Arizona republican., 1900-08-16


 shortage would be just as apparent as now. This difficulty could be obviated by providing that not more than a cer- tain Der cent of the maximum capacity of the reservoir be sold in any one year. Your editorial on Sitting seems to have settled ali fears on that score. So far there is practically no division of sentiment, but when we come to a deii- nite plan for the building of the reser- voir. views are widely al variance
 Bonds" is a bogey that scares no one. All people want is a valuable equiva- lent. We feel like saying to capital, to paraphrase old King HerOd, take any thing you want. even to the half of my ranch" so urgent is our need, for with out more water our ranches won't be worth the taxes. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose in bond is sue to develop more water But we don't want to pay more than necessary for storage. First let me say that no one here considers seriously the insinu- atiOn that your proposition for a bond issue is a scheme" It is a bona fde business proposition and as such it's merits and demeritS are discussed The opposition to an issue of bonds for the purpose of aiding a private corporation in building the reservoir seems to be growing. Of course. when a man is ap- preached on the subject he is likely to say yes anything to get more water But when he studies the matter over, he's liable. nine times out of ten, to change his mind. This has been my experience. Everyone understands now that this half million of bonds is not intended as a bonus, but practically it amounts to the same thing. With in- dividuals holding a majority of the shares, the county would have no voice whatever in the management of the reservoir. True, there would be an in Vestment that would in time bring in some returns, presumably. In fact MT Ely in an interview, quoted in your is sue of July 2O gave as his opinion that it would be splendid investment, If this is the case, wouldn't it be better for the county to put in two and a half millions instead of half a million?
 The idea that the exclusive right in any public utility or natural monopoly. should not pass from the people to any limited number of individuals is fast possessing all who are not interested directly or indirectly in some public franchise. To this extent we are all coming to be socialists. It is unneces- sary to rehearse the arguments in favor of public ownership. The same argu- ments that were advanced so forcefully by The Republican not long ago in favor of municipal waterworks fOrI Phoenix apply with equal cogency tO| this matter of storage. More so, if pos sib!e. for larger interests are involved. therefore public ownership is the more to be desired.
 Nearly all the expressions I have Seen on this bond issue contain the state ment in one for or another: "The in- terests of the people must be rigdly Safeguarded.' True enough; but hOW?I That's the rub. So far as precedent sI go, it has proven almost impossible to protect public interests from cor porate abuses without eXpen- sive and extended litigation. There's always loophole some where, and then the courts are ap- pealed to, and so it goes ad minimum. l venture the assertion that if thorough protection of the public interest ismadc q condition precedent to the building of a reservoir, as it should be- private cap italists won't touch the proposition. and not necessarily. either. because U e. Go not intend to do the square th.ug bg the people. but simply because tFey fear a divided control, which is the }ane of mOst business partnerships.
 Against the plan for an issue of bonds large enough to enable the county to build and own the reservoir, three objections are urged: G) The possible reluctance of congress to au- thoriZe so large a bond issue; @ Local Opposition: (3) The fact that the best available reservoir site is already owned by a private corporation. To take these up seriatim. it seems to me that congress would be more ready tOl authorize an issue large enough for the people to own the reservoir in fee sim pie, than to authorize the issue of only d part of the whole to be invested in d private corporation, in which the people would be simply minority stOckholder with all the limitations appertaining tU such an interest. Congress is not a Kindergarten, to be scared by seven figures. It is simply a question of value and necessity. If it be shown as it can be-that the issue asked for is not disprOpOrtiOnate to it's worth to the people and that the people want It, no one can believe that congress would withhold consent.
 For the same reason. I believe that the property owners would be more ready to vote bonds for the whole amount, knowing that thus they would be absolute owners of the reservoir. and whatever profits might accrue would come back to them. If private capital ists have sufficient faith in the enter prise to invest two millions, wouldn't it be strange if the property owners of the valley should be unwilling to back their judgment with as much? And as for bonds. there would be a scrambl Q among investors to secure paper backed l by the entire resources of the county, |