Bisbee daily review., 1915-03-06
rHE aPRoHlelrIoNr cLAoUE

The sure intent of the various local authorities in Arizona to carry out the fundamental provisions of the prohibition amendment is no longer in doubt. The suit of their intentions as put in practice is recorded in hc number arrests made and the fidelity with which prosecution of alleged violations conducted. The au tucrtes are upheld in their work by the knowledge that public sentiment is with them. The people de creed tbat TRAFFIC in liquor must in this State There is no indication that the people regret having i'm posed this decree.
 The prohibition forces during the recent campaiss emphasized the assertion that was their purpos, to assa personal liberty in seeking the eradication o tho liquor traffic They were exceedingly sensitive this score Thousands of votes were boiled by women who took the prohibtonists at their word spite of the that the prohibition amendment faie to safeguard personal liberty the of liquor if sue use was without quibble, divorced from raic. It assumed that the amendment, known to be faulty construction and of legislative correction woul be shaped in accordance with the spirit of the peo pies mandate. It was assumed that the prohibition forces would cooperate this end with those force which, although no. allied in politics with prohibition were no less sincere in expressing the liquor trad in Arizona since the people so wiled
 It seems therefore surprising that Mir Narus me with hostile reception in the legislature when he of rerod amendment permitting the introduction of r qror for personal use Why the uproar? Who we-, these behind it? MT. Kans proposed nothing tha would ieopardize the popular mandate against TRAF PICKING in liquor His sole object to place in thu rroposed statute clause defining what the people O Arizona wanted and what the prohibitionists endorse when the amendment was put to vote last election A T, ItuIaton of the activities in the legislature relst ing Go dry" bill shows that no measure authorizn the right of entry and the right of seizure stands chance Of passage This because Of the known fac that Che people wou dnot tolerate such law. It i more than evasion nothing short of moral cowar dice-to draw a law so loosely that what constitute personal liberty in the of liquor is left in doubt
 The Review does not undertake in discussing th merits of the as it exists in Arizona champion tLe cause either of temperance total abstinence Those are subjects properly left to personal opinion But we believe there danger revusion of feelin ir the legislature imposes more than the people wan We believe that much goo dha sbeen accomplished b the elimination of egalized pemicious traffic Hn T ouor To lose this advantage by creating popular dis gust through doubtful legislation, would be deporabe
 law ceases to possess the power of law when majority longer supports it. Enforcement is impo sble The people Of Arizona have signfed that thei personal liberty in the of liquor must be safeguar od Proposed legislation which would tend to intr Id upon personal liberty has been repudiated Then wl tuis opposition to a straightforward amendment whic shall uphold personal liberty? Just long the legi IaJure opposes the adoption of clearlydehned amen u,ent on the subject it is sludug Just long pla ing to the gallery draws caque acclaim. personal ii crty win be too holy thing for of the sancrosan
 legislators to dare to champion We hold that M Earns did mo more no less than his duty in propo ing his amendment We hold that Claridge Drachma supley and Che others who joined in Che "uproar eith jcered with the of tbe fanatic who knov neither right wrong, argued without adequa knowledge of what the people of Arizona meant to press when they voted for prohibition amendme which would stop TRAFFlcNNG in liquor in Arzo and also guard against the rape of personal liberty