Arizona republican., 1909-06-05
TAXPAYERS WANT ARGUMENT
 NOT PERSONAL ABUSE.

We do not know who the strategist
 is that devised Facts" a campaign
 circular distributed in Phoenix yes
 terday in the interest of the Tempe
 bridge site. But we do know that
 if that site shall fail on June 10 of
 a majority of the votes cast, the peo- pie of Tempe may attribute the fail
 ure in part to Facts" and to the style of campaigning represented therein.
 Rather than with facts, the circu- lar bristles with personal abuse of Mir Heard and with personal attacks upon other gentlemen whose only of fense is an advocacy of the Center street site.
 Facts seeks to align sentiment against MT. Heard because he has a personal interest in the Center street site, because he would be the chief individual beneficiary of a bridge at that point. We may say if it were not for personal interest and the ex- pectation of personal advantage there would not now be a bridge in the United States. There would not now be an effort in Tempe to secure a bridge at that point.
 The gentlemen who are responsi ble for Facts" we think, have mis- taken the issue altogether. What MT Heard wants is not essential, and because he wants it is no req son why he should have it or no req son why he should not have it. Neither is what Tempe or Phoenix wants essential The taxpayers are expecting to build a bridge either at Center street or Tempe and the tax payers will naturally want a bridge where they think it will do them the most good. Tempe has a right to try to show them that that is the proper location. MT. Heard and Phoenix have an equal right to try to show that the people who are to pay for the bridge will make the better invest ment by locating it at the foot of Center street. Abuse of those who have a different opinion affords the taxpayers no information, but it will very naturally lead them to suspect that abuse is resorted to in the ab- sence of any reasonable argument
 MT Heard and other Phoenix gen. tlemen, as well as residents south of the river, have given substantial proof of their faith in the Center street location by subscribing s5O,0O0 half the cost of a bridge at that point That is something of an ar gument in itself but of course it is not entirely conclusive that the whole county would in all ways be the best served by a bridge at that point
 Facts" unintentionally sets forth in it's attack upon MT. Heard a strong argument to the taxpayers in favor of the Center street site-abOut the only argument to the taxpayer at large that can be offered in favor of any site.
 It is shown that the bridge should not be built there because it will greatly enhance the value of MT | Heard's property, and so, would add | to the county tax roll. The bridge l could not have such an effect on the property of MT. Heard without | having precisely the same effect on a still larger area of other property | situated, thus still more | the roll of assessable | property. This is a kind of argument | that cannot fail to make the hitherto | taxpayer sit up and take | notice. Bridges are supposed pri marily to be built that people may cross rivers conveniently Sometimes that is only the secondary purpose in bridge building. the primary one being to develop more or less in- accessible regions in order that later