Arizona republican., 1893-03-09

it seems to require that the old canals
shall take in payment therefor, the
bonds of the irrigsting district at par.
This is an attempt to make certain
negotiable bonds legal tender for the
debt OF the irrigating district, for the
purpose therein specified, and is clearly
unconstitutional.
Objections to section thirteen are
that it does not state who are qualified
voters to vote on the question sub
mitted to them at special elections and
further, the bonds payable as in this
section specified could not be cold on
any market, as yet discovered.
Objections to section fourteen are
that it provides that only the real prop
erty shall be assessed to pay the bonds
and interest thereon. Why should not
personal property situated in the same
district be assessed? 1t should provide
that only irrigable land should be as
sessed to pay the bonds, and not all the
land in the district, irrespective as to
whether it was irrigable or non-irriga-
BILE. An injunction was granted in Cal
ifornia under a similar law, restraining
the issuing OF bonds and collecting OF
Il 40 Cd he Ia Ia dc -,
the district and defeated the sale OF the
bonds. The bonds provided for in this
act will necessarily exceed the amount
for which the district will be entitled
to go in debt under the Harrison act,
the limit having already been reached
both in the territory and in the sub
divisions thereof with the one excep-
ton of Gila county, and therefore rem
der this act entirely nugatory, hence,
the provisions of this bill would have a
tendency to retard further development
in this territory.
Objections to section twenty-seven
are that it authorizes the board to levy
and collect assessments for the paw
ment Of the employees and the expenses
OF organization, care, management and
Improvements, and does not make any
limit to these amounts in any way, and
il this is also to be raised by tax, it
will necessarily exceed the amount
prohibited by the Harrison act, and be,
therefore, OF no effect.
Objections to section thir,y-three are
that it conflicts with the former pro-
visions OF this act, wherein it pro-
vides only two ways OF disposing OF the
bonds of the irrigation district, one is to
the territory, and the other to be paid
to the old canals for their property or
for lands condemned under the pro-
visions OF this act. The territory is
already bonded to its limit under the
Harrison act and the funding bill; and
hence, that portion of this bill is
nugatory and the same objections are
applicable to section thirty-four, which
provides that the territorial treasurer
should issue irrigating bonds, while
section thirteen provides that the Ter
ritorial Loan commission should issue
territorial bonds in lieu of irrigation
bonds, to be exchanged for irrigation
bonds. For the reasons above stated
the territorial treasurer could not in
either case issue either irrigating or
territorial bonds.
The objection to section thirty-six is
that it conflicts with section nine,
wherein it is provided that the water
should be delivered pro rata as to value,
and not to acreage. Section thirty-six
says it shall be according to acreage.
General objections are that capital
has been educated up to appreciate ir-
rigation securities under their present
status. Amy change in the system of
irrigation would retard investment
until the country could adjust itself TO
the new conditions and capital be re-
assured. This may be a good law in
California, and bad one here; whether
it is good law or bad law, it is in
opportune and inapplicable for the
reason that we are are territory and
subject to laws of congress over which
we have no control. The Harrison
act limits the rate of Indeb tedness to
which the territory, county and town
ship, or other subdivisions thereof, can
become indebted. This limit has al
ready been reached with the single
exception of ella county. Therefore
no step can be taken under the act to-
l.. 4 4 80