Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1910-11-23
The Conventions Land Policy.


The policy of the constitutional con-
vention relative to the school lands
and to the vast acreage of land do
mated to the state of Arizona under
the provisions of the enabling act, is
a policy which will no dOnbt be COM
mended by two classes in the coun-
try's population-the most rabid of
the "conservationists" and the social
lists.
The extreme conservationists advO-
cate policy of Withholding all the
remainder of the public domain and
all the undeveloped natural resources
of the country for the use of future
generations. The people now living
can go hang.
The socialists would reserve all
lands and all natural resources fol
exploitation by the communal state"
when the glorious period of the own
ership of things in common shall have
arrived.
1t seems to be the determination of
the convention that no lands owned
by the state shall be sold in the i'm
mediate future and only the small
fraction of school land that is under
cultivation may be sold at the end of
five years All other land must be
held for at least twenty-five years
before it can be sold.
The extreme socialists would prefer.
of course, a constitutional provision
forever prohibiting the sale of any of
the states acreage, but they are bound
to be pleased with the long step to-
ward their ideal that is to be adopted
by the convention.
The idea of congress in making the
prineely donation of land to the state
was to enable the people now living
the people who by their courage. for
titude and industry have conquered
the desert-to lessen somewhat the
burdens of debt and taxation neces-
sarily assumed in building a new
commonwealth. At the same time.
congress intended, of course, to lay
such safeguards around this donation
as would prevent the people from
frittering the great asset away-s'
much is plain from the terms of the
enabling act. But congress did not
intend that the present generation OF
Arizona citizens should get no benefit
from the land grants.
To hold the principal part of the
states lands from sale for twenty-five
years would, in fact, deprive the pres
ent generation from sharing in any
substantial benefits from the inherit
ance, for the revenues from rentals OF
desert lands would be a
very negligible sum.
If the proposed state were enabled
to sell its lands at any time, the i'm
mediate benefits would be twO-fold: |
Large sums of cash would go into
trust funds. wherefrom the
interest would take care of a mate |
rial portion of expenses for education |
and maintenance of territorial institu- |
TONS thereby reducing the sum of the
existing maintenance taxes; and, most |
important of all, the lands so sold |
would be subdivided and placed in a |
condition to maintain settlers. 1t is |
by settlers that wealth is created. The |
state should place itself in a position |
to offer legitimate inducements for |
settlers to build homes on lands now |
and unprOductive.
There can be no doubt that if the
states lands should be held from the |
market for twenty-five years they |
would at the end of that period bring |
a considerably larger sum than they |
would bring now.
But what of the uncountable loss
that would be sustained in that quar- |
ter of a century from the enforced
mons settlement OF THESE ldHuS IHiS /
loss, unquestionably. would offset
many times the increased sum de- |
rived from the postponed sale.
Many years ago there was much |
by shortsighted people in
Texas because of the fact that tho |
state had practically given away its
lands. 1t not only gave the land t,
settlers, but sold large tracts to in
dividuals and corporations for nomi-
nal sums. AS land began to advance
in value, agitators took their pencils
and easily figured that the state had |
lost millions by selling it's lands too
early. They overlooked the fact that,
the state treasury did not
show as much cash from land sales
as it might have done. by huge sum-
the state-that is, the public-was