The border vidette., 1931-01-10

state who will never have money
enough 10 get out. | would ask
If that IS any reason why per.
500 who does possess enough
money to get out should be re.
q li.ed to remain?
Fourthly, they believe that
it vii cffer asylum to those who
are willing to accept the man.
dates of their own state on the
subject" To me that is one of
the greatest privileges Of being
az Ane. ican cli1n 1t we do
not Ike the laws Of one state we
m,y move to some state where
tnpg are better suited to us.
FL t1ly. they believe that
it will bring odium upon our
state resulting in unfavorable
Advertising aud social and eco.
nomic d soaragement." I be.
iievs that the word "odium"
means hatred. | don't see why
anyone should hate us for reliev
ing some poor soul in distress.
[ this "unfovorable ad dvertising"
before mentioned will bring in
the millions which l predict that
the proposed legislation will
bring ia, then | for one am look.
ing for this class of advertising.
And as to the social and econo.
mic disporagement" I really
dolit see why we should be un.
darvalued socially and economi.
caily because our laws do not
exactly coincide with the laws
Of other states.
Now as to your editorial, you
state in the first place the bill
is pletely out of step with
Ar:zona ideas and ideals" You
don't say what these ideas and
ideals" are: You jump to the
money question. You state it
will not create the enormous in.
dastry as set forth by the sup.
porters of the the measure" "You
seem to think the measure would
be alright it did create this
enormous industry" You
quote r mo paper which states
Lnat the divorce law Of Nevada
does not bring ia more than a
million dollars year to. Reno.
Naturally the Reno newspapers
will fight any law in any other
state which will affect the, in.
come of Rsno. They would ma.
turaly like to keep this "bonan.
"a" for themselves.
l do not believe your state.
ment that some of the support.
ers of this measure would have
the public believe that only the
rich people secure divorce" I
Go believe however. that only
people of some worldly goods
would come to Arizona for that
purpose. Tue poor will stay at
home and secnre theirs.
Now we come down to the one
big idea in your editorial. You
state that Phoenix will be the
only place benefited" You are
selfish enough TO hate to see
Phoenix or any other town than
your own benefited by piece
of legislation. You do admit
that some part of the state
would be benefited but you do
not give your reason for stat.
ing why Phoenix would be the
only place to benefit. Is it that
you think Phoenix is more at.
tractive than other cities in the
state? What is wrong with our
own little Nogales? You state
that the hotels in Phoenix would
benefit and that the Hotels in
Nogales, Prescott and Douglas
would not know that the law
existed" and you doubt if the
attorneys would share in the fin.
ancial benefits. Then you state
that the Hotels and attorneys
are rallying to the support Of
the measure" The hotels and
attorneys Of the state must feel
that they will do fairly we'll.
l don't know on what grounds
the Phoenix Ministerial associa.
ton is opposing this bill but,
Mr.. Editor, if they are as un.
sound and illogical as the
grounds given in the above men
toned resolution and in your
editorial l have no fear for the
future of the bill.
G. @. CRENSHAW.