Arizona sentinel and Yuma weekly examiner., 1915-05-06
ABOUT THAT HOUSE
 INTERPRETATION BILL

The house appropriation bill pre- sented yesterday was disappoint- ment to those who had been led to believe that it would propose aisweep- ing retrenchment in state expenses. Many had been misled as to statements concerning the amount the bill car ried. Nobody appeared to know pre- cisely what that amount was but it was Variously estimated by men who had assisted in the construction of the bill, at from $1,2O0,O00 to $1,5O0,O00 In the light of the bill itself the differ ence between these estimates is quite unimportant The total amount itself, whatever it may be, is unimportant so far as concerns any serious attempt to reduce the expenditures of the state.
 It was developed in the early con- sideration of the bill yesterday that many of the so-called statutory appro- priations" had been for some purpose omitted from the bill The statutory appropriations are those which are continuing in the absence of any fur ther legislation. For instance, the house bill contains no appropriation for the tax commission, and in the absence of any appropriation, the ex- penses of the commission for the next two years will be whatever the com mission chooses to make them. The blue sky is the limit. There is no restriction in the act creating the com mission as to clerks and stenographers and their salaries. The law, of course, pretends to limit the Expenses of the commission, travelling and other ex- penses by the vague word, ~neces- sary."
 House bill 168 of the late regular session included sub-sections provid- ing for the tax commission and that provision was certainly generous enough, $37,900 for the next two years.
 This is, only one of the many "stat- utory appropriations" with which the house committee on appropriations elected not to interfere. As to how much all of them will total nobody to whom questions were put concerning them seemed to know That is, after a ten days investigation leading up to the completion of the so-called gen 'eral appropriation bill, nobody could furnish information as to the proba- ble state expenses for the next two years.
 This much was apparent: compar- ing the nearly thirty items gone over in the committee of the whole house, all relating to salaries and expenses, aggregating $197 400, there had been 10 reduction. Several of the items were larger than in the general appro- Jriation bill of two years ago and higher than the corresponding items of the ilEfated house bill 16S. Several of the items were increased in the committee of the, whole and it was ob- servable that on every division the
 ine-up was the same.
 It is true that there is saving in the free text book item of $3OO,OOO and that provisions for buildings were held down to less than $75,0OO. But for an actual saving in the cost of ad- ministartion, nothing is contemplated.
 It is, of course, certain that no such bill as this is likely to be when the house gets through with it or any bill remotely resembling it will pass the senate but it is a matter of regret hat the bill which seems to find favor in the house indicates that there will De serious struggle between the two branches of the legislature before an appropriation bill is evolved.