Arizona republican., 1922-04-23
The Beginning of the Battle

Though the Arizona primary battle has not actu-
ally begun. with the issuance of the pamphlet by the
secretary state containing the arguments for and
against the proposed constitutional amendments the
hattie lines may be understood to be drawn and the
guns, enplaced The battle win be largely within the
Democratic party-between the radicals and the con-
servatives the former, suppose animated largely
by sentiment in of the exact letter Of the con-
stitution which they still hold to be divine instru-
nent and interference with which is sacrilige The
negative arguments signed by former Governor
Hunt Charles NJ. Roberts and Homer r. Wood, who
took large part in the drafting of the constitution
and doubtless consider themselves the viceserents
on earth appointed to sustain it.
we are interested in all the arguments and
especiallv in those relating to the proposed amend
ment to Article TX which raises the state bonded
debt limit from ss5OoOo to per centum of the
assessed value of property authorization by ma
iorty of the owners of property otherwise quail
flied voters.
This increase and the limitation of the quaf-
cations Of voters at bond elections the only
amendments to this article to which objection is
taken.
why the limitation of the states Indebtedness
WAS nIaced at ss5oooO we do not know; $3.50 or IS
cents or O35 would as well have served the purpose
The proposed amendment holds the indebtedness
incurred by one or more laws at $s5o,o0O but in
addition permits the issuance of bonds authorized
b, the people to limit of four per cent of the states
taxable valuation
Against the objection to leaving non-real property
owners ineligible to bond elections the sup
uorters of the amendment point to the fact that the
largest taxpayers in the state are also ineligible
since corporations cannot be represented at these
elections.
The argument against the property qualification
the real property qualification is that though the
non-property owner is not on the tax roll ne Is the
real taxpayer on the property occupied by him II
is taken into account in fixing his rental More
over It Is probable that he will become property
owner later and the bonds in the issuance OF when
he is denied a voice become lien upon the property
he is going to own and which in the end he must
discharge. But in that case would he not then be
in the same position the property owner of today
Gould he not pass the tax along to his non-property
owning tenants.
The theory that only property owners should
have voice in the incurring of indebtedness which
must become a lien upon property is very ancient
one and was based upon the tendency of people who
were not property owners to vote large sums for
public improvements since thereby they were not
obligatng themselves to repayment That of course.
was short-sighted tendency. many human ten
dencies are and it needed to be guarded against.
The active property owner is going to think twice
before he votes bonds going to figure the cost
and the profit If profit is to be the result it win
necessarily be profit TO the whole community. So
with this restriction on voting bond elections the
very thing that the objectors fearthe overlooking
of the state with bonded indebtedness-wiil be
avoided. An opposite result, that of nggardliness
in providing for public Improvements would be more
likely,
.aThere is not" says the negative argument "a
single man in Arizona at the time this is written
who can give any information to total outstand-
ing bonds issued against the property within the
Arizona. The various school districts, high
school districts irrigation districts electrical dis
tricts, counties other subdivisions have issuee
bonds until the amount has reached staggering
totai.o That is true. but there is nothing in the
amendment to grant to these subdivisions greater
freedom in issuing bonds than the constitution now
allows them.
There is grave danger in increasing the tax
exempt debt limit of the state when of its basic
industries (mining) is. wasting away continues the
argument. There is not word in the amendment
relating to tax-exempt debt; no other provision is
made for that than appears in the original consti-
tuition
The staggering total' of our bonded indebted
ness is the indebtedness the subdivisions concern
ing the amount of which we have been strangely
lncurious The constitution made no provision by
which the amount of it could be ascertained. No
body seemed to have considered it all until the
fiscal code being prepared, when it was dis
covered that there was source or dozen
sources in Arizona where the of it could be
learned Then for the first time the men who were
preparing the amendment to Article TX. and the
fiscal code introduced apd passed bin for the find
ing out and always knowing what the total bonded
debt of the state is.
1t is the increasing debt of the subdivisions thai
is to be feared than any increasing bonded
debt of the state 1t is easy in any school dstric
authorize bond issue. for people averse t.
denying the schools Irrigation districts as rule
vote bonds for schemes which shadowy for th
benefits. if there should be any. touch thA voters