The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-03
4 MoMENToUs. QUESTION.

There is wide difference of opinion
among the people OF Salt Lake county
over the question to be submitted to
their votes on the 18th inst. We pub
lish in another column the views Of
two taxpayers, which express the opin-
ions Of a great many more. There is
no doubt a strong objection among the
majority of the citizens to the very
name OF bonds"
The Herald has been with the ma
1orfty of the voters in their past op-
position to bonding the county. This
time il has come to the conclusion that
the step proposed is necessary. The
debt for which they are to be issued
is an existing, unpleasant fact. That
makes the situation different to that
which presented itself On former oc-
cdsions when bonds we're proposed. The
debt must be paid How shall the
money be obtained to meet the obliga-
lions? There are only two ways: One
Is by bonding the county. the other by
doubling the taxes for several years.
Taxpayers. which viii suit you best?
we are Of the opinion that the tax
paying ability Of the people has
reached its limit. The people of the
future viii reap part Of the benefits of
the expenditures Of the past and ought
to bear part Of the burden of payment
for them. The money will most likely
come from outside sources and will be
in the nature Of SO much invested in
Utah on low interest. The warrants
that have been issued bear eight per
cent interest. The bonds viii carry only
five per cent.
The suggestion is made that there
ought to be a guaranty that the money
thus raised will be expended in paying
off all the debts now contracted. 1t is
asked for by the county court for that
purpose, and infamy would cover that
body If 1t was used in any other way.
How this can be further guaranteed
to the people we are not able TO see.
One of our correspondents suggests
100000 instead Of S375.OOO That may
not be a bad idea but it comes too late.
as the sum is fixed and the election
IS to decide Eyes" or mo- as to the
bonds for $4,000. And the principle,
If not the principal. viii be Just the
same as to either amount. If bonding
is wrong, impolitic or unnecessary,
clipping off the $75.OOO ana leaving a
portion Of the debt unpaid viii not
make the bonding system any more
commendable.
AS to the suggestion about going
after the bondsmen of the former
county officials. that would not help the
present situation Much of the debt
was legally contracted 1t would take
long litigation to decide any suit
against the bondsmen. with q grave
doubt as to success or the recovery of
the debt which was contracted ile-
gally. Whatever people may think OF
the propriety of proceeding in that way
it would not afford the relief needed
The people might vote down the
proposition to bond for $375,0OO, being
willing to vote for a less amount But
perhaps the county authorities, having
failed in this effort, would not risk an
other but would go ahead and raise
WIZ L0n 4ClJC " ITO IiISH IIulII, anu
then, while the unpaid warrants con-
tinued TO draw eight per cent interest
the taxpayers would be groaning under
the increased burden and the regret
that their prejudice against bonding
the county had put them in financial
bonds themselves.
We advise our friends to weigh this
matter carefully, and not decide upon
the way they will vote until they de-
eide whether they prefer bonding to
double taxation. If they prefer paying
twice as much county taxes as they
pay now for few years they viii
vote bonds. no. if not as the only al.
Tentative they will swallow their aver
sion and cast their ballots. Bonds,
Yes"