Bisbee daily review., 1915-01-15
cAReLgss. eur Nor cRookEp


 We are i receipt of a letter which reads in part as follows
 -aitor lhs ncaeN:-- pou,c by gam scer eoit- oraI that you say it would be we'll to take a census of Aose in the Warren District who continue in their efforts keep the Eighty Per Cent measure alive In the remainder Of your writing yuo just as ui. rh accuse all those who voted for and advo- cated the Eighty Per cent law as being crooks or people who not law-abidng citizens or as you put 't maloontents given to disorder It to that it stupidness of the rankest kind your part, that you haven't as yet been able to that Arizona is undergoing a change The quicker you recognize this fact and get in line and say some thing that will favor the working man rather than lnoc, him, the better it win be for you as pub lie servant fthe people. I will not sign my name to this letter But ! can assure you that am not a crook ] am a Iaw-abding citizen that pays an my just an honest debts"
 The Review has striven consistently and honestly to prove that first and last friend of the working an effort to deserve this recognition it has en- deavored problems affecting the working man in a which would be instructive Prior to the election The Review counseled against adoption of the Eighty Per law because of conviction that he was inimical to the best interests of the working Reasons for so believing were stated as clearly and uccinctly possible Neither prior to nor following the election has The Review said that the working man who voted for the measure or continues believe provisions is a crook We did not think so then and do not think so now. Every man is en titled his opinion any subject We believed before election and believe that the Eighty Per Cent law is the work of political agitaors and is an expres sion of class prejudice believe that the rank and file of oring voted for the measure were act mated by honest motives but subscribed to an error through insufficient knowledge fthe subject through blind obedience to false leaders.
 Our correspondent described himself as a law abiding citizen" Accepting this statement We respect fully call his attention the that our laws are iu erpreed by the courts The courts passing on the ques ton of this Arizona measure have declared it uncon sttutonal null void The purpose of law is to insure order The courts say that the measure is illegal Will our correspondent deny that exercising feay to an i legality provocative disorder? If the courts had sustained the measure. The Review would have sub scrbed their infinitely superior judgment Does our correspondent undertake to place himself above the courts? In the legality has progressed Inc is delared illegal This status will hold un til the highest tribunal in the and-shoud an appeal be taken decide otherwise
 We repeat our belief that the measure was passed by majority of voters aborng under misapprehension afflicted by In order volunteer such further light the subject may add to Che information or our correspondent and other working men, we proer the following opinions expressed by the Ngw York Times and the Boston News Bureau. These are unselish un preiudced comments of editorial writers whose views are accepted with respect throughout this country The Times says:
 "rhe people of Arizona by a referendum or dained that not than one alien should be em- ployed in each block of five wage.earners Italians, Chinese and Japanese residents of Arizona brought the law before Federal court sitting in California, and it sannured unconstitutional Those who think more fthe popular initiative and referendum than they do of the Constitution will consider this an outrage refusal of the right of the people to rule, and a turning back the road of progress But friends fthe Constitution, who are better stayers than the friends of progress" will consider that the decision of the in fact places the rule of all the people above the rule of some of the people and that Che decision is based in Che interest of the few people who mistakenly procured the passage of tbe unconstitutional law.
 Taking me question Of interest first 10 s a shousighted law which seeks to compel employers