Arizona republican., 1910-08-15
SIXTH LETTER ON
 SUBJECT OF CIWCS
Prepared by the Rev. E. N. Phillips
 Pastor of the Christian Church.

We have urged with the most posi-
 tive speech of which we are capable
 that the whisky traffic is unconstitu-
 tional We continue that claim in this
 paper By the decision of the United
 states supreme court in the case of
 Crowley vs Christensen 137 U. $. S6,
 II Sup. Court Rep 13. quoted in last
 weeks paper, the latter clause of
 which reads: There is no inherent
 right in a citizen to sell intoxicating
 liquors by retail. It is not privilege
 of a citizens of the state. or a citizen of the United States" We are com
 peled to face the following conclu-
 sions: First, the liquor business is not recognized as a legitimate business by the United states supreme court; sec ond the retail dealer who conducts such business does so in violation of the law. and abuse of the right of his citizenship. becoming in the spirit if not in the letter a criminal and an outlaw; third, by virtue of this abuse of law on citizenship. the liquor dealer has no liberties which his fellows. or the government, are bound to respect;
 
 the saloon supporters boast with much heat and indignation as their inherent right as Americans, is a farce and a delusion, born of vain hope. Do you hear the indictment of the United States supreme court? Plainly it means that the retail liquor dealer, as such is an ''out law" Being such, he has no liberty"
 These words are not intended to be | harsh. They are merely spoken with l an earnest desire to speak what is in i the nature of saloon philosophy a hard | unkind truth. It will be thought upon | first consideration that the above con | clusions are new and novel That | they are not generally realized as be- | ing true by the supporters of the re- | tail liquor business. But they are not | new. They are old truths, and bitter | ly recognized by the unfortunate I friends of that traffic. They, as well | as the dignitaries of the law, know I their business is foreign to the privi | leges of American citizenship. and | therefore unconstitutional It is for | this reason this class of business men submit to taxes. revenues, fines and licenses which are out of reason with justice It is for this reason they patiently put up with such abusive treatment at the hands of the govern ment. We say unjust and abusive, be- cause it is an unkind discrimination. It is clearly a discrimination against the liquor man. The government makes no such levy of taxes or reve- nue on any other class of manufactured products. There is not another class of retail business which is submitted to such exhorbitant license to do busl ness as the liquor saloon. Where is there an institution in this town pay ing $500 year. except the saloon. for the privilege of doing business? In this it will be clearly seen the saloon stands alone-a clear and unjust dis against this one business. Why is this allowed by the friends of the liquor traffic? Why do the retail liquor dealers submit to this discrim ination if it be a recognized and legi- timate business? Does not everyone know that our country is built upon the recognized principle that all men are born equal before the law? The word discrimination cannot be read into our constitution. If the liquor traffic is a legitimate business such demands are purely and clearly against the constitution and laws of our land. Why. then, let us , ask. do not the friends of this traffic demand justice through the courts. We ; can answer this query in very few words. It is because the unfortunate men engaged in that class of business { know their business is illegitimate and ( And knowing this to be the convictions also of the judges I ,f our land, they submit to all these { demands for revenues , md taxes. They fear to stand out for i Justice. knowing that justice is not on T heir side. They fear to venture into i he courts as any other class of busi- i ness men would do. because to do so f would be to submit the enterprise to T scrutiny which would result in driv q ng them out of the country altogether [ No, we repeat, these conclusions as to he iIlegality and unconstitutionality of f he saloon is an old one And none f <now this to be true better than the friends and leaders of that traffic . themselves. I Next week we will have something T o say of the liquor traffic as not [ to the saloon man personal I Y. The paper will emphasize the busi- C ness as the objective point of attack , md not the saloonkeeper. A reeogni- f ion of the fact that the public is to $ blame for liquor saloons and not the I nan who runs it. f
 F. N. PHILLIPS (
 -O-
 sAfound Cifv Paints are befter