Bisbee daily review., 1914-12-22
so PER CENT CASE WILL
 BE PRESENTED LATER
Reese M. Ling Submits Six Questions on Prohibition Measure and Bases Attack Upon Being Unconstitutional

AhAOoo LII V cAi6 AoSCo AtNeASHN Upon Being Unconstitutional LOS ANGELES. Dec 21 - Argu- ments on the main issue involved in the injunction suit brought by Ari- zona htigants against the enforce ment of the prohibition law passed at the recent election in Arizona, were heard today before Federal Judges Ross. Sawtelle and Welborn. The technical point was raised by Judge Ross of the Circuit Court. that the tribunal before which the pro ceedings were brought was not em- powered to interfere in the contest of such constitutional amendments Aft CT consideration of the point 1t was ruled that the tribunal possessed the necessary jurisdiction.
 Counsel for the several lugants completed their arguments with the exception of the case presented in behalf of the Rev. Thomas Connolly, a Catholic priest of Tucson. This will be resumed tomorrow.
 Arguments in the contest of Ari- zona's SO per cent law will moi be taken up until the prohibition pro ceedings are disposed of
 On behalf of the Owl Drug and Candy Company, Reese M. Ling pre- sented an argument which served to state the case of all druggists in Ari- zona. He submitted the following ques- tions to the court:
 l. Is such constitutional amend ment selfexecuting?
 l. Is the amendment Uf self-eXe- cuting) not in contravention with the Fourteen Amendment of the Const- tuition of the United States, because of destroying the value Of complain ants property which was in existence at the data of the passage of the amendment, permitting it to sell the same only between Dec. l2, 1914 Cthe date of Governor Hunts procla- maton) and Jan. 1, 1915?
 III Win not the enfocement of the amendment prevent citizens of Arizona and citizens of other states sojourning in Arizona, from procur ing the prohibited articles for use as medicines, thus violating the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by depriving and abridg ing their privileges as citizens of the United States?
 w. Is not such Constitutional pro visions in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution of the United States because of its prohibition o shipments under any pretense and the introducing or attempting to in troduce into Arizona of any of tho prohibited articles mentioned there on?
 " Is the amendment within th' police power of the State of Arizona
 VI. Is the amendment divisible?
 MT. Ling contended that the en forcement of the amendment will de priye the complainants of their prop erty by preventing its sale withii Arizona of its stock of goods, thu causing complete loss in value Tor al purposes of such property The en forcement of the amendment, he saiC will thus destroy vested propert rights and the complainants are CT titled to a restraining order eniolnin state officers from the threatened er forcement of the amendment. The fac that this violation Is punishable as criminal ocense does not change th rule.
 Mir. Ling said
 while 1t Is true tho amendmen defines certain acts which i desil mates as misdemeanors and provide that the punishment shall be by in prisonment for not less than te days. nor more than two years, an by a fine of not less than S25 an costs nor more than $500 and cost for each offense, it does not lay dow rules by means of which these pril ciples may be given the force Of lay
 That the amendment cannot selIexecuting cleaqly appears frol the designation of the Drohibite acts as misdemeanors which are al thorized to be punished by the Il nicuon of greater penalties tha