The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-14

tion. I deem 1t proper to vote upon every question presented, according to the dictates of my judgment, regardless of whether 1t incurs the favor or dis pleasure of any class of office-holders in Alabama. I think 1t is beneath the dignity of a delegate in this Convention to rise here and tell us what would be popular and what unpopular with the President of the Sheriffs' Association. The question for us' to determine is what is right; what ought we to do to advance the interests, not of sheriffs, but the best interests of the people of | Ala abama. That Is the question. had always understood that this was a government by the people, but after listening to this debate, 1t would occur to an ordinary man that this was a government of the sheriffs, by the sheriffs and for the sheriffs. Now, I have no disposition to do injustice to the sheriffs: no disposition to deprive them of any office to which the people elected them, unless >they violate the law of the land. The courts of the \ land say that public office is not prop erty, but public office is a public trust, to be administered for the good of ths people and not for the interest of any class of office-holders. That is the Democratic doctrine, and that is the doctrine declared by the courts. No man has any right of property in an office. The Supreme Court has decided, in 52 Ala: No doubt a citizen who has been elected according to law to an office has an interest in and a right to it, on complying with the conditions prescribed by law. upon which he is authorized to take and hold 1t, but be- ing an agent therein, or servant of the public, he Is subject. like other em- | ployes, to the rules and regulations or dained by those who created the agen- cy. and for whose benefit 1t exists" I would call the attention of the delegate l from Walker to what the highesnt trib unal of the State says in answer to his proposition that the fact that the sher- if is elected to an office makes 1t his personal property. The court says: ''The fact that he has been elected to 1t by a popular vote does not exempt him from the obliga ation' to conform to such regulations, or. on failure to do so, from being dismissed in the methods and by the officials appointed by legis- lative or constitutional enactments, for the protection of the public interests" Therefore, if, by constitutional enact ment. the people of Alabama, in con- vention assembled, should deem that the public interests require that sheriff whe is cowardly in the discharge of his duty, should be suspended from office by the Governor, it is as legal and constitutional as any other pro- vision written in the Fundamental law. Why should he not be suspended? They say 1t Is anti-democratic. The Presi- dent can suspend any executive officer, and a solicitor can be suspended under our law. The declaration of our Con- stitution is that the Governor is the chief executive officer of the State, and must see to it that the laws are exc cuted. The sheriffs are the subordinate and executive officers of the State. You say to the Governor, ycu must see to it that the laws are executed, and yet you will not give him power to see that his subordinate agents obey the law Now, look ct 1t from a practical standpoint, people of Alabama, acting regardless of considerations of popularity, or un- popularity, to say whether the pro- vision does not tend to prevent mob law and violence. You know, as a mat ter of fact, that since the close of the civil war, not a sheriff in Alabama has been impeAched for permitting a pris- onor to be taken by lawless force from his custody and murdered. The gen. tleman from Walker says that we ought to put 1t in the fundamental law
 
 lence; that law is a failure; that we, the delegates of the people of Ala bama, in convention assembled, must rise up here and solemnly announce to the civilized world that we are inca pable of self-government, and must relegate law to a mob. That is the proposition which he coolly makes to this convention. Why, gentlemen, take the gallant little State of South Caro- ltNao PAA~ &A~y t- H. as in Alabama. What do they do? They declare when any man is taken by a mob and executed in any county of that State, that county shall pay the sum of 5000 to the widow of the per- son who was mobbed. I just want to say one more word in conclusion, that we should not stop and hesitate or fal- ter in our duty, or pander to what are supposed to be the interests of the sher- ifrs; that we ought to consider what will best secure law and order and the best interests of the people of Ala bama. I say the only way by which you can enforce law and order; the only way by which you can prevent a sheriff from a cowardly submission to mob, Is holding over his head the power of suspension. Can any man in the sound of my voice deny that in every case where a prisoner is tAken rom the custody of the sheiff when confined in Jail that it is not done with his connivance? I say that. wherever the sheriff does his duty, the mob fails to get his prisoner. Now. MT. President. I move that the motion of the gentleman be laid upon the ta- ble.
 The President-The motion of the gentleman from Lauderdale is that the motion be laid upon the table.
 MT. Reese-I call for the ayes and noes.
 The call was not sustaineds
 A vote being taken a division was called for and by vote of fl ayes and 55 noes the motion to table was lost.
 Mir. Cobb-I have not a great deal to say, but it does seem to me that in a matter of this importance, and that 1t is important Is conceded by ev- erybody. some consideration should be given to the officers of Alabama that we have under consideration. The proposition which has already passed this body to allow the sherifRs to be impeached before the Supreme. Court is in itself bad enough, in my judg- ment. but we do not seek those who | are friendly to the sheriffs and their cause to disturb that matter, but the further proposition. that during that impeachment he should be suspended from office by the Governor, Is in my opinion. scarcely less than monstrous. It is wrong in principle, and 1t is wrong in policy. My distinguished friend from Lauderdale brings his law book and discusses the proposition. The law