The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-06-23

Il 4 4 q only as common law obligations. The approving officer must also inquire into and pass on the solvency of the ob. hgors. This requires the hearing and weighing of evidence. If he should adtudge them insufficient, the exercise or his judgment will not be controlled by mandamus. In the exercise of the power of approval. however erroneous his action. in the absence of statutory provisions subiecting him to liability. ne is exempt on the common law prin- ciple, which protects judge from lia- bilfty to suit or indictment for judi c,al acts or omissions. We therefore must pronounce that the approval of an official bond is the exercise or power in its nature judicial. not minis terial. A different conclusion was at tained in State vs. Ely, and in ex parte Candee, 4S Ala, on reasoning not sat 'tsfactorv to us'' E. The Supreme Court -overruled those cases which had said 1t was minis terial power. The Supreme Court of Alabama holds that when a ministerial power only is exercised you have no discretion, you have no right to ;ake evidence. etc.-you are bound to act when certain things happen-as if 1 so to a clerk and say file this complaint. He is bound to do 1t. You give to tax collector a warrant to collect taxes. he fs bound to do it. He has no discre- ton. he cannot determine anything, when the warrant is presented. his act follows automatically. That is not the case when you exercise judicial power. I nope members will bear in mind that under the present Constitution not word has been said about the powers of the joint convention or the powars or the Speaker. All that is left in Gncer- tdinty. The gentleman lays some s;rcss on the fact that in the Consti- tuition of no State has any such limi- tation been made; but are we not to learn from the wisdom and eXpari- ence of our fathers? The Congress of the United States never made any Provision for a contested election for the Presidency, until the question Arose In the case of Hayes and Tilden- Then they passed statutes cn the subject: Here we are framing a Consutptlon which we hope will be the fundamantai law of Alabama for many, syYSfrs fos come. We are, or hoDinG,r to umaEe vast and beneficial changes as. foa our elections We wished, taking. warhlng from the experience of our fathers, to make provisic ms which will prevent the will of the people from being defeated. V ~hen the result, Is declared in the Joint convention. My friend from Mobile 0Mr. Pillans) said that he could not get 1t into my head-that would keep on arguing that we were not making a Returning Board until we went down under the adverse vote of this Conven- tion. It may be that this Con- vention may not see this matter as the Committee does, but l am a sanguine uar %AA tAY that perhaps the House sees the mat ter as the Committee does. Much has been said about the Returning Board of Louisiana. This report Is likened to that. Is there any reason for such a parallel? What was the Louisiana Board? Composed of four or five State officers. headed by MT. Madison Wells, who had power to canvass the returns, and tO decide nothing going, behind the returns. They did not inquire whether the returns sent up declared the result as ascertained in the differ ent counties; but they overthrow them. They cancelled them. They coasti- tuted themselves into Board of Elec- tors for the State. The officers had sent up returns showing so many votes for the Democratic electors. They said there was intimidation, that there was fraud, that there was not fair vote and therefore they would not confine their functions to ascertaining what was declared below, but would go on and vote for the people of Coifax Coun- ty They formally counted up what they thought would have been the vote If the reople had not been bull -dozAd & and gave certificates based on such sup posed votes to the Republican electors.
 Mir Walker (Madison)-Will you al- low me to interrupt you.
 MT. sJones--Certainly.
 Mfr Walker-In the Section of the report by the Comnlttee, in the first powers given to the Joint Convention, they are authorized tc as- certain the genuineness of the returns?
 MT. Jones-Unquestion
 Mir. Walker--In the third subdivision they are authorized to procure correct returns from proper officers?
 Mir. Jones-Yes sir.
 Nr Walker-As I understand your argument that is really as far as t is desired to give power to that Joint Convention?
 MT. JoHes-Unquestiona
 Mr. Walker-Then what is the use in the second subdivision authorizing made. isn't the effect of the second subdivision to give them power of Returning Beard?
 Mr Jones-T do not know that 1t adds any great force to the section and for that matter the Committee would be perfectly willing to put in the word "cler.ca4" or strike it out. When I was interrupted, l was about to say, Mir. President, what became of the Louisiana Returning Board? They were -nvicted C forgery, Of viola ton or the laws of the State of Louis- lana. and finally, parioned by the &u- thorities of that state in consideration of the fact that Mir. Hayes had with C4s,vn the troops ard that the people of Louisiana ruled themselves s6 si (
 Mr. Pnans-May I ask a, queStiqIf?i
 The Presidenl-Does the igepHe H m permit an interruption roo e14 $
 MT. Jones-t 'ertainly. ~.,s-4
 Mir. Pillans-Then the only example we have, that Returning Board of Louisiana as I understand It, and which was for cause very similar to this, yod propose, resulted disastrous- ly and encouraged that Board nroba- bly, to go beyond the powers intended?
 Mir. Jones-rTo sir. Because they were set of rascals and violated the law, and usurped author ity. Their conduct does not illustrate the contention that the Louisiana Re- tuning Board had authority to do as they did. fron such provisions as em- boiied fnNRe 9l5thfHittees substitute. On fhe 'contrsfy3 the Supreme Court of | louisiana said they had not such pow or. under terms of an act like ours and them of forgery.
 We are contending in this substitute for the position that was contended for by the great party which supported MT.