Tombstone epitaph., 1915-01-24
Where Legislature
 Has No Power

NNc" INC l'HrfNNSi t"ti we " f''.'' tune call q >pt,ial ,h, ii"Ii i"i th' I.u pose of resubmitting the amti-blaCkn { and mothers pension laws. and posei ply the prohibition amendment. Auto, ney of 0 Gibson has called our atten tion to the following constitutional amendment adopted by the people a' ,he recent election. which. in Mir Gibson's opinion, depriv's the legisla- lature of power to take any steps to amend or repeal any initiated meas ure: The veto power of the Governor. or the power of the Legislature, to re peal or amend. shall not extend to ini- tiative or referendum measures ap- proved by a majority of tine qualified electors"
 Mir Gibson said concerning the prohibition amendment:
 The prohibition amendment now in force was taken from the federal stat ute relating to the prohibition of the July 9. 1892, which reads as follows:
 No ardent spirits. ale, beer, wine. or intoxicating liquor or liquors of whatever kind shall be introduced, un- der any pretense, into the Indian country. Every person who sells. ex- changes. gives. barter.s or disposes of any ardent spirits, ale. beer, wine, or intoxicating liquors of any kind to any Indian under charge of an Indian su- perintendent or agent, or introduces or attempts to introduce any ardent spirits ale. wine, beer or intoxicating liquor of any kind into the Indian country shall b punished by imprisonment for not more than two years, and by fine of not more than three hundred dollars | for each offense.
 The Arizona constitutional amend ment was copied verbatim from the 1 federal statute that was enacted twen- ty-two years ago, all this time being i enforced by United States district and | circuit judges. Thousands of violators have been sentenced thereunder during | this time. and its constitutionality has never been attacked and no one has ! ever raised the question that it was too drastic in its provisions.
 l The best evidence that it was not ! immature nor rill-considered is the fact that il was passed by the Congress of the United States. composed of some ! of the ablest lawyers in the country and that although it has seen more then a score of years of service no test case was ever made of any of its pro visions. It remained for the liquor forces of Arizona to question its suffici- ency and up to the present time they have only succeeded in creating a con fusion in the pubic mind concerning it. The only change that was made in tho federal statute was such as would make it adaptable to Arizona; but so far as the prohibitory language is concerned language is identical, and all that is in tended, or could be intended. to ac- complish by the Arizona amendment is the same results for the state of Ari
 zona that the federal law accomplish, for the Indian country.
 During these twenty-twa years no officer of the United States govern ment, So far as tke record shows, ever enforced or attempted to enforce the provisions of the law as against any
 physician; druggist. priest or preacher
 for the introduction into Indian coun- try of alcohol for medicinal purposes S. or of wine for communion The vigi- lance of these officers no one will dis pute. They have been alert. and u c the records of the federal courts will show their maIveloas efficiency in en- forcing the provisions of the law. It must he clearly evident that no federal official. from the supreme court on down to deputy marshal. ever inter preted or construed this federal statute to prevent the introduction of alcohol for medicinal purposes or wine for communion, because all of this time doctors have been treating sick Indians with alcoholic compounds, rubbing them with pure alcohol and Iudi aus