Arizona republican., 1906-10-08

school and municipal indebtedness or Arizona shall be assumed by the new state (and the laws already in force make that obligatory) and that the county municipal and school indept- 1 adness of New Mexico shall not pc IT. cluded2 Everybody is far enough 'o concede that if Arizona's county lhu- i nicipaI and school indebtedness Is tO he assumed by the new state, hke ,Iab+s of New Mexico should be assum- .d also Ii would be rank injustice tC ] charge New Mexico with the county. 1 yonnicipal and school indebtedness or
 1,.izors and not charge Arizona with ] New NTexico's county municipal and ! school indebtedness. Such lnJusIlce l cannot be imputed to AriZonlans- Ana ! even if Arizonians should be so uH- ] fair as to insist that the new state sbouId start off charged with the coun- | +,- r,,,nicipaI and school debts of Ari- zona and not charged with the like dab+s of New Mexico, the 66 delegates ! of New Mexico as against the fl deIe-
 gates of Arizona in the coqstitutlonal Convention could-and of course would l-enforce the assumption ofy that debt
 by the new state
 | And right here is brught to play the Dettifogging quibbling of some who i have written and spoken on this sub
 iact The iointist or the anti-jOintist
 who deliberately advocates that the comfy municipal and school indebted ness should not and cannot be charged
 to the new state is simply dishonest
 Tt has been suggested that the en- ablfng act tthe joint statehood bill)
 prohibits this. No. reputable lawyer
 nor any intelligent layman-will ven
 ture any such opinion The joint
 statehood bill contains no such prOhi- e1fTaV~ Ia "a cr1 that could be so interpreted. The Ian a,uage of the joint statehood bill rela- tive to the assumption of debts is as follows:
 "That the debts and liabilities of said territory of Arizona and of said
 territory of New Mexico shall be as sumed and paid by said state, and
 that said state shall be subrogated to
 all rights of indemnity and reimburse
 ment which either of said territories now has"
 It does not require ~a lawyer to see
 that this provision imposes an Obliga- ton. and contains neither expressly
 nor implicitly any limitation or pro- hibition of further voruntary assump -
 ton of obligations
 In other words. we must assume the
 debts and liabilities of the two terri tories. and there is not a word of linn
 itation or phohibition against the as-
 sumption of the county municipal and
 school indebtedness of either terrtto-
 ry. and the refunding of the same by the issue of state bonds of Arizona That very thing would be done. just as the local indebtedness in Arizona has
 been assumed and refunded by the is-
 sue of territorial bonds. and which l would be assumed and paid for by the new state.
 } The constitutional convention aU- thorized by the joint statehood bill would have the unquestiOnable right ) 10 insert in the constitution of the pro-
 posed state. a provision that the coun- l ty municipal and school indebtedness ! of New Mexico shall be refunded by the l new state That that convention vii . do if it meets is absolutely certain
 And Arizona, if so disposed, could no I help it. for it has but A delegates ir that convention against 66 from New , Mexico.
 And even ifeit were not in the con { ! stitution, the legislature of the nev ? state could refund the county, muni
 cipal and school indebtedness of NeN
 Mexico and make it a state charge
 Anybody who believes this would no 1 be done is too credulous to waste tim with.
 s We in Arizona. then. are directly in Il terested in the amount of the indebt
 edness-not bonded indebtedness only
 but all the indebtedness-that exists il Fl New Mexico. It is admitted that tn E bonded indebtedness of her cOuntie F amounts to S2.S16,473. How much nor 2 is there of it?
 A PHOENIX BUSINESS MAN