The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-10

question carefully and [ Am thorou1hly convinced and think 1t is one question that ought to be regulated entirely locally. Tn the first place. It ought not to be put on a con1munity< that does not want it. also question It's Success when forced on community that does not want it in any. way. recoenize general proposition. But the main req son is this: that the general law brings it into local politics.; and think can appeal to any man on this floor who Is familiar with 1t and he Will say that under the general law 1t Is almost iul- possible to keep that question out of politics. Under the local law. If any community wants 1t, you can establish 1t. 1t is a fact that a great many of the dispensaries, which were establish ed under the general law, have changed to a local law. A local law can be so framed so as to practically keep It out of your other matters. Personally. started the dispensary question in our community. have studied 1t from a business standpoint and am willing to stand upon the reputation and suc- cess of ours; and from my intercourse with it, do not believe 1t Is suc.ess or ever win be a success If adopted by the State and county or anything else except purely under local option in the hands of those people right there, whether they want 1t or whether they do not. There is a certain amount of interest that Is absolutely necessary to take in it: and you can not arrive at 1t in any other way. except by having this personal interest in It and any proposition that will take it out of To- cal hands and put 1t into politics. think, in my opinion. will be a curse upon the country; and I hope from that standpoint. the amendment will be adopted.
 MT. Wilson (Clarke)-I offer q sub stitute for the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Jefferson.
 The President here resumed the chair.
 The substitute was read as follows: Amend by striking out subdivision o."
 The President-The question is on the substitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Jefferson.
 Mfr. Wilson (Ciarke)-There are two phases to this proposition. 1t seems to me to illustrate the unwisdom, If l may use that word. of putting that subdivision In the Constitution. It has been called to the attention of the Convention that it would not be wise to put such a clause in the Constitu- ton which would operate against whis- key laws. That. Mir. President, Is only one subject of legislation I believe 1t would be unwise to force upon the whole State and every community in the State alike. l believe there are other subjects of legislation which can not be framed under a general law to operate on every community. every per son, every township, and every county in this State alike This subdivision, 1t seems to me, If allowed to stand. would prevent you from exemptlng from any general law on any subject, any community in this State. Now 1t seems to me, with the great diversity of interests, which exist in .he different sections of the State, the Pine Belt. the Black Belt. and the mineral district, in the larger cities. and in the thinly set- tied counties 1t would be unwise to say that whatever general law Is passed must operate upon every. conn mupitv in this State alike and cannot be repealed for any community in this State and no community in this State can be exempted from 1t. The argument against including in this subdivision whiskey laws illus trates just one branch of legislation that should not be hampered in this l way. It strikes me that quarantine is another subject that might be added, and no doubt there are many others which may be added, which should be exempted from this proposition, and believe the safest plan is to strike out this subdivision. which forces You to | make a general law apply to every community alike and prevents any community from getting out from un- der the influence of 1t. It seems to me we would sufficiently restrict local leg islatien when we name the many sub jects we propose to name in here, about which there shall be no local legisla ton. Now. why say that every gen. eral law must apply to every commit nifty alike?
 Mir. Dent-I have an amendment which I propose to offer, but am per fectIy willing to vote for the amend ment offered by the gentleman from Clarke. If that amendment is adopted I am satisfied. but even then I would like to have the privilege of offering an amendment to the section. It seems to me. MT. President, that the reasons given by the gentleman from Clarke are potent. This system of procrustian legislation is not wise, and 1t is not desirable. We cannot make a suit to fit everybody. on every occasion and under all circumstances, and there
 
 upon this floor in reference to the ques- ton of taxation of cities. and their rights. demonstrated that. and beg the Convention not to be nasty in adopting this class of legislation. We sometimes get a little too democratic, we want everybody to be the same size. to wear tra same size clothes. and sleep in the same length bed. It is not wise thing to do. and I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Clarke will prevail.
 Mr. O'Neal-I do not think this sub division is susceptible of the construc- ton which has been given to 1t. It certainly was not the intention of the Committee to interfere with the laws in reference to dispensaries or the liquor traffic. Suppose this Is stricken out, we know that one of the ways by which local laws are passed by the General Assembly. Is the passing Of the general law and then exempting from its operation all cities or towns or counties, where the members do not wish the law to apply. The General Assembly passes the general law and the gentleman from Jetferson or some other county will rise and move to ex- cept that county. and so county after county Is excepted. and there you have a local law under the guise or gen. eral law. The purpose or this IS to prohibit legislation of that k1nd.
 Mir. Vaughan-I want to ask if the adoption of this section would refer to the bird law?
 MT. O'Neal-It would have to be pro- yided for by a general law, and pro- has htnka VTtl nA-