Bisbee daily review., 1914-10-15
EXPENSES OF STATE INCREASED BY MORE
 THAN A MILLION
Cost 0f The Arizona Government
 For The Fiscal Year l913-14 Was $1 ,096,910 Above That Spent During Preceding Year

The actual cost of carrying on state affairs was S1,O9691O more for Che fiscal year of 19l3-1914. than in the previous year, says the Arizona Taxpayers makazine This increase
 figure was arrived at, after carefully eliminating from each year all items which were in the nature of perms- nent improvement to state institu- tions, and in the nature of payment or discharge of indebtedness of the
 state which. when paid, were for the
 purpose of comparison, of no further use
 The first legislature of the state of Arizona provided for raising the sum
 of S5OO,OOO annually for what was ta be known as the common school fund. S4S7. .2g6.49 of the increase in 1913- 1914 expenditures is due to the levy and use of this fund. Prior to this the
 counties took care of their own
 schools Whether or not the benefits
 of this extra fund, distributed as it i5 according to number of scholars in
 attendance. produced the results in-
 tended or not, is a matter to be dete--
 mined. The fact remains that the in- ! crease is there and other county taxes for school purposes are still levied l School bonds are still being issued, and to the end of an increase in taxes. The only result shown by this com. poriscn of cost is, that there has been a general tendency 10 increase in most l departments. The appointment of this 1 commission, with salaries and trayer ling expenses. with the duty Of inspec- ] ti,n. oi supervision, of visi atiOn, O. action in advisory capacity; the pro. | visions for publication of reports; spc ! cill acts calling for experimental ad
 Giti0rs 10 various institutions, some a the t.T ense of the general fund-otl 1 e'g covered by special appropI iation. an tend Co increase the expense of ad- ! mr!siIation. Of more imJora ..e ! q % other matters to @ .cu drrci ! is the discretion vested in tnJ Saje 1 Lcau of Control as to the pucun g Co be expended and the pIrp p'qa for which hose expenditures may te rsaln.
 1 We are not criticising the members
 of any board or of any commissions l whatever. All have probably done ther duty according to the reading of 1 the 1aY appointing them. and their
 best discretion We are. however
 again challenging the careful atten-
 t4... -F tI.. r...r.T, .F fTf. etgfa f1 fHD 1 r,.lomic policy of considering the eea necessities of any board the ne-
 Cessity of action on it's part in cou- lection with the results obtained; and
 considering whether or not the same results could not be as etfecually oh-
 tained with less routine less super ] vision. and materially less expense . Could not the same results be obtain | ed by consolidating several boards or commissions into one, especially when
 the individual boards are now consti-
 mted direct their efforts to branches 1 of the same matter? For instance we have a live stock sanitary board uf 1 three members. % state veterinary a ! sheep sanitary commission of three 1 members, both of which boards are
 under the advice of the veterinary Why the double expense? Why any | more expense than a competent vet. erinary with absolute necessary as-
 sistants? Over and above an fees col
 leCted, these three departments cost
 the state over SLIGO; an except the
 salary of Che state veterinary going
 for expenses Along the same line
 Che goyernors office over and above