Arizona weekly citizen. [volume] (Tucson, Ariz) 1880-1901, 1891-10-03
The State Makers Give it
Daa Discussion.
TAKES SATURDAY ENTIRE.
Smith, Barnes, Hereford and Her
ing Have their Say.
Brave Measures Proposed that the
Strong Favor OF Congress may be
Obtained,

mlttee of the whole continued
its session on the revenue and tag
alton bill. Barnes resumed his argu-
ment in favor Of a sinking fund tax. one
mill for the territorial and one mill for
county indebtedness. The states, he
said. which had adopted this plan now
enjoyed high credit; those states neg-
lecting it were in poor credit. No en-
barrassment bad ever been reported in
taking care of the sinking und by prop
er investment. 1t mad cost this terri
tory % per cent or more extra because
it's bonds and warrants had TO be shaw
ed to that extent. Without provision
for its indebtedness by sinking fund,
we. must 60 on paying that extra per
centsge.
Rowe said in his experience the inter-
ference of the legislature in county I'm
ance had always made trouble. A uni
form road tax OF 80 cents had resulted
in extravaganza in Yuma and s21, COO
was tied up in the school found. He
did not want 10 sell the 50-year funding
bonds until We became state. as then
We could get better price. Under a
sinking fund we would tie up ultimately
over six millions of dollars. without get
ting any benefit. However, he would
only oppose uniform sinking fund for
counties, the conditions in each being
so different.
Hereford suggested an amendment
exempting from sinking fund tax these
counties whose debt was already pro-
vided for by funding bonds. This was
to meet the objections OF Yavapai coun-
ty. Alexander supported a sinking
fund.
Herring endorsed Barnes statements
and said a brave action OF this kind, in
meeting our indebtedness, would COM
mend the proposed constitution very
strongly to congress. He suggested
amendments covering the sinking fund
tax, when collected, into the state
treasury. and discOutin uing the tax
when there was enough paid in to dis
charge the debt. Barnes assepted to
this. Herring then moved further
amendment giving the legislature au-
thority to invest the sinking fund. Car
ried.
Smith explained the present propos.
ed territorial funding bonds, claiming
they were redeemable in ten years, and
actually payable in twenty. Provision
is therefore more necessary to meet
them than if they ran 80 years. He
would have no more pressing QUESTION
to answer in Washington than this one:
What provision had Arizona made for
paying her Indebtedness?
Rowe asserted there was no objection
TO territorial sinking fund. Creating
one for counties was What he objected
to. In reply to Rowe's question, Her
ring said he had advised as attorney
general that the proposed territorial
funding bonds coul1 not under the 10th
legislatures act. be redeemed under
30 years, without the bondholders' con-
sent.
Williams joined Rowe in opposing a
county sinking fund. Too large q sum
would be accumulated and provisions
were already in force to take care of
county and municipal debts. Herring
suggested, however, that there vas no
safeguard against population without
a constitutional article as proposed by
Judge Barnes.
Barnes SAID the omission to provide a
sinking fund in 1880 had precipitated
the panic of 1887. that took 20 years to
recover from it. Barring Bros. the bank
ers. had gone dowL under loss Of 105
millions lately because Buenos Ayres
had no sinking fund, Every prudent
business man laid aside some part of his
profits to meet his future accruing
debts. A sinking fund gives credit and
financial stability. The fund can be
invested, among other ways, in school
and county bonds for schoolhouses and
county court houses, as is done in Tex
as, now the most solid state, financially, |
in the Union.
Rowe suggested compromise by az
article making all sinking fund laws
now or hereafter passed, irrepealable. |
Barnes agreed to that, but wanted to go
further and actually Tx specific tax TO
be collected for the sinking fund. This
was simpler than hunting through all |
the session laws to know what funding |
acts had been passed. It would assure
Governor Twins success in placing the |
territorial funding bonds and send
millions OF cash here almost at once for !
distribution among territorial cred |
itors.
Wilson said the debt could be paid in
no other way. 1t was simple business
provision. He cited Georgia and Ar
kansas, .that had promised in 1916 new
er to redudIate, but that had ultimately |
repudiated every dollar. Their credit |
was absolutely destroyed. 1t was easy
to raise the amount finally due, by |
small annual contributions. 1t was al |
most impossible to raise the whole sum |
in one grand assessment, and the effort |
ended too often in Republication. Ander-
son supported the funding proposition.
county should fund, but did believe in
allowing them to do as they saw best,
making thu duty obligatory. He sup
ported the territorial sinking fund, and
moved n DrOyision recurring some cOunty