FOR THE ESoUlRER.
{"character_count": 1360, "word_count": 246, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9718999862670898], "ccnet_perplexity": [1674.300048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 T'RE PooR.-It is generally admitted that while we feed poor mans family, we should educate his chi dren. Education being of'he neeessares of fife, almost every one is willing bear his proportion tn giving poor child such education as iis cisea@- ssaaces require. Ia soMe school districts, h is the practice not io make any charge against poor man for :he tuition of his children. Ths ought to bc the practice in every dStrics, far as to exempt those who, rom age sickness. are unable to pay school tax.

 But wib this practice, there is another connected, which is not commendabe, bot unjus, and oppressive. Thoss who ars barely able to support themselves or educate their children are oea obliged cs1trbyse mach more towards educating their poor RsighheTs childrsa aban the rich and wealthy. To ilussraa the case. we wfll ssppose tat 4. sends four schola district school, B. sends bat ose, aad c. poor unable to pay for the instruction o his chfsn sends his schelars. In making the school bill, C.s seho ars are left out of the eompuasOnand the expenses of the school are proporsioDed between A. & B. s ihe ratio of 3 to l. IA. and 3. have the came amonn. os property. it would be u3us. 10 make A. pay thrse times as much as B. But A. be poor man, and B.. rich one, bseOmsS oppression. Cases of this kiod are frequent In some districts t has been prsclised