The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-08

cided otherwise. They decided to take
 it up section by section.
 Mir Foster-I. for one, should like to hear some discussion of this section
 before I have to vote upon 1t. In the absence of any discussion to convince
 me to the contrary. l am inclined to think it is unwiSe to adopt this sec-
 ton. Bvery lawyer in this Conven- tion knows that suits against munich pal corporations are limited by public policy, as defined and illustrated by
 decisions of the court. to certain causes of action. For instance, you cannot embarrass a municipal corpo- | ration In It's government by garnishing | its employe. That is one instance in which public policy forbids the suing of a corporation.
 MT. MulRey--Is the garnishtng of city employees a suit against the municipal | corporatio
 MT. Foster-Yes. sir. the garnish- ment proceeding is a suit against the | corporation. If you get q Judgment | you get 1t against the corporation. MT. Mulkey-Isn't this the same as the old Constitution of the State? MT. Foster--I don't know.
 MT. Mulkey-It Is.
 Mir Foster-It strikes me that it has | been decided by the courts otherwise. | If you put in here that they are sub | ject just as a natural person, you not | only open the door to these suits of garnishment, but you give litigants power to sue these municipal corpo- rations for personal injuries or other | injuries, which occur in the prosecution of governmental functions of the cor | porations. As l say, l haven't looked l into this thing, and if the chairman thinks the committee has investigated l 1t, and they are protected to that ex- tent by decisions Of the Supreme Court.
 I, for one, would be very glad to hear from him before vote upon this ques- ton.
 Mir Harrison-This is the provision In the present Constitution. except that the word "Municipar' does not occur
 In it. It simply says "All corporations
 shall have the right to sue and be
 sued"
 MT. Foster-Does that especially say
 municipal cOrporationsY"
 MT. H; c 'ison--It does not. It says all corpol ations. This IS special committee that has been appointed to consider questions of municipal govern | ment alone and I notice in a few in
 stances this section for one. and the
 second section likewise, that they have
 covered ground embraced in the present Constitution on corporations proper, and which are covered by the report of the Committe on Corporations itself, and 1t occurs to me that these two
 sections, the first and the second.
 should be postponed or laid on the ta- ble to be considered along with the re- | port of the Committee on Corporations
 Mir. Boone-Is the delegate from Lee
 not aware that the Supreme Court of Alabama has decided that 'munici- pal corporations" is not covered by the word corporations"
 MT. Harrison-It may not be unless | 1t Is especially mentioned. I have no pf rticular objections to this first sec | ton. think there would be some doubt about it as expressed by the delegate from Tuscaloosa. Our present Consti- tuition does not confer the right to sue and to be sued on municipal corpora
 tions. My remarks, however, were
 more intended to refer to the second
 section which has not yet been reached,
 in which there is a difference between
 the reports of the two committees. The Committee on Corporations. so far as this first section Is concerned. uses the language of the old Constitution and simply says corporations" whether it
 includes municipal Or not. The gen
 
 do not recall just at this time. and
 I only suggested to the committee. So
 far as the first section is concerned,
 whether or not they would pass 1t,
 but I will. when the second section is reached. make a motion and will then
 state the reasons why I think it ought
 to be specifically considered. l do not
 think that second section Is in proper
 shape as it stands now. I have no ob-
 jection to the first if the Convention
 wants it. only it it is covered by cor
 poratons 1t would be useless to have
 two sections in the Constitution con
 ferring the same right. If my friend
 from Mobile Is correct and it doesn't do IL, I have no objection to it.
 Mir. Wei ikley-Section l, as has been
 stated. Is an exact copy of Article
 XIV. Section 12, of the Constitution,
 except that the word municipal" has
 been inserted.
 MT. Walker (Madison)-I just want
 ed to suggest this to the committee and see if they had considered 1t: Would not this section prohibit the
 Legislature from prescribing. in the | case of municipal corporations. for in- stance such a rule as Is prescribed in many of the charters of municipal cor porations in this State as this that be- l AOif NNlt lS brought dEdlH m tRTtd in accounts of cases the claim should be presented to the corporate body for
 their determination, the object being to l take 1t out of the power of people de
 sirins to sue municipal corporations to | cast upon them the cost of litigation l before giving the opportunity to settle | Mir. Weakley-I will state to the
 gentleman from Madison. in answer to
 that proposition. that the charters of
 a number of cities in this State do So provide. l was about to state that I
 am aware of the fact that the charters
 of numbers of cities provide that all claims, for instance. for damages, for personal injuries and otherwise. shall
 be first submitted to the City Council
 for adjudication before suit can be brought upon it. But l do not see that this provision interferes with that. MT. Hood-Win the gentleman per init an interruption? Is 1t not true that the Supreme Court has held that the word "corporations" does not apply to municipal corporations?
 MT. Weakley-That is my under standing. I do not recall the decision.
 Mir Hood-Now 1t is equally true tha, a