The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-10

allowed to withdraw his amendment. | Upon a vote being taken the motion l was carried.
 Mir. Wilson (Ciarke)-Now offer the substitute which has just been read. | MT. Banks-I do not propose to de- tain you with anything like a speech. l only want to make an explanation. l l want to say in behalf of certain members of the Committee | that they do not agree to this sub- division. There was a difference of | opinion in the committee. This ques- ton was discussed before the commit | tee, and think 1t was the consensus of opinion that the effect of the adop- tion of this sub- b-division would be just as has been stated by those who have opposed it upon the floor; that it would ! have the effect to restrain any further local legislation on the subject of whis- key, ana on all other subjects that would have to be provided for by gen. eral law. It was the opinion of the committee that there was a general law providing for the sale of whiskey.
 MT. O'Neal-Will the gentleman al- low an interruption?
 MT. Banks-Yes. sir
 l Mir. O'Neal-I desire to call attention to the fact that the particular section under discussion was read to the com mittee and adopted without objection. | MT. Banks-I hope that the chair man will remember that voted against it to the very last.
 1 MT. Stanford Pike)-I rise to a point of order. Matters which were before the committee are not proper to be stated before this house.
 | The President-The point of order is well taken.
 | Mr. vtc ta a nf Of understood the gentleman to make a statement that the committee had nev- CT adopted it. and did not want to let the statement pass unnoticed that the committee had reported a provision which has not been adopted.
 The President-The gentleman stated | that the committee was not entirely | unanimous.
 MT. O'Neal-Then I misunderstood the gentleman and withdraw What I said.
 | MT. Banks-It was understood by the committee that the effect the provision would have would be just as stated to the Convention, and there were mem- bers of the committee that objected to it on that account. It is urged by those who advocate the adoption of this subdivision that these questions are provided against in Subdivision 39. As has been said upon the floor of this Convention, this is only advisory. It does not compel the General Assembly to adopt laws at all, and 1t is"with the General Assembly as to whether 1t does that or not. In Section of this report, it says that the General As sembly may, by general law, confer upon the courts of County Commission CTS. Boards of Revenue and other courts. It grants to the General As sembly the power to do that thing, but it does not impose the absolute duty and requirement. that they shall do 1t. I am opposed to the sub division as 1t stands. I would be in favor of it with the amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Jefferson. That is all that I wish to say.
 MT. Howze-It strikes me that this is one of themost important sections in this whole Article. l think without this, the work of this committee will have been in vain. as my friend from Montgomery has said. I see no reason in the world why any county, any municipality or any individual should be exempted from a good general law. I do not think any general law ought to be passed unless 1t is a good one, and unless it is necessary, and l do not think any community or any county should be exempted from it. Suppose, for instance, that a general law should be passed on any matter, why should any county or municipality be exempt ed from the operation of the law. A general law is passed against gambling, why should any county be exempted from the operation of that law? There fore, why could not a general law be framed so as to meet the requirement of every community in the State?
 do not think that this subdivision affects the matter of liquor traffic. If it did, I should certainly oppose 1t, but as I conceive it means simply this. that d general law may be passed upon this subject. For instance, if the Court of County Commissioners, or other authorities of the county, may, on a request of a majority of the people of the county, have prohibition, have a dispensary, or local option, but 1t ought to be a general law all over the State, covering the whole State, and there should be no reason why any county should be exempted from the operation of such a law. 1t is net the working of the law, but 1t is the man. ner of creating the law that you de- sire to reach, and that you desire to make uniform throughout the State.
 As to this matter of quarantine, why should not the general quarantine law be established in such way that It will operate properly in every county in this State? Why should there De any exemption of any county or muni- cipality from the operation of the law. As said in the beginning, no general law should be passed that is not for the good of the whole State. We cannot guarantee, of course, that the general law shall be passed, but we make 1t the duty of the Legislature to pass general laws upon all questions that
 may arise in the State, and we require that those general laws shall be uni form throughout the State. My friend has mentioned the matter of the pird law. It should not operate to anect that in the slightest, because a general law can be passed sa as to provide Tor A bird law to be established in any community, or in any county or dis trict in the State: but that law should be uniform. The only thing that have heard against this provision which casts a doubt upon my mind at all, Is the matter of the Judiciary, but as my friend from Montgomery has suggested. that is ar ranged for by subsequent section or
 the article Therefore l cannot see,
 to save my life, why this provision
 which Is intended to remedy such a
 great evil should be condemned by this Convention. As my friend from Mont
 gomery said, wherever general law. even though 1t is a good one, is offered in the General Assembly, 1t is con- l tbin0 to members riS6 uD