Arizona republican., 1910-04-19
What Are Not lssuss.


 is the personality Of the candidates for councilmen-their reputation as honest and progressive citizens-their power to advance further the inter- ests Of Phoenix.
 In some quarters there hss been 6 disposition to cloud the landscape by Preferences to municipal ownership saloon regulation and prohibition. However meritorious these proposi- tions may be they are not now is- sues in city campaign. The first has been. taken out of the power Of the council and the others have not been within the jurisdiction of the council and win not likely be. within the term of any councilman who will be chosen next Monday
 The present council permitted the municipal ownership question to go to the people where it belonged The required majority requested congress to allow the voting taxpayers of Phoenix to say at another election whether or not this city should ac- quire a municipal lighting and power system. bill embodying that re- quest is now in congress. If it passes the people will settle the mu- nicipal ownership question whatever may be the attitude of councilmen toward the subject. Even a hostile council could not deprive the people of such privilege, conferred by con- gress. As to prohibition. any coun- cil would be equally powerless, to hasten or retard action. There will probably be a local option election in May but it cannot under the law be called by the council. That is the business of the board of supervisors who will have entire control of the election both within and without the corporate limits of Phoenix
 Concerning the regulation of sa- looms the most ardent friend Of the liquor traffic and the most earnest advocate of prohibition would be in the same boat. The former would find it inadvisable for the saloons, to remove any of the restrictions which have been imposed upon them and the prohibitionist would find it impossible to impose any additional restrictions without the consent of the saloon keepers.
 The fact Is. that the city cotncil of Phoenix has little power to regu- late the saloon business; only as much power as it has te regulate .the ness. While city officials, lawyers and saloon keepers generally were aware of the limited power of the council over the saloons. the public may not generally have been aware of ir until Judge Kent rendered his decision in the "open front case. Even that decision did not state how very limited the power of the council 1 was.
 In an early day the saloon must have had q prophetic-friend assisting in the making of the charter. There 1 was no antagonism in Phoenix to the l saloon business then but this friend. ] whoever he was. foresaw that there | would be. He was therefore careful l 10 provide that the saloon business l should not be discriminated against | and he put it on plane with other | businesses using as an illustration of | what he meant the words. dry goods i business" probably moved thereto by | it's difference from the wet goods business" Notwithstanding his care. the sa- looms have been regulated and they | have stood 1t. fearful that opposi ton would create hostile sentiment which would exterminate them. They have been closed at midnight and on Sundays though there is no ordinance so regulating other business. They are compelled to pay license of sl00o & year while no other business pays such license tax.
 No one will contend that the coun- ci should not have full power to regu- late the saloons, but the fact is. it has not full power and cannot have it until the charter shall be amend ed
 Thus we see that not one of these three propositions we have mentioned can be regarded as a practical issue In this campaign. Now. as to MT. McDermott the re- publican candidate from the Second ward and Mir. Cisney from the Fourth. we are certain that they would not favor the removal of any of the saloon restrictions now in effect: they could not if they would and they would not if they could, pre-