The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-26

President, there are In every Constftu- ton, thousand things, more or less
 that are pure matters of legislation:
 but wheE the framers of CoiIytiEurion | think policy Is of permanent impor- | tance, they put it in the Constitution. Now, for instance, in Section 4 of Arti-
 cle w, we have this: Tt shall be the l duty of the General Assembly to pass ] such laws as may be necessary and | proper to decide differences by arbitra- | tors, to be appointed by the parties
 who may choose that mode of adjust | ment." Anybody knows the Legislature
 could do that without that cons.itu-
 tional power if they wanted to. It was | pure matter of legislation, and yet | the framers of the Constitution attach so much importance to- that as per- | manent policy that they put it in the l Constitution. Then they go on and l provide here that they shall pass laws | against bribery! Andhody knows that l the General Assembly has power 10 dc that without authorization.
 1 MT. Coleman-Do you assert as l proposition of law that without law l declaring the effect of arbitration.
 parties could resort to the judicial tri-
 bunals to nave these rights adjudicat-
 ed? Is it not by. reason of that alone l that 1t is upheld?
 l MT Jones (Montgomery)-I under
 stand the supreme Court in some case | decided that but in my opinion very | erroneously.
 Mr. Coieman-Oh, yes.
 | Mir. Jones--Weli, the court thought so | for they took 1t back. I appeal to my | friend from Greene if 1t was necessary 1 to put this in the Constitution to au- | thorize the General Assembly to pass I such a law as Is referred to in this: .RHf t1aaA AssNrD fNf
 members of the General Assembly, or of public officers of this State, or of any municipal division thereof, and any | occupation or practice of solicitation Of
 such members, or officers, to influence
 their official actions, shall be defined by
 law, and shall be punished by fine and
 imprisonment" There is not lawyer
 within the sound of my voice who don't
 know that the General Assembly had
 the power to do that. And so there
 are hundreds of things in the Consti-
 tuition that the Legislature had the
 power to do without such Constitution l al provisions.
 -. It may be an objection to any prop
 osition that it Is a pure matter of leg | islation, but if 1t embodies a principle i that is permanent, one that Is upper
 most in the minds of the people, and l that they want to declare permanent | policy, they always put 1t in the Con- | stitution, and they never put into the l Constitution things that are tran
 sient or transitory and as to which
 policies may change from time to time. Then the question is, is this wise | thing to put into the Constitution? | What are the objections to 1t? Is 1t as to phraseology? We will come to | that later on and if gentlemen who l agree with the principle but differ as 1 to phraseology will suggest the amend 1 ments we shall be very happy to accept | their better wisdom. But I take 1t,
 the bulk of the objections to this
 clause is the principle it embodies. | MT. Oates-If this Is legislative, IS 1t
 not the proper office of the Legislature | to consider it when they find it eheir l duty to legislate on that subject?
 MT. Jones (Montgomery)-Unqu
 tionably, because the highest legisla-
 tion, the Constitution, says they shall l do 1t, otherwise you leave 1t to their
 discretion whether they will or will not.
 The Committee used the word "shall'
 deliberately, with the intent to give
 command; for the people to say to
 their servants in the Legislature you | sEall do so and so." There cant be 1 any mistake about that.
 MT. Hef1in (Chambers)-Under this
 provision the next Legislature would
 have to consider this matter.
 Mr. Jones (Montgomery)-They would l if they observed their caths
 l MT. Heflin (ChAmbers)-If they do
 consider it and pass a law in obedi-
 ence to this command in the Constttu-
 tion, and the people decide that they
 wanted to repeal that law, can they
 do it without amending the Constitu- | tion. or having a new Constitution? MT. Jones-Yes. because the Legis- lature could from time to time pass
 such laws, complying with the spirit
 of the Constitution, as they saw fit;
 and if a particular law was passed
 that was not entirely proper, they could remedy the evil by changing it.
 It is said that this is something new. What are we here for, except to profit
 by the experience of those who have
 gone before us? I do not suppose
 when in the Constitution of 1875, for \ the first time. the legislative power was limited in the matter of the rate i of taxation. that the members of that | Constitutional Convention would have | considered it an argument against the
 proposition to restrict taxation, that 1t
 had never been done before. That is
 no argument, or at least very feeble
 one. The question is. Is there an evil?
 If so. is it one that this Constitution
 ought to take notice of, and if that is
 so. whether the proposition that Is an
 EoUnced Is wise and proper. Down in ] our hearts every one of us feels when
 a man is killed in the discharge of his | duty, whether he be in uniform or in | civilians dress, when he is an officer
 of the State, that exact and equal jus | tice requires that the State of Alabama | should to some extent, recompense l those dependent on him. because of the | loss of his life. The reason why the | State heretofore has not gone into
 many of these questions is thS num-
 ber of them. remember distinctly.
 and if I had not gotten the book
 would have given the credit of it's ap proval to my good friend Gov. Oates. | where, for the first time. I know of in | the history of civilized lands, a State, wken a citizen ad been imprisoned in the penit and afterwards proved l clearly to have been innocent of all 1 crime said fit is the justice of Ala bama, although 1t has never been done before. that you should be recompens- ed to some extent for the evils you have suffered in the carrying out of the seneral law" and Alabama paid
 man $865 I refer to the act of 1893 for the relief of Lancaster.
 I remember another case. and J don't | think he was then in a military posi- tion. that of Gen. Sam Davis. l don't ! think he was in the miiitay service O. the State at the time, but that grand old hero, in protecting the settlers in the borders, had a noted fight with the sNAA lrVNa tsn h fssfg.