Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

eGA 4coc "Best College Newspaper in South Carolina" Member of South Carolina College Press Association Published Weekly by the Various Literary Societies Terms--$1.50 a Year Entered at the Columbia, South Carolina Postoffice on November 20, 1908, as Second-Class Mail Matter NEWS STAFF W. L. T. CROCKER...................Editor-in-Chief J. V. NIELsEN, JR..................Associate Editor W. O. VARN ....................... Associate Editor -I. S. KING...........................Sports Editor Miss ORA MAs JACKSON.............Co-Ed Editor ISADORE POLIER.....................Editorial Policy FEATURE WRITERS Robert Ingram, Fred Minshall, Jimmy Baldwin and Thelma Lee Horger REPORTERS W. J. Thomas, Harold Hentz, O. L. Warr, W. A. Brunson, H. S. Heyman, E. W. LeGette, Elizabeth Lindsay, Elizabeth Hardy, Catherine Phillips and Virginia Doar N>ws ITEs may be handed in to members of the staff, or phoned to editorial rooms at 907 South Mair Street, Phone number 4109, between the hours of 3 to 6 p.m. on Wednesday, and 10 to 11 a.m. of 2:30 to 5 p.m. on Thursdays. BUSINESS STAFF C. W . ScoTT -...--........................Managr J. R. PAT* ...............................Assistani R. B. HILDEBRAND ........................gAssistani SAM READY ............................Circulatio FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1926 Y our A nswer, Mr. Sellers ! We are still wondering what Mr. B. B. Sellers, self styled "small potato" in his letter to the editor of The State of Feb ruary 6th, found in the annual report of Dr. W. D. Melton to the legislature of South Carolina that might be termed "the most astounding statement on the tax question that I have ever read." L 'e are tempted to chance the statement that Mr. Sellers' study of the problem of taxation in South Carolina, or any other state, has been con fined to the political harangu-s that obscure any scientific approach to this all-important subject. How much foundation is there in Mr. Seller's severe criticism: how much that is compatible with sound economics of ,state government. We shall see. ,Says Mr. Sellers, "For a man of Dr. Mel 'ton's supposed intelligence to boldly pro 'claim that the way to pull South Carolina out of the mire wvas to further add to her aliready greviou sly over-burdened people, is a monstrosity that staggers my imagina tion." Granted that the gentleman's imagi nation is "staggered," the question of sound taxation will be solved neither by Mr. Sel lers' imagination or any one else's, but by an intelligent anel co-operating legislature that gives proper wveight to scientific inves tigation. Lay asidle such erroneous generalizations as "greviously over-burdened people." Let us examine the actual conditions. The total tax burden of South Carolina is $14.50 per inhabitant. Only two states have less. But Mr. Sellers attack is aimed chiefly at the state governnment: of wvhich the total cost is $5.47 per capita, and further the total property tax burden is $1.54 per capita for the state government. Lower figures are found for the former in only four states and for the latter in fnye states. We see the fearful mist of bankruptcy conjured by Mr. Sellers fast fading before the light of fact. A few more figures will not be unwelcome before we shatter the gentleman's "imagination" entirely. Only seven states have a smaller bonded indebt edness than the South Carolina figure at $2.96 per capita, and South Carolina is one of the eight states~ that have experienced a decrease in net bonded debt during the past nine years. The per capita wealth of South Carolina is taxed at $1.02 per $100. Six states show a lower burden. Those are the facts. An over-burdening of the people from justifiable improvements of the state institutions can be the result only of unsound bases of taxation. Those demagogues who harken back twenty years to obtain the correct estimates of the taxes have succeeded thus far n hindering South Carolina progress to the extent that her educational facilities are twenty years be hind the times. We are witnessing another song to the same old tune, "It was good enough for my fathers and it is good enough for me." We have no reason to question whether the tax system of twenty year or raore age was a wise one, but we are confronted by the distressing inadequacies of the tax pro gram of the last five years-and will suffer until an adjustment is made. South Caro lina has the potential wealth to insure her citizens adequate institutions. The problem will never be solved as long as the reports of able committees are made a football for legislators whose chief concern is re-elec tion to office-that type of politician has an ear to the ground. Every rumble of a con stituent, be he an ignoramus or otherwise, is heeded carefully-with scant regard to what is best for the state of South Carolina. We agree with Mr. Sellers that any tnaterial development of our educational institutions must await the enactment of tax laws that are equitable. Mr. Sellers, however, overlooks the fact that the presi dent of the University of South Carolina made his report to a legislature expressly assembled for the purpose of enacting such tax laws as are necessary to insure a just distribution of taxation. To that body Dr. Melton stated the position of the University, its work and the limitations imposed by in adequate finances. He showed further South Carolina's comparative standing with the other states. Mr. Sellers has resorted to the cheapest kind of mechanics in referring to the report by stating that "there are three kinds of lies: Plain lies, d-.