Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1913-06-17


rather than more valuable, SO in my
judgment there is absolutely no found
alton to the argument that if we are
ever to get this property, we mus
burden ourselves now, and deny our
selves state necessities, in order to &C
quire this property before 1t becomes
80 immensely more valuable"
| Third: The expenditure of the two
million dollars proposed only con
templates the purchase of the land
| (about fifty-flve acres) and then will
come the necessity Of putting In two
or three millions more to carry out
the scheme. This will be accompanied
by an enormous annual expense for up
keep all Of which is, from my view
point, unwarranted and unnecessary
and placing burden on the taxpayers
which. If they are to bear at all, should
be borne for things we need, as state
rather than for things beautiful, which
! we can obtain at no greater cost, In
future years when we have more near
ly supplied the things We need.
Fourth: I believe the act to be I'M
constitutional; this is question on
which good lawyers in every part OF
the state may differ. Enough has been
! written on this subject in the pages OF
-! the Courier and other papers Of the
state, to make it necessary for me
! to enter into the discussion Of that
question at length, and to again incor.
porate the constitutional provisions
denying the right Of the legislature to
| place debt of over $250,00O on the
people Of the state without first sub
hitting the proposition to vote. This
constitutional provision was discussed
| in a general way, in connection with
the demand on the part Of good roads
enthusiasts, for a bond issue of fifty
million dollars for the purpose OF
building permanent roads. In these
discussions it was conceded by all that
the legislature had no such power I'm.
der the constitution, and that II any
such proposition was submitted to the
people it would be overwhelmingly
defeated at the polls. If this was true
az to bond issue for roads, In excess
of $25O,O00 the constitutional limit,
then it Is equally true as to the ST.
100000 for capitol grounds extension
and Improvement. AS there Is no diff
ference except in amount and both are
in excess of the constitutional limit.
Fifth. It is argued that the pro-
posed tax levy is not debt. The law
provides for the issuance of interest
bearing warrants of the state, at not
to exceed 5 per cent interest In antici-
patton Of the revenue to be raised dur
ing the next ten years. II this is not
creating a debt then must have got
ten the wrong difinition for the word.
TO illustrates: If an individual makes
a contract obligating himself to pay a
certain sum in given time, in antici-
patton of his earnings, he would be re-
garded as being In debt till the obll-
cation was met If this Is true of the
Individual why Is not true of the state?
However, I will not prolong this dis
cussion and in closing will content my
self with the assertion.
The manifest intention Of the con-
stitutional provision is to prohibit the
legislature from imposing debt on
the state of more than $250,000 with
out first submitting the question to
the voters at the polls. This believe
all will agree, was the manifest in
tention of the trainers Of the constitu-
ton. That being true why not submit
such a proposition as this to the peo-
ple and remove all doubt?
In this discussion question the
motives of no one who may have sup.
ported the bill. give my views on
the subject and that without annlnav