The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-12
AFTERNOON SESSION.

 ton, and the Convention adjourned.
 AFTERNOON SESSION.
 The Convention was called to order by the President. and upon roll call it showed that there were 119 delegates present.
 Indefinite leave of absence was grant ed to Mir. Spear of St. Clair, on ac- count of sickness.
 The President-When the Convention adjourned, we had under consideration the report of the Committee on Local Legislation.
 MT. Reese-In the proceedings of this Convention of day before yesterday, there was an omission in part of the proceedings. The gentleman from Ma con, in addressing an interrogatory to the Chairman of the Committee at the conclusion of 1t said, Now bold Saxon. hold thine own." It does not appear in the proceedings.
 MT. Cobb-I deny the soft impeach- ment.
 Mir. Heflin (Randolph)-I desire to ask unanimous consent to make re- port from the Committee on Schedule. Printing and Incidental Expenses Objection was made
 The President-The question is on the consideration of the report of the Com mittee on Local Legislation. The Con vention had under consideration the last paragraph of that report. There was pending an amendment and an an amendment to amend a motion by the gentleman from Barbour to lay on | the table.
 Mir. Dent-I desire to withdraw the | motion to table.
 There being no objection the motion | was withdrawn.
 MT. Watts-I move to table the amendment of the gentleman from | Clarke.
 MT. President-The Chair recognized the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. Jones.)
 MT. o'NeaI-We withdraw that mo-
 ton.
 MT. Watts-I beg pardon, I under
 stood the Chair to recognize me.
 MT. Jones-If it were not that this
 matter is fraught with so much vital
 import to the whole work of she Con-
 vention concerning local legislation, l | should be content to simply vote.
 beg the gentleman who are opposing
 this provision to remember that un- der the old law, the uncertainty, which
 was spoken of, grew out of the lan- l guage in the. Constitution when 1t said
 there should not be any local law in a case which can be provided for by a general law.
 MT. Pettus-Was not the pending
 question when the House adjourned the
 motion of the gentleman from Barbour
 to table the entire Section?
 The President-That has been with drawn.
 | MT. Jones-Mr. President, I was pro- | ceeding to say that the language of
 the present amendment takes away, in large measure, the uncertainty and l dcplorable circumstances to which the | gentlemen refer arising under a uling | that the courts could judge under the l present Section of the Constitution. It | might take very wise man in fact to say. under the present Constitution, what can be provided for by general legislation. Most anything could hs provided for by general legislation if skilled ingenuity were employed. It might require numerous statutes and they might be very voluminous in de- | tail, but still you could not say a thing could not be provided for by general legislation. Now the Commit tee has provided that it is not the | things that can be provided for by | general legislation. but things that are. | So that all man has to do is to look at the statute and he can determine | with reasonable certainty. because nothing is absolutely certain in a law when it is question of construction. Another objection has been urged that this is something new, that 1t is putting | the courts to invade the legislative | province. want to ask my friends here who have made that objection if there is really anything in 1t? Ism the Legislature bound in any event when the matter comes before 1t. to | determine whether 1t Is constitutions | or not? Certainly it is. It is one of the greatest coordinate departments of the Government and the courts at | tach so much importance to its judg- ment in matter of that Scrt that they say when the Legislature has acted and thereby determined that. it has power or that a certain act is constitutional, that the courts will not | interfere unless clearly convinced that | the Legislature is in error. There is nothing new then in saying that the | courts and not the Legislature shall be | the final judge in this matter. It is no | invasion of the province of the Legis- lature. It is simply our old ancient way of doing, and one of the glories of a written Constitution, is that there is always some tribunal that has the power to determine in a case of last resort, whether COnStllutlon mas been violated or net. You make an excep- tion to the spirit of our institution when you say that it is an invasion of the province of the Legislature to say that the courts shall be the final | arbiters to determine whether the Con- stitution has been violated or not. MT. Cunningham-Will the gentle man permit a question?
 Mir. Jones-Yes sir.
 MT. Cunningham-Are not the courts the final arbters without thIs provision of the Constitution?
 MT Jones-No sir: because our Su- preme Court has said that the language | pu: down there may be purely a mat ter of legislative discretion with which ! the courts will not interfere. Just for | instance. as the Constitution says, A bill shall be read at leng three sew eral days. The courts cannot inquire into that, They cannot supervise it if the Legislature says In it's journal that it has, been read three several days.