Bisbee daily review., 1915-06-12

enor. assume when I vote provi-
 sion which relates to the expenditures
 of some hundreds of thousands of dol ] lars for purpose so intimately bound up with the welfare of the state as is the amintenance of the common schools It may even be argued by some timid souls that my action is impolitic and that the responsibility
 of any public calamity that might ensue from a drastic abridgment of ! the states school fund could more safely be allowed to rest upon those
 legislators who are the authors of this measure falsely masQuerading in the guise oi economy.
 "N ith all due regards, however, to the responsibility which incur at | that junction when ahiX my disap- proFal to a measure so iniqutous as
 is the one under consideration. my conception of the duties coeyal with my office does not leave room for the
 lodging of responsibility where the best interests of the people whom I honestly endeayor to serve are SO yitally at stake.
 Tn reviewing the notion of the legislature, in this instance I find no groundwork of common sense upon
 which those responsible for this at- tempted reduction of the school fund may rest their case. Had it been the opinion of a majority of the legisla- lure that existent conditions suggest ed the advisability of a reasonable dimunition of the school fund, I.
 might, while demurring at retrench- ment in a field which, least of all. can endure it, have, nevertheless, refrain
 ed from exercising Che veto in such
 a case To divide the school fund in i've parts, however, and then to dis card four thereof in a seeming attempt
 10 impress the necessity of economy | upon a constituency, transcends the dictates of reason and assumes the . aspect of showing a reproachfui dis
 regard for a public benefaction of 1 paramount importance. Were there, |
 furthermore, any other sure source
 such as appreciable revenue from
 school lands or the sale thereof. to
 remedy the deficiency, which the legis- .
 iature has on this occasion attempted . 10 create the action taken might bel come clothed with some semblance . of judgment. UnfortunateIy however 1 no such certain source of available |
 fundss are within definite view.
 As a sophistry to be sure, the . proponents of this false measure of 1, economy glibly point out that, under
 existing statutes, the different coun- ties are authorized to levy, collect and i disburse such funds as may be deemed necessary, within certain limits, for
 the maintenance of the common
 schools The only foundation that
 may be accorded this argument is the . well-kown fact that only a very small
 portion of the moneys raised by the
 state for school purposes is actually expended by the state. Most of it is apportioned as is known, among the
 different counties, and in this manner
 the advancement of education over
 the entire state is kept in a fair de,
 gree, uniform instead of sporadic, or regional. In other words. the state, acting under the present law merely
 undertakes to perform the duties of leyying and collecting school funds in
 behalf of the various counties In considering the contention that the counties may with equal facility,
 make such a levy and collection, the transparent falsity of this measure as a step toward economy becomes ap, parent, for it is difficult 70 discover wherein any saving to the citizens of Arizona is effected by virtue alone of the mere fact, that the taxes, in the one instance, are paid to the county,
 whereas, in the other they are paid
 to the state and thence assigned to l. the different counties It becomes eyi- Il dent, accordingly that what is made to appear on first sight, as economical action partakes, in reality, of the nature of a ruse whereby the states
 records of taxes and disbursements
 show material reduction while the same records in the different counties