The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-05-12
JUDGE BENJAMIN JI.nA
Explains His Vote on tho Moody Bill
to Sustain Gov. Taylor's Veto.
| To the Editor of The Appcal.

Explains His Vote on tho Moody Bill
to Sustain Gov. Taylor's Veto.
To the Editor Of The Appeal:
There were two bills before the Senate
one to build new penitentiary, appoint
ing commissioners and appropriaiing $780,
900 year for the two years to commence
building the penitentiary. This bill was
known as the Sparks bill. The other
Moody bill-provided for the appointment
OF commissioners to find out the cost OF
building new penitentiary, and what the
old site could be sold for. l voted for
Moody's bill, was opposed to sparks's bill
because opposed to commence building
until we knew the cost and let out the
contract to the lowest bidder, taking bond
to complete the work for the amount
bid. The Moody bill passed, and was We
toed by the Governor because II was un-
constitutional and for other reasons given
in his message. Upon the assembling OF
the Legislature the other day l intended
TO vote for the Moody bill up to an hour
before the vote was taken. The bill was
for the first time discussed in the Senate as
TO its constitutionality. Although the
question was made by the Governor, had
never examined 1t. During the discus
sion | became convinced il was unconsii-
tuiional, first because the subject OF the
bill was not expressed in It's title. and
secondly because the body OF the bill con-
tanned more than one subject. As | had
voted for the bill before 1
thought II proper to give my reas-
ons for opposing II. / did 80 and
the Senators all understood my position.
announced that l had voted Tor il and
intended 10 vote for II again, but that
believed II 10 be unconstitutional and
therefore could not do so. and after giving
the reasons why thought il unconstitu-
tional / stated | would have voted for 1t
notwithstanding had other objections to
it, and stated that the other obiectsssu
were; (l) That while there might be a
divided opinion in reference TO the pro !
priety Of the lease system, there was nd
division as tothe fact that the penitentiary
should be removed and one built SUFFICE
emily large to hold all the convicts, urging
that II the lease system was terminated
OF course we should have one largo
enough TO contain all the conyicts,
and II Il was leased and the les-'
secs decided to comply with their
contract, the State was powerless 10 termi-
nate the lease, rs the present peni,entiary
could not bold one.third Of the conyicts;
and that II was duo. Nashville that IL be
removed, and due the convicis, as in the
event Of an epidemic in the city the con-
victs might suffer, or II il broke out in the
penilentiary the city might suffer. / was,
therefore, in favor OF some affirmative ac-
ton on the part Of the Legislature, as APP
| pointing commissioners TO buy site and
appropriating sufficient money to pay for
II. This ] was willing to do, but never
would vote for the commissioners 10 90
forward and build without the Legis-
lature knowing and first determining the
cost. Second objection: That the com.
missioners shou have been appointed
by the Governor and confirmed by tho
Senate, as such had always been the
practice since the formation OF the State,
~ far rs know. The above Is the sub
stance OF my remarks in the Senate, and
my complaint at The ArPEN is your
criticism, for ! know that II you had
known | based my opposition upon the
unconstitutionality Of the bill you would
not have blamed mo for my action, how
ever you may have thought that my legal
| judgment was at fi.ult. Now, permit mo
10 say that, In reference 10 the removal
and building a f.nitentiary sufficiently
large to contain the convicts, and as to
the appointment 81 tho commissioners,
have never expressed 10y other opinion.
Respectfully, DssJ. J. LIZA.