Arizona republican., 1914-03-31
The Land Office Bill

The newspapers of the southern part of the state regardless of party utilization assailing with more less bitterness. Representative Hay den for what they understand to be his hostility to the land office bill which, according the Bsbee Review has behind it the public sentiment of all sections of the except voiced by the sefshly Interested contingent in Phoenix" We think the Review does not quite understand the sentiment here The people of Phoenix in the very large mass have interest whatever in this mat ter So far as we know nobody outside the Of ficials of the land office and attorneys who make speciality of land office business whether the office is divided not. If the business men of Phoenix who have manifested the slightest concern in the of the land office bill were in clined to be selfish they would have in this case, no incentive to be- The land office attracts less travel to Phoenix than any other public office since practically the business of the office is tran sacted by mail
 The Republican throughout the more than year in which this somewhat one-sided controversy has been raging though it believed from such in formation as it had gathered, that the division of the land office inadvsable, has refraned from uttering a word against it. No part of the con siderable expense that the division of the land of- flee would entail would be borne by the people of this state and have had objection to the qualification of wish of the people of the south to have a land office.
 We would not now discuss this matter if it were not for the daily expressed misapprehenson of tho napers of the south regarding the attitude of the people of Phoenix and Representative Hayden who as citizen of Phoenix, doubt, feels in this matter just as The Republican and very large majority of the citizens of Phoenix do But. as Representative Hayden he occupies different position He has what he conceves duty to the federal government to be performed
 The arguments which have been offered against the land office bill these: First the present land office is capable ransacting all the business which as has been stated, is transacted almost eX- clusively by mail so that division of the office would not beneficially affect residents of any part of the state however remote from Phoenix
 Second it is proposed in the bill to divide the state along county boundaries but to cut through and divide certain counties It is estimated that the division of records of the office to say nothing of the ensuing confusion, would cost not less than s5O,OOO.
 Third the establishment of a second land oIlce would occasion expense of location and nam tenance eoual to the expense of conducting the land office here
 But as we have said these are matters Tn which the people of Arizona have no materlal con cern since the additional expense would not pc borne by them but by the general government.
 Another argument in which neither the people of Arizona nor the general government are con cerned in this that division of the land offlce would bring the Phoenix office below the maxi mum without raising the additional land office to maximum. The government and Representative Hayden are not interested in that they are inter ested only maintaining an efficient and economi- cal public service.
 The course of MT. Hayden has been courage ous one Without creating any anagonism in this part of the state, he might. but for his sense of duty to the whole government which should actuate