Arizona republican., 1899-03-03
.Lochiel. Ariz.. Feb. 27.

| MT. ?. T. Hurley, Phoenix, Arizona.
 Dear Sir: I have your letter of | February 16, and must beg to say that ] ! lock at the proposed live stock legis-
 lation initiated by yourself much in the same manner 2s does the Wilcox
 Range News.
 What is the use of rewriting, re- printing and re-enacting section If to get fourteen words at the tail end of
 iC incorporated? I have no faith in the honesty or integrity Of the inten- tions of a man proposing 8 change who starts off with a scheme like that. Section q, as you propose to enact
 it, would, you very well know, ruin the inspection service; and ij locks to me,
 taking this proposed amendment of
 yours up section by section singly or
 all together. to be the object you had
 iii view. 1 was amused at George
 Pusch, who was a half-heartetl advO-
 cate of this bill, saying that he Ob-
 jected to the Tucson inspector getting
 SC much and the inspector at Arizola
 getting so little. I do not know
 whether MT. Pusch gave you the
 points for your letter, or whether MT.
 Pusch got the points for his conyersa-
 ticn with me from your letter. Per
 haps if you show him this letter of
 mine he will be 2S much amused at 1t
 as I was at his argument.
 "To see the nigger in the fence, you must read section P in connection with the second paragraph of section 41. To read your letter and your explanation
 Of why a man who inspeo5s two car leads of cattle year should give a two thousand dollar bond, while the butcher who kills two carloads
 week should give a bond Of 1NJJ believe what you say, is to make one lose faith in his fellow man. It is so ridiculous on the face of it that the most nO-acccunt member of the legis- lature who would get up and only call attention to the fact. would forever and a day damn your bill.
 Did you read section q and then section 10? You write me 2tcut dis crimination and that you do not want anybody discriminated against, yet in the same breath you show cOnclusively that you are opposed to the work be- ing done by the hidH insDsct0r. and you propose to pay him out of all pro portion to the work he does. You seem to have g fondness fer the ship 1 ping inspector. because he is the gen tleman who does no5 inspect the cattle | you handle. you propose to double his pay, when he is getting enough, if not | too much already The butcher in spector is the man you have the grudge l against. You propose to take away four-ffths of his gay, in the face of the fact that nobody knows better than ! you that the hide inspector who does ! his duty earns every cent of the fee the ! law allows him. Your argument that | the cattlemen will sell the cattle to . be shipped out of the territory rather ! than sell them to the butcher if the ] twenty-five cent inspection fee is left ! on, is, I think, one of the strongest ar guments in favor of it not being . changed. It is certainly not the busi- ] ness of the legislature to enact a law that will keep cattleman from sell i ing his cattle where he pleases and to . whoever will pay him the most money.
 T do not know whether the license . Or not I have no objection to it; but if the license is 2 good thing. and you want it. what is the use Of enacting it into a law by amending an act that cannot be improved upon? I am get ting to be of the opinion somewhat like yourself MT Hurley; that IS. that the butcher must be watched. and per haps this license scheme Of yours would fbe a good one, and if you will get your lawyer, Mir. Armstrong, t5 work cn it and get it into shape 2s a separate act, I will premise you to get the opinion of some of the butchers in the territory. whose opinions I re- 5pect, and if it is as good prOposi- \