Tombstone epitaph., 1921-06-12
ANENT HOUSE BILL SO

krebs. Tombstone man. have never been 50 clearly de-
fined than through editorial i'll the Douglas Dispatch
of today backing editorial in the Arizona Republican
touching upon an interesting phase of the situation:
There appears be much confusion in the minds of
the voters OF the state TO the purpose of house bill 3d.
providing for amendment the constitution allowing
the state to increase Its Indebtedness III such
TO facilitate the development Of reclamation projects 1t
has been stated that the proposed measure will
to increase in the Indebtedness of Arizona amounting
to SoOOOoOO which will be assumed for the benefit of
particular class of citizens the farmers irrigated lands
This conception Of the proposed measure is mistak-
cn House bill SIS amounts simply to the underwriting
by the state of undertakings which will contribute
general prosperity will lower the of living all A
and will reduce taxes by adding greatly the
able of the commonwealth Moreover the
will be protected by what is generally recognized by fl
nanciers the best possible security food producing land
insured by irrigation against the chances Of drought and
consequent crop failures. 1t is proposed that the land
of each irrigation district desiring capital shall
bond the entire project liability to be proaed accord
ing to held by individuals and secured by fire
liens upon the land itself These bonds will draw per
cent interest Upon receipt of bonds OF such district
and careful examination having assured the state govern
ment that the security offered in the form Of pro ec
bonds ample, the state will issue its bonds for
equal amount proceeds from their sale to be used for
reclamation purposes on the project concerned under
proper supervision The bonds thus issued by the state
will draw five per cent interest opposed to six per
paid by the reclamation project The plan simply provides
machinery for bringing Arizona capital from beyond
the state borders to be used for developing the
rcultural OF the state the immense potential
value of which has been proved in those sections where
reclamation has provided water IN constant supply. The
interest the state bonds will be than covered by
the six per to be paid by the projects The will
be amply secured by its first lien upon the lands The
buyer of the state bonds has security the wealth Of
great state.
That plan Of this should be regarded as an ad
ton the burden of debt be assumed by the taxpay
only be explained by the prevailing msconcepton
Of the intent and details OF the bill to be voted by the
people.
In another column will be found an editorial from the
Phoenix Republican which appears dispose of the pos
of hp
until the general election in 1922 Many friends of
tn sincerely sorry that the bill will not go
over the general election they fear that under pres
ent conditions in the state many voters will be against
anything in the shape of bond issue anything resemb
ing addition to the state debt and will take the
time trouble to famarlZe themselves with the true
purposes Of the act and its effect after passage.
The bill conemplates addition 10 the Indebtedness
of the which not than compensated for by
amply secured Indebtedness to the state The state will
receive per cent money for which il Will pay per
cent The assessabe value of property in the state will
The cost living will be reduced by the greater supply of
foodstuffs produced lands at home The popula
ton of the will be increased by productive farmers
which increase will make more and better business for
crybody
And here is what the Republican thinks about it,
which will furnish food for thought those who would
defeat the reclamation act:
1t is generally the opinion of lawyers that those who
have invoked the referendum against house bill 80 have
busted themselves in futile proceeding; that measure
which the legislature has already referred to the people
cannot be further referred.
The referendum has been sought to that section of
the BILL which refers it to the people at special election
It has been the contention of of the friends of the
bill that the referendum may not be invoked against
part of bill but in that they since under
tcle ~ of the constitution measure item section
or part of any measure be submitted to the people
Perhaps the opponents of the bill rely upon "any
measure holding that since even proposed consttu-
tonal amendment is measure, it is subject to the ref
erendm But generally the law does not contemplate
that things shall be done uselessy Therefore cannot
contemplate that proposed statute which the legislature
has already referred proposed constitutional amend