The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-10

that inc d.nerent localfties desire to make different regulation. each satis- factory to itself. provision will be made bv general Inv for localities expressing tn.ir desires in some mode prescribed by a general law. That has been the course in other states. That will be the course in this State. Now the prohibi- tion here of granting special privileges by means of local or State laws will no, affect In any manner the sale or the prohibition of the sale of liquor in localities. but 1t will simply prohibit localities seeking to, secure regulations that they desire for themselves. not among themselves, but through the Legislature. That is not at all neees- sary. Regulations can be made by which they can speak their minds, and make such regulations as they desire. ana there can be. no doubt but that the Legislature, of Alabama will 60 as much as other States have uniformly done who make provision for the cx- pression by localities. of their own de- sires in reference to these matters. Now that is the object that is sought to be accomplished by the amendments that have been made. Each one of them has suggested that you do not want to deprive any locality of its free dom of action in reference to these matters. The best way to do that is to provide by a general law fc' these localities expressing their desire in reference to these matters directly and not through one spokesman ia the Legislatur~ 2
 MT. Rogers (sumter)-If We say that no community shall have any exclusive privilege how could general law reach it If you say in the Constitution that they could not have it. want to know how the legislature could give an ex elusive privilege If we say in the Con stiaution that thev cannot have 1t. MT. walker--I do not see the object aimed at by these amendments. are in the nature of exclusive privileges at all. They are simply methods of local regulation os matters. Certainly the liberty to different localities to make regulations satisfactorily to themselves upon. the liquor question or upon the question of killing birds, or anything of that kind, Is not Q special privilege. MT. Harrison-I will ask the gentle man if the first line of this section does not limit each of these subdivisions. It reads the General Assembly shall not pass a special or private. or local law in any of the following cases. MT. walker-Certainly 1t Is simply the prohibition of private or local law. It | is not in any respect aerezulation q upon prohibition of the Legislature to pro- vide complete regulations to cover these matters.
 MT. Cunningham-Suppos that some county. municipality or commit nity were to ask for an immunity from the sale of liquor, that Is to say. for prohibition, in e 1ecaF community with | in a certain distaAce of church or something of that lslhd. Would net that be a special immunity to ask for that?
 1 MT. Walker-I think not.
 MT. Cunningham-Would the Legisla- ture have the right under that section to grant it within three miles of Bethel Church.
 MT, waIker-CertainIy. but they would not have the right to grant it by means of 6 local or special law but they might pass general law py which all objects of that kind could be Accomplished, such as Is done every where else, by the passage of gen eral law under which the citizens of $ particular locality can have their desires In reference to these matters completely efcectuated without the ne- cessity of going to the Legislature tc do what the community itself ought toa be allowed to do for itself. sub init. gentlemen of the Convention, that you are losing sight of the fact tha' the prohibition here is not against any of these objects at all but Is simply against a certain objectionable method of obtaining those objects.
 Mir Ashcraft--When you undertake to pass any general liquor law by the Legislature. wouldn't you be confronted with a. powerful whisky lobby whicf you would have to overcome to get an! favorable local liquor legislation?
 MT. Walker-No more so than yoi would be confronted by a powerful llauor lobby in references to exemptins any particular locality in reference t' liquor law.
 MT. Ashcraft-would a lobby com, here to defeat the enactment of ; liquor law for Center Star in Lauder dale county for instance.
 Mir. Walker-I suppose not. Not fol Center Star
 MT, Ashcraft-What VIC are trying t do Is to protect those particular locah ties from the influence et whisky lob byists.
 MT. Walker-Weil. cannot that b. done? Has the Legislature of Alabama become so paralyzed that they canno | adopt legislation which leaves to 10 calitiee freedom of action in referNnc, to these matters. so that they mus perpetuate the system that has pre- vailed in this State, of localities no speaking directly upon these matters but of getting relief only through tn action of the local member of the Leg islature. that is not necessary at all.
 MT. OateH--I would like to ask thu gentleman a question. You were aske, iust now about exclusive privileges That means exclusively for a persor or a particular locality. It does no mean that a general law could not t' passed by which they can reach thu objects desired that would be called ex elusive under a local law. That is no the fact.
 Mir. Walker-Certaiuly.
 Mir. Malone--You said that there ar' localities operating under general laws Is there any locality except South Car olina that is operating under a genera law?
 MT. walker~on the dIspensary ques tion. you meauS
 Mr. Malone-Yes. sir.
 Mir. Walker-T do not know of an. State that has dispensary system prevailing throughout the State eXcep South Carolina. and I do not under stand that 1t Is the object of anybod, here to esta olish in this Convention or in the Legislature a dispensary sys tenn to be operated throughout tho State of Alabama. What I say is this that under general legislation and un'