Newspaper Page Text
Paper - ■ ■ VOL. 20. Winslow Rejects Prohibition i AUTO ACCIDENT QUITE SERIOUS Quite a serious accident which might have resulted fatally to four of our citizens happened Wednes day afternoon when Messrs. Lee Stayton, J. R. Williams, John Fleming and Harvey Powell were on their way to the Trading Post ir'i the latters auto. The gentle men were out on a pleasure ride to the Trading Post and were go ing along smoothly when all at o icc the car upset, from some unknown cause, pitching the men about twenty and thirty j f »et from the car. Mr. Fleming was the first to arise after the fall and realized immediately that his three com panions were totally disabled. Mr. Stayton with his arm broke in two places, and his left ear literally cut from his head. Mr. Williams with his face lacerated by being thrown thru the wind shield of the auto, and Mr. Pow-: ell about thirty feet from the car | badly bruised and internally in- j .iured. The car is a total wreck. ; Mr. Fleming immediately made his way to the Trading Post and summoned help from here and Drs. Bazell and Hathaway, in the autos of Messrs. Kiddoo and Kaufman, went lo’the assistance of the injured men. Although under the doctors care at the present time all the men are able to be about excepting Mr. Powell, who will not be able to leave his bed for a few days yet. University President to Lec= ture Here Monday, March 31, Doctor A. H. Wilde, president 1 of the University of Arizona, will arrive in this city Monday morn ing, accompanied by Doctor Chandler of the university, for the purpose of lecturing under the auspices ot the local high school. Dr. Wilde and his colleague will spend the morning in visit ing the various schools of the city, and will address the high school student body. In the afternoon at 3 o’clock these gen tlemen desire to meet the ladies of the city at the high school building, at which time a public reception will be held for them in the assembly room. In the evening at 8 o’clock at the Front street opera house Dr. Wilde will lecture on the “Relation of the High School to the Community.’ and Prof. Chandler will lecture on a topic which is of vital interest to all: “The High Cost of Living.” No admission will be charged as the university extension department - sends the lecturers to the various cities of the state. Everybody is cordially invited to attend any or all of these meetings and become better ac quainted with the foremost edu cator of the southwest, Doctor Wilde. It is the doctor’s desire to meet all of the people of the city who are interested in educa tion at one of the meetings. Mr. Simpson, manager of the warehouse for the Santa Fe at Holbrook, was a visitor in town the early part of the week. Since Mr. Simpson has taken charge of ihe warehouse at Holbrook for the company the freight conges tion, which has caused consider able in the past, has been minim ized. THE WINSLOW MAIL BILL NO. 32, ELK I PRESERVE DEFEATED L Pheonix, Arizona, March 22. — The bill to create a game preserve in Coconino and Navajo counties was defeated today by the fol lowing vote: Ayes: Babbitt, Ball, Bradner, Buchanan, Cro foot, Drennan, Duncan, Graham, Hall, Jones, Kelton,. Kerr, Moore, of Pima, Mr. Speaker—l 4. Nay: Barker, Brooks, Cocke, Curry, Ellis, Jones, Gonzales, Irvine, Jacobs, Jacobson, Johnson, Kane, Lewis, Lynch, Maddock, Mattox, Moore of Yavapai, Murphy, Sax- Km, Whipple, Wren —20. Excused 1, Craig. Defeated bills receive scant no tice in the newspapers, if any; yet defeat, when it affects some particular locality, is as much a cause for rejoicing as the passing of other bills. This is the case in the defeat of House Bill No. 32, introduced by a member from Yavapai county, endeavoring to | create a game preserve in Coco j nino and Navajo counties, for I the elks shipped into Arizona i from Colorado. The cattlemen sent Barnett Stiles, of Winslow, to Phoenix, where he labored with the members for two weeks to have them understand that that game preserve was not wanted in Coconino and Navajo counties; at tifiies he felt he might even prevent its coming to life in the house. However, once in the hands of the mem bers of the House, the represen tative from Coconino was at once on the firing line. No member in the House is so corageous, de termined, and persistent a fighter i for their constituency as Thos. Maddock. To know the wants of his county means for him to make good for them. As a rule he does, too. While the bill was struggling for the light he told the members that if these coun ties had wanted this game pre serve they would have asked their own representative to in troduce the bill; that there were no live' streams in that section save those developed by the stockmen for their sheep and cattle, and for that reason they did not want the preserve there to take from livestock what was rightly theirs. Coconino county now has 1 , one game preserve, that of the Grand Canyon, it has a national forest, The Coconino, and the eastern part of the coun , ty is almost all under the Navajo Indian reservation, while the southwest corner is given over to the Hualpa Indian reservation, , and notwithstanding all this you want to take 450 square miles more of these counties for elks. Mr. Stiles told the members