- lies, and statistical.' We beg of the gentleman a more logical answer to the problems put before the state legislature by Dr. Melton. We can find no place in Dr. Melton's report that offers education as a panacea for the economic ills of South Carolina-the physicians for those ills must be had at once. We have them in the committees of experts that have examined South Carolina's financial consti tution. Their report is in the hands of the legislators. Upon them devolves the respon sibility of the future tax programs of this state. Dr. Melton is an educator-it is his place to show the state of South Carolina the bar riers that she is erecting to the education of her citizens. Neither Mr. Sellers nor any other citizen of the state can point out any item other than bare necessities asked by the p)resident of the University. Dr. Melton has long been versedl in the financial condi tions of the state, and his requests have not been for what the University needs to as sume its proper role in South Carolina edui cation but only for enough to continuw the University in its present status. How wvould Mr. Sellers or any one else provide for the accomimodlation of 1,300 stu dents on less than twvice the appropriation, given the University wvhen the student body numbered 600. Should we heed the critic's suggestion that "every man do his little toward his children's education"-and con sequently destroy the greatest gift of the state of South Carolina to her citizens equal educational opportunities. T he pooi man would be the loser-his children would go uneducatedl. We need, Mr. Sellers, no Isuch propositions, even tunder the present tax system-in which we soundly recem miendl a revision.. Mr. Sellers fears that there is a "com munistic" tinge is the doctrine that every child has an inherent right to "apprporinte as much of another man's property as is necessary to give him nine month's school ing." Mr. Sellers' fears are founded on an entirely inadequate idea of the de'nocratic principles that have guided the state and federal governments since their inception. And' there is no use to explain "red" to a person that is color blind. Much more space might be devoted to the many questions raised by Mr. Sellers. We have chosen to answer his letter because it was typical of the blind objections to in creased appropriations to any of the state institutions. If we have confined our treat ment to the problems of the University, it is because we are more familiiar with those facts. There are sound objections to all plans-though they may not be of sufficient weight to change the decision-but South Carolina has had too much of politics and too little of economics in her administra tions. While we are house-cleaning we see no reason to cause the state institutions to fall further to the rear because small minds are unable to see more than one phase of South Carolina's needs. - u.s.c. - The Forum Cut It Out ! EDITOR OF THE GAMECOCK: If your columns ar open to communications from alumni, I would like to impose on your good nature for just a line or two, to call attention to something that might be corrected and put Carolina in, a better light. It is my love for Carolina that causes me to write this letter to The Gamecock. I am glad to see that the Columbia papers have not touched on it, for it might be misunderstood, but I take it that The Gamecock is a little family p 'per and that here we may discuss things "among us girls and boys," that will be understood and possibly bring about the improvement that I would suggest. It is the sportsmanship of the Carolina students toward visiting athletics. I am glad to see Game cock spirit aroused. It is a great pleasure to see the students aroused and showing "pep." Sometimes I think that there may be even more of this "pep" and enthusiasm of the right kind. However, I have been a bit chagrined several times recently in hearing Carolina supporters, who are not Garnet and Black alumni, remark about the "booing" that the Carolina students sometime show the ipposing players. This is not a general practice, and it may be hard to keep such a large student body free from such tactics. Yet it does not sound good to the fans. I have noticed on one or two occasions in basketball that some of the students are inclined to "kid" an opposing player when he is shooting a foul goal. I have also noticed a ten dency to "boo" the officials in football and basket ball games and, on the part of some, to set up a moan when the Gamecocks are trailing in the scor ing. -AN ALUMNUS. - U.s.c. - The Editor Agrees In The Forum, there appears a letter commenting on the sportsmanship. or lack of it, showvn at the basketball games on the floor of the gymnasium. The letter was received by the editor just after the last issue of the first term went to press. But the remarks of this alumnus of the University are not less timely now. It is unfortunate that half a dos.en students are such pikers and enjoy hooting the referee to such an extent that the galleries receive the impression that all University men are poor losers, or wvorse, poor winners. Not a little of the "booing" referred to in the communictaion is due to outsiders who have paid to see the game. Thei alumnus who addressed his letter to The Gamnecock is one of the best known sports followers in the state. His indictments are sincere and they should be taken as such. His communication has resulted in this lengthy editorial comment because every basketball game is a barometer of the student body. And that barometer is watched by the people who attend the game, and by the people who read the accounts in the newspapers. Sports writers of the city have had occasion this wveek to comment favorably on the spirit shown at the games. In a large measure this praise is deserv ed-in the sense that the students have backed the team, win or lose. But the same die-hards have hadl their flings at the referee and occasiomally at mem bers of the opposing team. Mention of this fact in the papers would more than wipe out the effect of the favorable comments. TIhe University is a big school-but it isn't big enough to have room for the type of men to whom this article is devoted. We suggest that they be appraised of this fact whenever they display their usual lack of sportsmanship. It would not require long to wipe out this practice, and if we lost half a dozen students in the process, we would be ridding nourselve of liabilitie Y.M.C.A BARBER SHOP EXCELLENT WORK REASONABLE PRICES L. M. MCCARTY, Prop. Your Patronage Appreciated "The House of Quality" Established in 1844 THE R. L. BRYAN COMPANY Books, Stationery. Printing, Bind ing, Office Furniture. & Specialties Columbia. South Carolina This Is To Invite You to The Rose Mary 1218 Washington Street Breakfast-Seven-thirty to Ten Lunch-Twelve to Four Dinner and Supper-Five to Eight-thirty Every Delicacy of the Season A Warm Welcome Always SANITARY CAFE 1345 Main Street SAVOY CAFE KNOWN FOR QUALITY Open Day and Night Polite Attention 1327 Main St. Columbia, S. C. SYLVAN BROS. Jewelers and Diamond Merchants Class Rings and Pins Always in Stock or Gladly Made Up 1500 Main St. Columbia, S. C. Wingfield's Drug Store 1443 Main Street