The Winslow mail., 1914-10-31

not crimes
R| NNaS@AN "A prohibition law strikes a blow
F>~<S e## |AsN at the very principles which our
>SNE@T% ~ government founded. | never
give my consent to such law you propose to enact
'Until my tongue shall be sienced in death will con-
tinue to fight for the rights OF man.
In considering the amendment framed by Prohbonsts be
voted next Tuesday there several questions of vital mpo
tance involved.
The first is that which appeals moral
Is right or just to deprive neighbo of thing which ne
may injury himself others because ourse
unable to use it without personal injury?
The Prohibitonists say Yes"
The fair minded says NO.
subject the proposition brief analysis that may
reach solution Of the subject clear and rmndd individuals
should:
Is it fair presumption that the woman does
not Intentionally wish to wrong his neighbor?
Taking generally accepted belief the question which
naturally is this Why do Prohibtonsts because very
few suffer drink prohibit all the people from it's use?
for it only by assuming that they have
taken belief in the remedy they prescribe.
Their wherever they have persuaded people try
their remedy has disastrous to their Taxes
Immediately increased Property Values Decreased Dsrespect
Law Created the Funds of the Community were De
peed by legitimate revenue, that which should
Prhbonists of the folly of their wahe of liquor
and drunkenness have continued under conditions
that demorazng thnn could obtain under
ulated license system.
full and fair consideration of the arguments presented
by those for against the prohibition amendment it only too
apparent that the advocates of prohibition have failed sgnay
their efforts to induce the people of Arizona to adopt measure
that has proven ruinous wherever tried.
In framing proposed the Prohonss made the fatal
forming bill more obnoxious than introduced
for the consideration of community.
Well content with their they have boased of their hand
work which makes no exceptions oopholes
the Of introduction OF wines liquors into the state of
Arizona for any purpose.
Since published M Rinehar the spokesman for
D has been bsy engaged defending it. He proclaimed
it ght and more comprehensive in its provisions than any
bill previously submitted to the people of any state.
The ship that proclaimed aght has aeak and
doomed to destruction In assigning for his caaSto
believe
Firstly In making it statewide proposition instead OF eay
ing of the matter the people who constitute the
smallest self-goveIned community.
Secondly In prohibiting the of alcohol for medicinal
poses.
Mr. Rnehart and his local followers spending their
last efforts in attempt to show that the provisions of the
proposed they apply religious rights and medicinal uses
be made operative because of their being IN conflict with
federal laws
We might be willing Rnehart his word but
restrained by that he without authority to speak for
STATE supreme court
At best the pharmacists state would be obliged wait
supreme court decision practices and emergencies that
should never suffer interruptions
the people of Arizona should the proposed amend
man would be ncacuabe For the benefit OF the
probonss who have considered the price their remedy
we following figures to awaken them to sense OF res
possibility.
in liquor paying to the state for licenses
and rents nearly million dollars year This means that
without the derived from liquor sources we would De com
PEELED this loss by going down into our own pockets
for that Professional Probtonists seldom have any
pockets to into Whether they lose they stand to
but little if anything
In Wnslow that the liquor dealers have been paying
more than half Of the expenses of local government
Are willing your increased by such amount
be required to suppyt this o should the FroploUS per
suade to vote dry -?
This would be consequence which you could not
You NAV make that designed stop the sale OF liquor
But do not decided Such law has yet been backed up
By sufficient public sentiment make effective President Taft