The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-10

Of the people on ali supJeete.
 |. Mir. Cunningham--I desire to ask one more question. Suppose . bill is in- troduced as has been done, for . State dispensary law. Under this sub- division. if I happened to represent the county of Jefferson. could not move to strike 1t out of the bill.
 Mir. O'Neal-No, you ceuld not.
 Mfr. Cunningham-Then that takes away from communities the right of loca. self government on this question or any other question:
 Mir. O'Neal--No, the result would be that no general law would be passed except in this way. The general law might be passed on the subject of dis pensaries which would provide that any county which desired to avail itself of the dispensary might d6 90 by sub hitting the question to vote of the people. That could be done under a general law and that is the proper way in which 1t should be done. do not think 1t was the intention that this subdivision should apply to dispensa- ries. but even assuming that it does have reference to the dispensary, as the gentlemen from JefYerson has as- stunned, the Legislature could then pass a general dispensary jaw by which any county in the State could adopt the provisions of that law by a vote Of it's people, You could pass general. law to that effect in reference to local op- tion, instead of coming down here and fighting before the committees in the Legislature to get dispensary in your county, a general law would be passed and you could go back to your people, and 1T your people wanted a dispen- sary, they could secure it by an cleo tion.
 Mir. Boone-This Section reads "Ex- empting any person, corporation, coun- tv. township municipality or associa- tion from the operation of any general law" Would that prohibit the General Assembly from regulating the courts of the State in special way?
 Mr. O'Neai-That is especially ex- cepted. If the gentleman will. turn to Section 26 he win see that 1t reads "no special. private or local law. except a law fixing the time of holding courts, shall be enacted in any case" that is therefore. expressly excepted.
 Mr. Boone-LBut the exception covers only the time of holding court and would not cover any special court in any county where the. needs of the people might require \ special court. but the courts of the whole State would have to be the same.
 MT. ONeal--You mean as to the rules of procedure?
 MT. Boone--As to the organization of the courts in the several counties.
 MT. O'Neal--That would not have any effect on that. This says "exceptins any county from the operation of any general law" The purpose of that Section as I stated, was to prevent the Legislature. under the guise of a xsn- eral law. from passing a local law. That has been the way in which the prohibition against local laws has been eraded in nearly all of the States of the Union. A member introduces a general law, and then exception after excep- ton Is made. until you have nothing but local law.
 It seems that the argument of ths gentleman from Jefferson Is unsound even giving it the construction which he claims may be placed upon 1t
 Mr. PiIsans-I would ask if. in ths case of the passage of the law. intro. duced as general law, and ons county or a number of counties wert excepted, would that not make 1t q local law so as to fall within the pro- hfeition? For example: Suppose a game or bird law, such as the one thai was introduced two sessions back, were passed. with the exception of Mont gomery County. would not that be a local law under the provisions of your Section. and haven't you got ample provisions in your Section to reach tha, case of hill originally framed as a general law. becoming a local law by the taking out of one or more coun- ties?
 MT. O'Neal-That was incorporated in there because numerous decisions of the courts of the States have held that where general law Is intro- duced and the exception of town after town or city after city has been made. that It still remains a general law within the meaning of a Section like the one in the present Constitution, and out of abundant caution we have in- corporated this provision into this Ar ticle.
 Mir. Pillans-May ask another Ques- tion? Do you not think that the same result that you desire to reach could be better attained by a clause which would distinctly show that 1t was levelled at that particular sort of evil and not Section so broad as this.
 Mir. O'Neal-I do not think this Is too broad, Mir. President. AS I was going to say. the argument was made in the Committee that the reason why there was objection to local op- ton laws and prohibition, was because frequently the counties could get re- lief before the Legislature that they could not get before the people. That If the matter was left to the people the local option law would probably be defeated, and that the Legislature would sometimes grant local option when the people would defeat 1t. That did not appeal to my sense of right, because think that where the people of county will not vote for local op- tion. the Legislature should not foist such law upon them. I believe all these dispensary laws and local op- tion laws ought to be left to the people of the particular community which is affected. I say if you give this Section the construction given 1t by the gem tleman from Jefferson even, the Leg islature can pass general law pro- vlding that any county in Alabama can, by a submission of the question to the vote of it's people, take ad. vantage of the bensfit of a dssnsnsary. or the local option law. and there is absolutely nothing in the Section to prevent 1t.
 MT. Cornwell-In Section s of this Article don't yoa think that you have provided for all the objections that have been raised?
 MT. oiNeal-I think so. If the Leg islature should do that. I think it win answer most of these objections.
 MT. Sanders-I desire to ask the gen. tleman a question. If the Legislature should refuse to pass a general law for the subjects enumerated in this section. would not the members there-