Arizona republican., 1913-02-24
CONSTITUTIONAL
 AMEND M \ l
Necessary Before State Can Issue Bonds for Public Improvements Becaus c Section } of Basic Law at Present InterfercS


 the proposed general construction of gOoG roads throughout the entire state, as outlined in the proposal of the Ari- ZOna Good roads association and en- dorsed by the association of county boards of supervisors. The position of the states legal advisor was given to the state legislature in response to the request of the finance committee of the senate. The report was ordered printed and the printed report has just come from the printer.
 T have been and am still d very ar dent advocate of the establishment of a system of state highways to be con- structed by means of money furnished by bond issue. I have publicly and avowedly advocated the issuance of bonds for the purpose of constructing state highways, and during said argu- ment, without giving the question any particular thought, or the constitution a detailed examination. had assumed that the state of Arizona, the same as practically every other state in the un- ion. had the right and power to issue its bonds if directed by the people. the
 
 lature for either the purpose of con structing state highways or the con struction of public buildings. and must confess that subsequent to your inquiry, in an examination of the law bearing upon this question, I have searched earnestly for authority con struing similar constitutional provis- ions which might hold that the state had such power, and to state that l am disappointed in not being able to give you an opinion favorable to the issu- ance of bonds by the state of Arizona. but lightly expresses my feeling on the subject.
 From very careful examination of the wording of the constitution on this question section ,, article 9. and from the application of any logical construc- | tion as to the meaning of the provisions l of the constitution bearing upon the power of the state in this instance, and l the construction of somewhat similar provisions of the constitution of other | states arrived at by the courts of said states. I am forced to the conclusion l that the state of Arizona has no power 1 to create any new indebtedness to cX- ceed the sum of $350, 900. except for the i purpose of repelling invasion. suppress 1 sing insurrection or defending the state ! in time of war. Section , of Article 9 ! of the constitution of the state of Ari- 1 zona. reads as follows:
 l The language can be construed bus in one way and that is that it was the 1 intent of the framers of the cOnstitu- ] ton to limit the power of the state to create any new indebtedness to the l sum of $350,000, except as provided in 1 the constitution in case of invasion, instruction or war
 Evidently this section of the con- stitutiOn was copied from the constitu- tiOn of the state of Oklahoma as they l read verbatim the same except that 1 the framers of the constitution of the l state of Oklahoma wisely added an other provision providing that the peo- pie may authorize the issuance of bonds 1 for other purposes specified in that section of the constitution. The latter ! section of the constitution of Oklahoma referred to was omitted from the con- stitutiOn of the state of Arizona, and l the only construction that can bf placed upon such omission is that il was not the intent of the framers of the constitution that the state should conduct it's business otherwise than practically upon a cash basis.
 The state of Washington has consti- tutionaI provisions very similar tC those incorporated in the constitution of the state of Arizona. and the su- preme court of the state of Washing
 
 cess of the limitation prescribed by the constitution is void. The construction of the Oklahoma constitution by the supreme court of that state is that g bond issue( except where expressly au- 1 thorized by a vote of the people. is void when issued in excess of the ! amount prescribed by the constitution which may be incurred to supply the casual deficit, or failure in revenue Ol 1 meet expenses not otherwise provided for but the supreme court of Oklahoma
 has held that the only power given the state to issue their bonds is by virtue of the provisions of the state consti- ] tuition (Omtted from our constitution
 which permits the issuance of bonds upon direct vote of the people. T am. therefore, reluctantly obliged to eXpress~the opinion that the state of Arizona under the constitution as il l now exists. cannot issue state bonds tC 1 create new indebtedness for the es- Establishment of public roads or tho building of public buildings. or for any 1 amount other than $350,000. and ther only for the purpose of supplying casu- l al deficits, or failures in revenue or tC l meet expenses not otherwise provided 1 for.
 T also desire at this time to eXpres!
 an opinion that the state should bt given power to issue bonds for road!
 or for the construction of building: whenever they may deem necessary and the vote of the people demands it i and l. therefore, desire to suggest method to the legislature by whicl l they can obtain an authorization fol
 the issuance of bonds either for rOaC purposes or for the construction O public buildings, namely, by an amend ment to the constitution proposed b,
 the legislature and submitted to thu
 ,l;,