Bisbee daily review., 1921-10-14


 Referring to your editorial entitled An Injurious Order" it is evident from an analysis of 1t that the writer has not gwen as much consideration 10 the subject as has the corporation commission.
 In the first place the objection of the federal prohibition enforcement department of this state to the con- flScatlon clause in insurance policies is that it is against public policy in so far as it specifically insures the dealer against contiscation of the au- tomobile by the user of the machine under a Conditional Sales contract in case of violation by said user of the national prohibition act or other laws of the United States re,arlng to the transportation of intoxicating liquors or other articles subject to restricted sale. It also expressly provides that upon payment of loss by the insurance company, the automobile dealer shall deliver to the insurance company all conditional sale contracts, notes and other securities relating to the confis- cated automobile, and that the insur- ance company shall be abrogated to all the rights of the automobile deal CT thereunder.
 What is there in this insurance pol icy that protects the public good from the actions of an interruptions auto mobile dealer and there may ue such who have knowledge of the use for which the car is purchased? I have now in my office one of such policies, issued to one of the most notorious bootleggers in this state, one of the most persistent violators or the na- tional prohibition act.
 The writer of the editorial says in the second paragraph: Tt removes entirely the only insurance the agen- cies. can have-that an automobile sold by them on the installment plan. and practically every automobile is so sold, that it Will never be paid for. Not one car in thousand sold on the installment plan ever becomes iden- tified with the unlawful transporta- tion of liquor." The two sentences in this paragraph do not seem to be in accord. The first sentence as sumes that unless the dealer can have confiscation insurance, the car will never be paid for. It assumes that the man who buys the car must go into the liquor business and have his car confiscated by the government so that the dealer may get paid for it. In the next sentence it says that not one car in a thousand sold on the in- stallment plan ever becomes identi- fled with the unlawful transportation of liquor. If this contention be true, why all this hysteria of the automo- bile dealers regarding the order of the corporation commission, why the nee. essity of the insurance clause pro- tecting the dealer against confisca- tion by the government of machines engaged in the liquor traffic if only one machine in a thousand sold on the installment plan ever become iden tified with the unlawful transpOrta- tion of liquor? How does this order of the corporation commission impose fatal handicap upon the automObilc selling business in AriZna and leave vacant nineIenths of the offices and sales rooms of automobile TOW in Phoenix?
 The writer, from his short eXper- fence in the enforcement of the nation al prohibition act in this state Is thoroughly convinced that the auto mobile itself is an absolutely neccs- sary instrument to carry on the whole sale bootlegging business without 1t the wholesaler or manufacturer, par ticularlv the wholesaler m Nogales,