that what the cattlemen want is pro tection to their ranges, which to the country seem more necessary than that the wild game should be taken care of. Barnett Stiles stayed in Phoenix until business i called him home, but he knew that if parlimentary tactics could delay or side-track the bill the representative from Coconino would do it. The cattlemen of these counties have both Stiles and Maddock to thank that they are not saddled with another res-! , ervation and that the bill to make j one died aborning. Fresh eggs for sale at 40c per dozen. W. A. Vaughan, near Mrs. Korn. Winslow-The Metropolis of Northern Arizona WINSLOW. NAVAJO COUNTY, ARIZONA, MARCH 29, 1013 Why Prohibition Failed in Winslow From the result recorded by the recent election in Winslow, it is not difficult to draw conclusions. Personal Privilege as opposed to Prohibition was the main issue, and upon that is sue, voters made decision. There were other considerations, doubtless, which were fully weighed, chief of which was the increase of taxation certain to result from the loss of liquor revenues. But we believe, stripped of all minor elements that entered into the question, the proposition resolved itself into a choice between Liberty and Restriction. And from the birth of the Republic to the present time the people at large have always chosen to protect their liberties. That desire is inher ent in the breast of every man and will probably continue to the end of time. Man has ever rebelled against prohibition in whatsoever form it may appear. It began when Adam was commanded not to eat of the forbidden fruit under penalty of banishment from the Garden of Eden. Commands and laws have proved ineffective in creating ideal conditions and perfect men. We must have laws for the protection of the individual and society at large. But the extent to which man generally will comply with laws is dependent, largely, upon whether the laws shall appear to him as reasonable or unreasonable. He will not dispute the justice of a law that punishes the murderer, the thief and the endless number of other felons who violate the rights of their fellow man. His reason is the governing factor that impells him to accept some laws as right and others as wrong. This is a human quality which time will not alter. In the consideration of a prohibition law it is little to be wondered at that the people as a whole are opposed to it. Many reasons account for its rejection. What appeals to us as perhaps the foremost of these considerations is the fact that in its every essential it is a selfish proposition. To prove this contention and illustrate the position of Prohibition ists we will ask you to answer this question; What percentage of those that you know have become lost to self control from an immoderate or excessive use of intoxicating beverages? You will have to think long to find many. For your informa tion we will say that according to the United States Census re ports it is slightly over six in one hundred thousand. If it were as many as two in one hundred, shall the ninety-eight who use liquor withought harm to themselves or the rights of others and without wrong to society, be deprived of that which they enjoy for the improbable salvation of two? Would that be in accord with the spirit of personal liberty which con stituted the foundation of our Government? The suffering of friend or relative because of drinking intemperately must al ways command our sympathies. But however deplorable such results may be to a particular individual, the right of denying the use of liquor to the great majority who are temperate in its use, will always be questioned. If the prohibition brethern would spend their energies and resources in educating the peo ple to a full appreciation of the virtue and economic necessity of sobriety; if they would devote their ministrations to the few weak ones who need helpful support in overcoming inordinate appetites; if they ceased their tirade against the despensor of liquor because he supplies a thing which is in legitimate and general demand by the vast majority of people, then might we hope to eradicate or at least minimize the evil which has re sulted to some from the use of liquor. In the local campaign the management of the prohibition forces made serious errors. They first sought to carry favor with the railroad employes by wilfull and malicious misstate ments concerning The Mail’s estimate of the moral and intel lectual qualities of railroad men as a class. For this they are freely forgiven. The damage inflicted upon us, if any, must have been slight, and we are disposed, furthermore, to be lenient in our judgmment of men whose enthusiasm in fight ing a cause will lead them to intemperateness of speech. Another important mistake with which the leaders must charge themselves was their admission that the right of the individual to drink moderately in private was not questioned. This reduced their proposition to one easy of understanding and made simple the forming of conclusions. The question immediate- j ly occasioned by this admission was: “If the prohibitionists admit the right to use liquor why do they seek to destroy the means of i making its use possible? Where do they expect to get it?” It was a reasonable