Arizona republican., 1914-09-22

MT. Rinehart has undertaken to re- ply to my answer to MT. Chafn's challenge but after carefully perus- ing Mr. Rineharts article in the Re publican, 1 have been unable to find any answer to the questions I put to Mir Chafin
 As Mir. Rinehart has voluntarily taken up the cudgels in behalf of his cO-worker and in the absence of any response from the prohibition candidate for United States senator, will ask him if he agrees with the declaration of MT. Chain in Globe four years ago that statewide prohi- bition is a failure and the only solu- tion for the liquor problem is nation- al prohibition"
 | 1 believe that the people of Ari- Zona are entitled to know if those i failure on them are sincere, or if per sonai aggrandiZement is the motive i behind their campaign. MT. Rine- i hart. while he is at it, might also inform the people if it is true, as re- ported, and why if true, he has been Idiscredited by the National Prohibit tiOn Party. and the National Anti Saloon League. He might also tell l if it is true, as reported. that his present labors were undertaken for personal gain, after he had failed to secure federal office at the hands of the Democratic administration. am merely mentioning these reports because MT Rinehart has questioned my personal motives.
 MT. Rinehart's attempt to explain his explanation with reference to crime and insanity in Arizona is so absurd that it requires no further reference He admits the point made in the circular of the Arizona Local elf-Government League that there is no relation between the sa- loon itself, and crime and insanity that the relation exists instead be- tween the consumption of liquor, and crime and insanity Granting this for the sake of argument let me ask MT Rinehart this question:
 How are you going to decrease the consumption of liquor when by your latest interpretation of your amend ment, any person can have any quan- tity of liquor shipped into the state for personal consumption?
 Isn't it true also that secret drink
 ing is more demoraliZing than oper drinking that with every drinking
 man and woman in the state getting
 his or her supply of liquor shipped
 in. there will be more drinking thar under the regulated sale?
 You might also tell the people MT
 Rinehart why you said in your offic ! ial argument in the state pubicit! : pamphlet that your amendment would , absolutely prohibit the introduction of liquor into the state 'in any guise
 or under any pretense';. that hquo for medicinal purposes would b.
 barred: that your amendment lis tn ! first proposal in the world on thi question that makes no exemption nor concessions.
 Were you trying to deceive tn
 people then, or are you trying to de ceive them now?
 l Is your latest interpretation of you , amendment plea for the votes the secret drinkers and the bootleg
 gers, or is it on acknowledgment
 that you didn't know what you wer
 writing when you drafted the amend
 ment?
 You accuse me of dishonesty I quoting the banking statistics 0 Kansas and Nebraska. I did no | state that the per capita deposits c / Kansas were $415 as against tn
 s146.65 of wet Nebraska. Thos
 are the figures of the controller c
 currency and your attempt to dls ! tort and iuggle these figures, is prob ~ ably attributable to the same motiv
 which impels you to. ignore the com
 parative crime and insanity figure
 of those two states as compiled D q the United States census bureau. :. I also wish to take issue with tn . statement that bootlegging is mor prevalent in wet" states than pro Inhibition states, although it is so ab surd that it scarcely requires refu tation. The criminal history