Bisbee daily review., 1916-10-25
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1916
IN ALL FAIRNESS.

l hat the people ot the State Of Ar1Zona, who place the prohibition issue above every other ques ton before the people, should condemn the can- didacy of Chief Justice Henry D. Ross for re election to the supreme bench on the ground that he concurred with the court in the personal use" case, seems obviously unfair and un just More over very unfortunately, if the campaign against the Democartic candidate is continued 1t promises to react against the very amendment which all good-thinkng people may support law which will really carry out the states end of the Webb Kenyon Bill.
 It would appear that certain of the prohibition leaders take the position that the supreme court should have declared, in the Sturgeon case that the law was absolutely correct in every detail. They maintain that the highest tribunal in the state should have taken "a position against pre- cedant and law in the case and are now support ing Judge Otis ]. Baughn for the supreme court because he is credited with the assertion that he would do all he could if elected to counteract the effect of the decision.
 In all fairness to Judge Baughn it is inconceiv- able to believe that he made such statement. He IS too able lawyer to take a position of that kind in the face of such precedant and law. From Samuel D. Weakley, former chief justice of the state of Alabama who writes; "l have been fighting for prohibition in Alabama since 1907, and have drafted all the prohibition laws enacted by the state from 1907 to the present tme", there is declaration that the Arizona supreme courts decision in the Sturgeon case, should be entirely satisfactory to all prohibtionsts'
 Judge Weakley's letter, in part, follows:
 'I have read the decision of the Supreme Court of Arizona in the Sturgeon case and 1t IS evident from the opinion of the Court that had there been in Arizona a law against the receipt and possession of liquor as there is in Alabama, 1t would have been sustained by the Court. In that opinion the Supreme Court goes as far towards restraining and restricting liquor shipments for personal use as any Supreme Court in the country. The court expressly approved the Idaho decision in Ex parte Crane ,and the principle laid down in the Sturgeon case would support statute or constitutional amendment so framed as to har- monize and fit in with the Webb-K Kenyon law After reading the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Sturgeon case, am satisfied that the case was correctly decided upon the ground that the amendment did not fail within the terms of the Webb-Kenyon law, but am further more of the opinion that the Court laid down principles that should be entirely satisfactory to prohibitonists
 
 either by adopting the proposed amendment or by having statute directed against receipt and pos session of liquor, since such a statute would put into operation the Webb Kenyon law. This prn- ciple has been precisely so decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama and by the Supreme Court of North Carolina and very recently by majority, or four out of five judges of the South Carolina Supreme Curt. The opinion in the Sturgeon case was very carefully prepared and is we'll supported by the authorities which it cites, and am satisfied that just ground of complaint can be made against the court or any member thereof on ac- count of that decision"
 All right thinking prohbitonists should ap- prove Of the courts decision. From every au- thority obtainable its decision was based upon L0aU. Most certainly the people who desire actual prohibition do not wish an amendment which will not stand the test to the very highest tribunal in .the United States. fhe remedy for faulty law isapparent and the prohbtionsts are now taking advantage of it. Should 1t be passed it will be a bulwark against liquor and will mean actual pro hibition.
 The hurtful part of the entire matter IS that the prohbtionsts zeal in the matter, If 1t takes upon