inference that under prohibition laws we would j still have to continue paying for that luxury. It was also natural to presume that the antipathy of the local drys extended only to saloon keepers, not against drinkers. Since in every state, county j and town where people have elected to try prohibition, the saloon j man has been displaced by the “boot-legger” it seemed obvious! that the “prohibs’, had a preference for the “boot-leggers” sys tem of supplying the demand. The fact that the privilege of the drinker to drink was described as a right, while the saloon man’s j 1 business which makes possible the exercise of that right was called i “a license, ” was a distinction which voters considered “a distinc tion without a difference” as far as ultimate results are concerned. The position of the prohibitionists became more than ever unten able. In view of these facts, the results wore only what werereason- OVER 5,000 WEEKLY READERS Overwhelmingly 75 Per Cent of Voters Say “No!” Returns In From All Precincts Except Kearns Canyon When the polls closed in Winslow found that 78 V( >tes had been cast for Prohibition and 2‘"o l * a of 152. A question that h.s git d tht to™' 5 three months was settled, and the answer was enmWic w citement or jubilation prevailed,-it was a forgone concision tT only question involved was the si/eof th* m • -1 , ,® on ‘ The hition would be defeated Thelywt ZSIlI" T?' agreeable weather that Winslow has exnerienopH / th m ° St dl£ ' camfld fo r: r^r'F outs,do of the corporate limits of Winslow who in all’otherdSns have their votes counted in this precinct being the only onS X ormed occasion for uncertainty as to conformity with legal quirements. Only four votes were cast bv residenis ,„,i m o corporate limits and one of those was decided as foiled” bv fts I ailuie to indicate the intention of the voter. It required hut tl • t mmutes to count the ballots. There was only one question m >y 3 o clock returns from the entire county had been • " with the exception of Kearns Canyon which could not he follow's: T!IC reSUlt fr ° m Precincts out Bide of Winslow was as ! Snowflake WET st. joe ;;;;;;;;; ™ 5 Holbrook 7 White River . n 7 Heber Y ® Taylor ’.........'7 S % Shumway 5 Showlow •’ ~r Pinedale 7. ui Lake Side ’ *; \ Pinetop V 4 In the Morman strongholds the sentiment in favor of Prohibi ,on was pronounced, as witnessed by Snowflake voting 56 for 5 Against; Shumway 12 For. and none Against; Showlow For and none Against; Taylor 35 For, and 1 Against; St. Joe 24 For and 7 Against; Pinetop enjoys the distinction of being the onlv WhilY m- S p 6 ° f WinSl ° W and H ° lbrook which wet 10 to 5 While White River is a tie 6 to 6. For the county at large the question of “wet and dry” elec tionsis settled for two years by the statutes of Arizona. Whether or not the vote of Winslow will be included to count in the results of the county at large is a question upon which there is difference of opinion and may require a court decision before de termimng. v The segregation act, which applies only to Winslow makes it clear that the vote of Winslow determines its own policies. But bv some it is contended that said act excludes the vote of a segregated town from being counted with the rest of the county. By others it is believed that the stgregation act was designed to afford pro tection to towns having the requisite number in population to war rant home rule but still leaves it a part of the county, and as such requires that its vote must be included with all other precincts in determining the result in the county at large. The matter will be of chief importance to Holbrook, which has five saloons whose continuance will depend upon a decision of the question. The board of supervisors will meet on Monday, April 7 to can vas the vote and three weeks are required for the publication of the official notice. The local prohibitionists are presumed to be in gloom over their disappointment in not making a better showing in Winslow When they were diligently searching the town for signers to their | petition they expressed themselves as certain that there would be ! at least a hundred others who would vote dry, but who did not care to go on public record in advance. According to that the “drys” ! should have polled 184 votes, —B4 being on the petition. That their ! total v °te fell short by 6 votes of the number who, they presumed signed up for service in the cause, indicates that after their sup’ j P° sed followers gave full consideration to the question, they de i cided that their interests would not be improved by putting Wins low in the “dry” column. Just what the “Prohibs” may feel dis ; l Josed do next will likely be determined by their estimate of pos- I sible results. 1 able to expect. The people of Winslow, by the most decisive i majority ever recorded, have expresed their will on a measure of i restriction that would deprive her citizens of the right to exercise a personal privilege. The material interests of the town has been preserved and we trust our prohibition friends whom we wifj credit with sincerity of conviction, will accept the verdict of the great majority and seek by more effective methods to remedy the con ditions of which they complain. » County Official Paper- No. 50.