The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-10

l fund to reQeem the pouo4 WuoN W time has expired~-when these bond mature, 1t will be necessary. in order to refund these bonds at fair price and under favorable conditions to our city, that there be such another law 1 passed as the one under which the taxes are now being collected to pay | this debt. nope the Convention will l embrace the few cities that will bo | exempted by the provisions of the
 amendment offered by the gentlemAn from Mobile.
 Mr. KirA--I move to lay the subdl-
 vision and the amendments on tho table.
 MT. o'Neai-I call for an aye and ne l vote on that
 The cali was not sustained. Uron (
 vote being taken upon the motion to table the amendments. and sub-divisions a division was called for. and, by vote of 8 ayes and 5a noes. the motion | to table was lost.
 Mr. ONeal-I move the previous question on that sub-diylslsn, te. ana the amendments.
 The main question wEs ordered, and a reading of the amendment called for.
 The amendment by Mir. Foster was read. Upon a vote being taken. . di-
 vision was called for. and. by vote of
 4s ayes and Ss roes. the amendment was d0OQt~u. The President--The question recurs
 upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mobile. as amended by tde amen iment of the gentleman from Tuscaloosa.
 Uron vote being tasen. the amend
 ment was adopted. and upon a further vote, Sub division IS. as amended. was thercupcn adopted.
 sub-dvision r was read as follows:
 Seventeenth-Giving effect to invalid
 will. deed or other instrument.
 Mr. ONeal--I desire to amend that sub- b-division by adding the word "an''--
 giving effect to "an" invalid deed.
 There being no objection. the amend
 ment was allowed. and. upon vote
 being taken, the subdivision was advrted-
 suo-division IS was read as foIIewsi Bishteenth-Legaiizing tho invalid
 act of any officer
 MT. Jones (Montgomery)-I have an amendment.
 The amendment was read as follows: Amend Section by striking out the
 18th subdivision.
 Mir. Jones (Montyomery)-My reason
 for offering that is that there are cases |. where the Legislature ought to have
 the right to validate the invalid act
 of an officer. and not have to put it In the general law. I will recall one or 1 two instances to illustrate the fmpro- priety of that provision. In 1892 the , Legislature spent about sl5.0o0 more than the appropriations. The Treas urer and Auditor. however. realizing
 that 1t was an honest debt, and that the State would have to pay it,. paid , the debt, and afterwards the Legisla- , ture was asked to ratify that invalid
 act. Now 1t did that by what was , called a special act. I recall another
 instance where State Board of Ass sessors of Railroads. by some accident, met at the wrong time, and we got a special act legalizing the invalid act , of those officers. Now you have . rev.
 enue law declared invalid now and then. there might be an assessment or
 some part of some act of some officer that was perfectly invalid and illegal
 in itself that the Legislature might want to make valid. Then another , objection is that you do not want to pass general laws legalizing invalid . acts. The Legislature wants to be the judge and jury of each particular case. , It might put premium upon the com
 mission of illegal acts. if you pass , general law in advance. provided that
 those acts and all others like 1t. may
 be validated, and that is the reason think TO useful purpose can be ob- !. tained by putting that in the ccnsti- tultuii. WE NO AAVb AlesC & Dh~@e Nre~A
 of that anyhow.
 Mr. Macdonald-It is not very often | that I impose upon the patience of this , Convention, but it occurs to me that the suggestion made by the delegate. . Mir. Jones. is fraught with great dan [ ger. The duties Of officers are pointed
 out in the law. and it is their absolute duty to follow the path that the law prescribes.
 Mir. Jones (Montgomery)-Does not , the gentleman think it would hs~bet-
 ter, if it Is done at all, that in each , special case there should be special act, rather than a general law upon the
 subject?
 , MT. Macdonald--No. sir; do not. I do not think any officer should be all
 lowed to violate the law with the idea that afterward the Legislature can , come along and validate his acts. It , holds out a reward to men to do that . which Is not ir the line of their duty. . It is a dangerous thing. 1t Is fraught wtA1 very grave consequences, to say
 that an officer who does an unlawful |. act, may depart fl fom his duty. and then , go to the Legislature and appeal to .. . them and to their sympathy, or upon any other ground, get them to ratify . that act and put 1t in his power to again violate the law, and for others to violate the law with the hope Of f having their conduct ratified. i MT. Reese--How many acts have ths
 Legislature validated in the last twen. ty yearS7
 MT. Macdonald-I have not ths slightest idea. am speaking about , the principle.
 Mr. Jones (Montgomery)-There are only ten or twelve that know of.
 MT. Macdonald-If 1t is only one tt . don't do. , Mr. Jones (Montgomery)--This pro. vision requires you if you want to , validate an act to do it by a general ? law instead of having a special law in
 each particuia: case where they want
 to do it.
 MT. Macdonald-Yes, sir; and ques-
 ton the wisdom of doing it. Either
 to dc. 1t by a general or a special law,
 but especially by a special law. because
 I say the man who violates his duty. l, and then afterwards appeals to the : Legislature to validate that act. brings 10 bear upon the Legislature influences of sympathy. which Is improper, and
 1t seenis to me that no better rule
 could be laid down for public officers than to strictly follow the path pointed
 out to them by the law. and not to . permit them to speculate upon the idea T that any Legislature could say wheth- , , CT or no they did wisely. They had better keep in the middle of the road
 fa rn