Arizona republican., 1904-08-01

 places and had been recognized by my friends and others: that my good name had been attacked, as a consequence. and tha.t as a result of the shock and modification upor my ascertaining that I had been made public property of in this manner, l was actually con fined to my bed with nervous troubles, and placed under the care of a physi cian; that such use of my likeness was being continued and that l desired an injunction against the defendants re- straining the further use thereof.
 "The question arose upon demurrer and the special term held that the com plaint entitled me to relief The ap- pellate division of the fourth depart ment unanimously affirmed that deci- sion, and upon the appeal to the court of appeals this latter court was divid- ed. three of the judges deciding with you that the admitted facts furnished no ground for relief and three dissent ing. You referred ito my cause of ac- tion as a 'so-called' right of privacy and admitted that such publicity. which some find agreeable, is to plain tiff very distasteful ard that l suffered mental distress, when others would have appreciated the compliment to their beauty and in an opinion six teen pages long you arrived at the conclusion that I had no rights that could be protected by your tribunal.
 1T am forced to the conclusion that this incident well illustrates the truth of the old saying that it makes lot of difference whose OK is gored. l sym pathize with Mrs. Parker in her annoy ance but I know of no reason why you or your family have any rights of the m yture suggested which do not equal ly belong to me. Indeed, as between us, I submit that I was much more entitled to protection than you. l was a poor girl making my living by my daily efforts and never had couIted publicity in any manner. I had never appeared before the public in any ca pacity nor solicited any favor at it's hands.
 You, on the other hand, are can didate for the highest office in the gift of the people of the United States, and that fact makes you the legitimate cen- ter of public interest. You are asking the suffrage of the American public, and the American public would seem to have some legitimate right of inves- tigation. Your candidacy is something more than merely voluntary. and it may fairly be said that you have in- vited the curiosity which we have both found to be somewhat annoying Tc this extent, at least, it would seem to me that the right which you denied me, but which you now assert for your self, was stronger in my case than in yours.
 If you will re-read your opinion you will discover that you laid down very clearly therein that you have no cause of complaint against these gentlemen, armed with cameras. They are acting strictly within the rights reserved to them by your decision, for in my case you distinguised my case from ona wherein the rarty misusing my photO- graph had obtained it with the right to use it for certain purposes, but was using 1t in some other manner. In that case you admitted that such use could be restrained. In effect, you con- tended that the rights of one who ob- tains a likeness surreptitiously are su- perior to those ol one who buys the right to use it for one purpose, but uses it for another. Naturally the camera fiend feels licensed to annoy you and your family in the manner in which you yourself suggested, at least within the borders of this state"
 Judge Parker has made no response to this letter, and we do not know. therefore, whether he considers that sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.