Arizona republican., 1902-04-01
PHOENIX. ARIZONA. APRIL /, 1902.


enabling act . provision for foreclos-
IRE upon the reservoir
GIVE in case of failure by
CRANKS Maricoqa county to pay
A BACK the interest on its res
SEAT. ervoir bonds. Judge Dill
lon merely sought 10
make plain b. 4 statutory statement .
right which would be accorded the
bondhol9ers by the courts il any
event As . matter OF course, should
the county default, and should judg
E2ent follow OF the bonds. the security
holders would have the right to seize
any tangible property of the county in
t}ra event of a failure OF the supervisors
10 make the necessary ley to liquid te
the Judgment Outside of the court
house and Jail and the poor farm,
there would be no other property of
consequence belonging 10 the county
except the reservoir. OF course, the
people here know there would be no
default in interest. and that extra pre-
cautions for tha security Of bondhold-
ers are not practically necessary. But
investors do not know this. Nor do
they know, moreover, that this COM
munity would net initiate counties in
the east and elsewhere and attempt
reputation. The instances in which
supervisors or county commissioners
have refused to make the levies re-
CURED by the courts and have hidden
in the woods to avoid going to Jail for
contempt, have been recited too often
in the newspapers for investors to over
look the possibilities OF a regulating
municipality, 'sS0snitifn OF these
facts, and the knowledge that every
evidence of good faith must be given
to investors, undoubtedly led Judge
Dillon to submit the amendment COM
planned of
The only possible objection that
could be offered to the provision by q
sane and honest man is in reference to
the period of default. Six months is
probably too snort a time. a pro-
vision that the interest must be in de-
fault twelve months before foreclosure
proceedings could be had, would be
fairer to the county, and would obviate
any possibility of losing the property
through ordinary misfortune But
this is q mere detail. y one-year per
iod of default would doubtless be en-
tirely satisfactory to bond buyers.
But the objections of the "lzickers'' co
not run to the period Of default. They
object to giving the security. They
put themselves in a ridiculous attitude.
1t is as if borrower should step into
one of the local banks, ard say, i
have fine farm out here, and 1 want
to borrow $500" Yes" says the
manager, u know your farm, and the
security is ample; you can have the
money Ne says the borrower, y
am not giving ycu any security. I
merely tell you that l have the farm. ~
He would set the money, would he not?
1t is gravely offered III objection b.
the new-school financiers, that should
the county fail to keep faith, the reser-
voir would pass into the hands of the
bondholdcrs, and they would form I
corporation" Probably they would.
should it be their sad misfortune to b.
forced to foreclose. But what, in tha
name of all that is sane, is there 50
objectionable about a corporation load
ing UP with the burden CT owning thu
reservoir in case public ownership
proves a failure (Which it would noD =?
Corporations are not deemed SUCH
monstrosities for the operation of
groceries, dry goods stores, newspapers,
mines and livery stables. Even one OF
the storage commissioners Wl!o pro
fesses to stand in such fear of corpora
lions where water is concerned, opcr-
ates his farm b. d CORPORA ton, We he
ieve. And one of the chief contea-
tions of the national irrisationists" is
that corpora tons 90 net ind water
storage profitable and therefore the
works must be constructed by public
funds. Why should a man buying
water At a reasonable rate from cor
poration be any more Of a 'serf'' than
when he buys his groceries? The truth
is, that the howl against corpora.