose
# Mr.. O'Shea and his committee.
The remainder of the report is
He'd with the same type of mis- >
tatements. For instance that =
he state of Washington limits its !
district levy 30 IT mills is not +,
rue. The limit is 20 mills, the :
anne as proposed for Montana. ;
he unfairness of comparing !
osts of 1919 and 1921 in Wash +
.gtton again makes no allowance 8
the inadequacy of her school
.rogrsm in 1919 nor of the re- :
alive value of the dollar. ,
The fears, imaginings, suppose J
ions. and absurd conclusions =
lead one to suppose that j
Iontana was the first state in the .
Tnion to attempt in this way to
qualize its school costs. AS a
of fact Montana is tagging :
ar behind most of her neighbour )
10 states in the matter eff stste
import for schools; fourteen
have materially increased
leir state support since 1918.
the same time Montana
as dropped from first rank to
lirtieth, while California has :
Ioved from second place to first,
.evada from fifteenth to second, D
nd New York from twelfth place
third. If Mr.. O'Shea and his
dvisors wanted to be fair in com
expenditures in 1918 with +
924, why did they not tell the
2ters that Montana dropped from
rst place or expenditures per
hid of school age in 1918 to
Sd place in 1924? :
THE appeal of the whole mega
We argument is to ec3rolry, but
II whom? Not for those living
local districts where taxes F
ould be materially reduced by
iese measures, nor for Montan9
a whole. IF II were. the au- =
iors could not be Indifferent to
e purposes of these measures,
amely: ~ To lift the load from
pa, 900, 900, now excessively
xed, and place it upon the state F.
a whole. thus requiring over
37,00O.O 900 worth Of properly
1t now bearing its just share, to
carry the load tower S18,-
1000 of this now has no special :
Wy at ally. The balance of the r.