The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-26

family. But 1t shows there is not much danger where a man Is prudent and brave and is acting in the name of the State and asserting the authority of the State.
 But independent of all that, this is pure legislation and not properly con- nected with the Executive Department of the State. You have armed the Ex- ecutive officers of the State with all the power you desire. The Sheriff must act up to his duty or he may be im- peached or removed and that Is suffi- l cient for the executive power to see that the laws are carried out.
 I speak with proper sense of my | own inability, but with deep sense that we are doing wrong to load this Constitution with legislative enact ments and I oppose every movement of that kind.
 Mir. Dent--I sympathize very much with the purpose of those who are fa- voring this ordinance but there is one view of 1t which they present which l have not heard combatted by those who are opposing 1t and that is this: 1t seems to be taken for granted that new i duties and responsibilities have been placed upon the Sheriff. Now do not understand the provisions that have Il been adopted. It would certainly be the I duty of the Sheriff under the present Constitution to do all in his power to protect the life and person of pris- oner in his charge.
 A Delegate-No.
 MT. Dent--I think 1t is and for that reason it seems to me there is no new | duty He Is Sheriff and that is his ob- ligation when he enters upon the duties of that office. It seems to me the only difference is that we have provided a new court for his impeachment and trial. As I understand the provisions | of the old Constitution a Sherif could | be tried before Circuit or City Court. This Constitution, if adopted. provides 1 that he can be tried by the Supreme Court of the State. Sheriffs under the old Constitution were liable to impeach- ment for wilful neglect of duty, cor ruption in office, habitual drunkenness, incompetency or any offense involving | moral turpitude. It seems to me that | that covers the matter. The new ques- ton which has been added under the present Constitution, and while ! do not object to it, I think it probably emphasizes the duty of the Sheriff, does not seem to me to place any new duty or any new responsibility upon him and | If that is the case. cannot see why there should be an exception made in his favor, that we should grant his family or himself this remuneration for | a faithful and earnest discharge of the duties which it seems to me rests upon him now. That is all I desire to say, and that is the reason l oppose this amendment.
 Mir. Jones (Montgomery)-I am well aware that this debate had consumed a great deal of time and that members l are anxious to vote upon it. Nothing but a sense of duty to the Committee, which accepted the proposition offered by the gentleman from Dallas, and the 1 belief in my mind that whatever might have been the case If this proposition had not been introduced, 1t would now be exceedingly unfortunate to reject it., compels me ts obtrude myself once more upon the House upon this ques- | tion.
 As I listened to the words of my friend from Montgomery, a man of whose friendship I have always been proud, I thought to myself ho4v differ ent would be his acts from what he breaches if a prisoner were in his charge. I know full we'll that the man who struggled on the Roundtop, and who was at Snodgrass Hill and who left one arm in Virginia, if he had a prisoner in his charge, would lose the other before any man should take him until they disabled him.
 Now, did not take to myself that l part of my friends argument which tried to persuade members of this House that my earnestness. may mis- I lead their judgments, and in conse- quence of my earnestness-and that was all there was in what I said-that in consequence of my earnestness some of them might be moved against thelr better judgments. I realize that what ever success there was in the proposi- ton to have the Sheriff impeached be- fore the Supreme Court, was not be- cause l advocated 1t, but because the people of Alabama found in the cur rent history ample justification for it and that public opinion had crystalized on that subject long before we came | here.
 When we analyze the differences in | this debate, we find one sentiment set on against another. No gentleman on this floor has said in the abstract that it was not just, that it was not right when a man died in the service of the State for the State to take some thought of those he left behind him. Upon that, as an abstract proposition of justice, no man has gainsaid the proposition of the Committee. But my friend from Macon and my friend from Montgomery and other gentlemen, have attached great importance to the fact that. as they say, for the first time in Alabama, we set the precedent of a | civil service pension, that 1t is all right l to have a pension for man who dies in uniform in the military service, but the precedent of civil pension is all wrong, leads to harm and is unheard of. My friend from Macon is usually very accurate in his illustrations. but the illustration he makes of a civil service pension is not all parallel to the case we have in hand. What is a civil ser vice pension that has been voted down time and again on Congress? It is not a pension to the family of man who dies in the discharge of duty but 1t is to continue for life on a salary at the expense of the people, men who still live after they have discharged their duties for certain length of time. The two cases are not at all parallel.
 Now, 1t is charged here with em- phasis by my friend from Greene that we have been living ninety years under Constitutions that had no such pro- vision as this, that this is legislative, and, therefore, ought not to be in this Constitution. Why. MT. President, our Constitutions are filled with what ev- eryone of us knows are legislative pro- visions.
 MT. Ferguson--May interrupt the gentleman?
 MT. Jones-Yes, sir.
 MT. FergusOn-I want to ask if this ordinance is not in conflict with Sec tion S7 of Article I. of the present Con- stitution?
 Mir Jones-T don't know what Sec-