Arizona sentinel and Yuma weekly examiner., 1914-09-17

plcnlc at C0ttOnWOOQ springs, l would be compelled to decline your invitation because of the language in which it couched and which in itself would preclude any possibility of the respectful hearing you promise at the hands of yourself and friends. 1 Even thus early in the campaign it has been clearly demonstrated that the question of statewide prohibition in Arizona is not debatable one.
 The attitude of yourself and your CO., workers is not one that would permit of fairness to an opponent. Like others engaged in your field, you ac- quire results by apeals to passion and hysterical denunciation which wholly disregards logic and facts. Like other fanatics you believe that the man who honestly disagrees with yo is nothing less than a fiend and a menace to the community. With you and your colleagues, only YOU are right and the man who opposes you, no matter what his high standing in his community, is immediately brand | ed as a criminal.
 Your statement that my attitude is perfectly satisfactory to every brewer and saloon-keeper n the state is correct. They are engaged in 2 legalized occupation. Wherever their business is declared illegal, I will bC against them AS to the ''boot egger," you are mistaken. He is on YOUR side. He is praying, if he can he cannot thrive where regulated salc of liquor prevails. You can be assur. ed that the bootlegger will be your best vote geter on election day.
 You are equally mistaken in des ignating the circular of the Arizona Local achievement Leagus as from the legalized liquor traffic. y 1t does not defend the liquor traffic The league stands for local option as against statewide prohibition be cause it's members believe n selfgov' ernment. President Woodrow Will son. whose standing as a stateman student of government and christian gentleman, not even you, 1 think will attempt to impeach, has declared that local option is right and state wide prohibition is failure. So has former President Taft and former President Roosevelt and Cardinal Gib- 0ons and Rev. Dr. Parkhurst, the noted 'eformer, and hundreds of other prom nent men of our day.
 Are these men the friends of boot leggers, buns and thugs and allies of the liquor traffic?"
 I have been informed on good au- Ority that in the city of Globe, ,Ariz. in 1910, you stated n the course or m address on constitutional matters, that the only solution of the liquor 'ay in national prohibition and that statewide prohibition had proven a | failure.
 Are you prepared to deny that yoI did make this statement. which was heard and widely commented upon by about some 400 residents of that city?
 If you believed that statewide prohi bition was a failure four years agn what has happened to cause you tc change your mind?
 You have denounced the circul' issued by the Arizona Self-Govern- ment League as a tissue of lies. Just | tell us wherein it lies. Are the gov ernment census figures relating to crime, insanity and pauperism in Kansas, lies? If they are, what are the correct figures?
 Does the United States comptroller of currency lie when he says that th per capita savings deposits of Kansas for 1913 were $4.15 and those of wet" Nebraska were $146.65?
 If so, what are the correct figures?
 Is it a lie that Coch;se county, with 139 saloons, in 1913 sent n convicts to the state penitentiary, and MaricO- pa county with 36 saloons Gall dry except the city of Phoenix) sent 7G convicts there?
 If it it a lie, then ask your MT. Rhinehart to revise his figures, as we took only his statistics.
 Is it lie that nearly-dry Maricopa county has 165 inmates in the state insane asylum and Cochise county with four times as many saloons, has