tock. How far this mistake may have affected the passage of the bill
can not of course be known.

The bill does not submit the question of granting this aid to a vote
of the people of the county, but confers direct authority upon the
supervisors to issue the bonds. It is said, however, that in April,
1889, an election was held to obtain the views of the people upon the
question. It does not appear from any papers submitted to me who were
the managers of this so-called election; what notice, if any, was given;
what qualifications on the part of voters were insisted upon, if any, or
in what form the question was presented. There was no law providing for
such an election. Being wholly voluntary, the election was, of course,
under the management of those who favored the subsidy, and was conducted
without any legal restraints as to the voting or certification. I have
asked for a statement of the vote by precincts, and have been given what
purports to be the vote at twelve points. The total affirmative vote
given was 1,975 and the negative 134. But of the affirmative vote 1,543
were given at Phoenix and 188 at Tempe, a town very near to Phoenix. If
there were no other objections to this bill, I should deem this alone
sufficient, that no provision is made for submitting to a vote of the
people at an election, after due notice and under the sanction of law,
the question whether this subscription shall be made.

But again, the bill proposes to suspend for this case two provisions
of the act of Congress of July 30, 1886--first, that provision which
forbids municipal corporations from subscribing to the stock of other
corporations or loaning their credit to such corporations, and, second,
that provision which forbids any municipal corporation from creating a
debt in excess of 4 per cent of its taxable property as fixed by the
last assessment. The condition of things then existing in Arizona had
not a little to do with the enactment by Congress of this law, intended
to give to the people of the Territories that protection against
oppressive municipal debts which was secured to the people of most of
the States by constitutional limitations. The wisdom of this legislation
is not contested by the friends of this bill, but they claim that the
circumstances here are so peculiar as to justify this exception. I do
not think so. In the States the limitation upon municipal indebtedness
is usually placed in the constitution, in order that it