The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-11

simply to provide for loc4t ieWe. AHc
 legislature might otherwise say that they did not provide for 1t by gen
 eral law. because it was . matter with | in their discretion as to whether it could be provided for by . general law. and In the exercise of that discre- | tion we decided that we could not do
 1t and there Is no appeal from that legislative discretion, according to the decisions of our court. In reference to | that a decision has been handed me in | reference to sustaining a special law in the case of ex parte State of Ala bama in re Knox. the Supreme Court l in considering this same provision of ! the old Constitution said:
 Tt is the suspension, the temporary stopping of existing laws for the bene-
 fit of individuals or corporations the | Constitution forbids, not the power of l the General Assembly when enacting general laws, to determine whether there may or may not be persons or subjects. which ought to be excepted ! from their operation"
 Now, you find that we provide that | the general laws shall not be suspend 1 ed for the benefit of an individual and the latter part of this provision is nor shall the General Assembly indi- rectly enact any special, private or To-
  l general law" The purpose of that was \ to prevent a general law from being | introduced into the Legislature and l,then county after county being except | ed from Its operation, thereby creating l local law.
 I yield to the gentleman from Lime stone with the understanding when the | gentleman from Montgomery and him. | self conclude their argument he will
 renew my motion to lay on the table.
 or yield to me for that purpose. | MT. Pettus-I will have no objection | to his renewing the motion.
 It seems to me that the committee in | it's zeal to stop local legislatiou has
 taken a step which will prove rather | dangerous We have in the declara-
 ton and Bill of Rights which we adopt ed the other day a section which de- clares that the judicial shall never ex- ercise the legislative and execptive | powers, or either of them. to the end | that it may be government of laws and not of men. It seems to me that | if We adopt this section as reported
 by the committee and authorize the | courts to pass on the questions or whether or not law could have been provided for by general law, or l whether or not the courts would have afforded the relief In that particular in-
 forded the relief in that particular in stance, that We clothe the courts with | legislative powers and authorize them | to repeal anvact which has been passed l with all of the forms of law by the General Assembly. long time after | that act has become law. MT. O'Neal-Do not the courts exer- else a quasi legislative power in de- cIaring laws to be unconstitutional? :? Do they not in effect repeal them when | they declare such laws to be uncon-
 stitutional?
 MT. Pettus-I do not understand that they do, and even If that be true no | Constitution before has ever set traps
 for the General Assembly to fall &nto | for the purpose of giving courts the pleasure of repeating acts. Now 1t
 seems to me if an act was passed by
 the General Assembly in good faith. then though the court in ite greater
 wisdom might have found a method to
 provide for the relief sought, or decided
 that it could he done by general law,
 under the act as passed. transactions
 may take place and rights and inter | ests accrue and 1t might so on for | years and years and at the end of
 seven or ten years if the question was | brought before the courts and the
 court upon a state of facts different
 from those that confronted the Gen.
 eral Assembly at the time they passed
 the act, either because it spent more
 time in the investigation of the facts
 of the case, or else because some of
 the facts were not before the court
 that were before tho General Assem-
 bly,, the court should declare that the
 case could have been reached by gen. | eral law, and therefore the act is void
 and uAcon6titutional. It would be void | ab initio and it seems to me that the
 rights that probably would have &C.,
 crued under the act would be invali-
 dated and it would develop dangers to
 the material welfare and interest of
 the State.
 MT. Banks-This section here does
 not say that the courts are to decide
 whether a general law may provide
 for the matter in question, but wheth-
 CT general law has already provided
 for it.
 MT. Pettus-I understand 1t pro-
 vides as to whether a general law
 has already been provided, and as to
 whether relief could be given by any | court, but I submit that does not rem.
 edy the objection 10 the section IS le- | ported by the committee. Now, the
 committee has specified some 36 kinds
 of local legislation by name, the sub
 jects which most frequently arise to | cucumber our statute hooks. and tat
 absolutely cut them off and prohibited I them, and l submit that is far enough
 to So, and we ought not to clothe the
 courts with the power to pass upon
 the acts of the Legislature in this | manner.
 MT. Coleman-If the Legislature can l determine whether or not any act is
 a local act or a general law. what is
 to prevent it from legislattnS directly
 upon the exceptions here, and to say 1 that all would be valid?
 ! MT. Pettus-I take 1t that the oath l of any member of the General Assem- | bly would be sufficient to keep him from a direct and fragrant violation of the Constitution. when 1t is spe- cifically and directly prohibited by l name. I think that the decision Of the court that the Legislature is the judge | in the first instance of whether or not | this can be done is eminently correct.
 If the law is passed under this sec- ton as reported by the committee. It will etsnd as a law until it Is carried
 before a court, and it Is decided that
 sorne court could have given the relief | or that there was some general law
 mon tSe subject. and I submit 1t is dangerous section. and should be stricken out.
 Mr Oates-Two questions are prt-
 ssntad bv the proposition reported by
 tha Committee on Local Legislation Tine nr0nOGifiDO