The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-11

The President-The gentleman from Montgomery has consumed his ttme.;
 Mr. oates-I was going to yield ts l the gentleman from Mobile. F MT. Pillans-I wish to ask Ques- ton of the gentleman. The President-Proceed and ask tAa | question.
 MT. Pillans-Is there not a plain dN- tinction between money illegally col- lected and money lawfully paid over. That was the distinction that l sought to draw. Where money was lawfully paid over to the Probate Judge it might be an illegal collection, but when paid to the officers of the Treasury, was it not a legal payment? Mfr. Oates-I will answer that by saying I don't think any court on the facts would so hold.
 Mir. Harrison-I think the question of the delegate from Mobile very per- tinent, and I think the argument of the gentleman from Montgomery who ar- gued that If money was legally col. lected you would have to make q de- cided difference from the subdivision as drawn when he uses the words le- gally paid into the State Treasury. But my objection goes further than any technicality, even If 1t were amended. don't believe that this sub division should be engrafted into the Constitution.
 I am heartily in favor of all reason able curtailments of local legislation, but there is an article in our present Constitution, and one already adopted by this Convention forbidding the State of Alabama from ever being made a defendant in any suit. Cases fre- quently occur in the Legislature where Chancery Court upon hearing would refund money although legally paid. I remember case last session where representations were made by the offi- cers of the State as to the sale of mineral lands. and these statements were false. The papers had all passed. The facts were presented to the Legis- lature, and there was no Chancery Court but would have refunded inc money. and the Legislature of Ala bama is the only representative of the State to pass on these cases. They say in one Section of the Constitution that Alabama shall not be sued.
 MT. Oates-Would not thatrbe . legal collection?
 MT. Harrison-Certainly 1t would be legally collected. As well said by the gentleman from Greene in his Inquiry, and also by the gentleman from Mo pile. as long as a court of competent
 
 that it was legally collected, certainly when paid over to the Probate Judge or other officer. 1t was legally paid into the Treasury, and under the lan- Suage of the subdivision itself. 1t could never be taken out by any local law. ana consequently we do not wish to place in the Constitution an inhibition that will require the Legislature to pass on claims. How can they classify all claims illegally paid into the Treasury and pass a general law to cover such casesF think it would be wrong and hardship, and this Convention ought not to say to its citizens or anybody else dealing with the State of Alabama. independent of the legality of it, that 1T they have any equitable claim on the State Of Alabama. holding as we do an inhibition in the Constitution that the State shall not be made de- fendant in any suit, we should at least have some tribunal to pass upon the equity of claims made for money paid into the Treasury.
 MT. Coleman-I take issue with the oeiegate from Montgomery in his exposition of the law. There is no douot in the world 1t is a principle of the law that if question arises between two parties. and 1t is tried before a. court of competent jurisdiction and Judgment rendered. that that Is final unless 1t is appealed as between those parties, and if subsequently the same question arises between different par ties and the question is appealed to the Supreme Court between the latter parties. and the Supreme Court holds that the law is unconstitutional, the first utigant Tn the first instance has TO recourse-he has adjudicated.
 Mir. Oates-May interrupt you just there. I never said that he had illegally collected?
 MT. Coleman-No. sir; legally done and so pronounced by a legal court. I go further. There are cases an abun- dance of them. where rights have been adjudicated and so held by the Su- preme Court of the United States. ard the question would come up subse- quently between other parties and q new phase of the case be presented to the Supreme Court. and the Supreme Court would reverse it's decision snd declare the law unconstitutional that had been declared constitutional. It was legally paid. Any money is legally paid that is paid under a court of competent Jurisdiction unreversed. so it Is dangerous to put this proDosi- tion here
 MT. Vaughan CDallas)-I move to lay Section 26 on the table.
 Motion to table was carried.
 MT. Blackwell-I desire to offer an additional subdivision. Amend Section of the report of the committee after line 14. Subdivision 35. "AeclarinE who she'll Do liners between counties"
 MT. Oates-We have not reached that subdivision.
 Mir Fitts-I raise the point of oy- der that the proposition he suggests is an independent subdivision and can only come up when these subdivisions have been considered.
 MT. Oates-We are to go back Co Subdivision 26. as understand.
 Mir. Blackwell-This is an additional subdivision to this section.
 The President-It seems to the Chair that 1t would be in order at this time.
 The Clerk read the amendment as follows: Amend Section 1 of report of Committee on Legislation after line 14, Subdivision 35. declaring who shall be liners between counties.
 The President-That should be ad- dressed to the report of the Commit tee on Local Legislation. that is the report under consideration
 Mir. Williams (Marengo)-There Is subdivision 36, subdivision 26 was sub divided into 26 and 36
 The President-No, it was withdrawn temporarily by the committee and not numbered at all Subdivision s5 was stricken out.