The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-12

are great many sore toss in this Con vention, ana that 10 matter wtat tbe subject broachsd, one is siways tread. I ing on somekody's sore toe without ever
 knowing that you were within mile of 1t. Now, as to the proposition d. vanced by my distinguished friend from Jefferson ana my distinguished friend from Limestone, that this pro- vision would be In contravention of that provision of the Bill of Rights which said that the Executive and Legislative and Judicial Departments should be separated. I respectfully diff fer with them, and insist that 1t Is but carrying out that provision. If we were to delegate to the Legislature to deter mine whether or not c matter of local concern which was introduced before them had already been provided for by general law or delegated to them the right to determine whether or not it could be paovided for by any court, that would be investing the Legisla-
 ture with the functions of the Judic-
 iary and violating the very provision
 which the gentleman refers to. and putting this provision in here that the courts and not the Legislature shall determine whether or not a matter is provided for by the general law. or has
 been or can be provided for by court. you simply give to each department its peculiar function and do not infringe upon that of the Legislature. Now. MT. President. this matter has taken a | wide range; there has been a great
 deal said here that has no reference
 whatever to the matter under discus-
 sion: . great deal has been said about dispensaries and about liquor laws and
 the Mobile school law. This Conven- ton must bear in mind that this law is not retroactive; 1t does not repeal any local law now in existence: 1t does not lay It's hand on any local interests
 which have already been protected by the Legislature. but 1t simply says that in future the Legislature shall not | pass local laws except under the condi- | such as are now in existence by pur. | suing the same forms which would be | necessary to pass a new law, and I
 submit. MT President, that 1t Is not | improper for this Convention to say | to the Legislature. in view of the past history of this State, that whenever a l matter of local concern is proposed to you, you shall not judge whether or not that is provided for by general law.
 Or whether it can be provided for by
 any court, but the court shall deter |
 pass any law which Is already provided
 for by the general law. and you shall
 not pass a law which can be provided | for by the courts. As an illustration,
 was informed that in a recent session of the Legislature. a bill was intro | duced to relieve a minor 20 years of age of the disabilities of homage. New
 there is a general statute upon the
 books that any minor over the age of | kx,r fan tn,N tD Chancellor, with proof. be relieved.
 Why. then. was 1t necessary for the
 Legislature to take up the public time.
 and. at the public expense to grant to this minor the removal of his disabili-
 ties. when 1t could be done for $15 or | $20 through the courts. If this pro-
 vision had been in the Constitution at
 that time, no such provision could have
 been considered, and the object of this
 Is because the Supreme Court had de-
 cided that the provision in the old Con-
 stitution, which we have copied here,
 must be construed as giving the Legis'
 lature the sole power of Judging wheth-
 CT or not a law Is provided by general law, or the relief sought can be grant, cd by any court, and this provision is to
 put 1t in the courts instead of with the
 Legislature, and if we were to adopt
 the old provision of the Constitution, l
 be held to have agreed to the opinion uf the Supreme Court, and agreed that hereafter the Legislatures might deter
 mine these things fog themselves l
 submit that when we put an amend
 ment to Section 1, which is to come up
 for consideration, that the Legislature
 may pass local laws as to liquor by
 giving the notice provided in Section 3,
 that that is all that any fair man can
 t~
 init, Mir. President, that this discussion
 has gone far enough, and I move the
 previous question.
 MT. Bulger--I desire to ask the gen.
 tIennan a question? What becomes Of
 vested rights under the law passed by
 the Legislature before the court passed
 upon the question as to whether it can
 be provided for by general law?
 MT. Watts-I answered yesterday;
 there are some lawyers in every Leg
 islatude who will know whether par
 ticular measure is covered by general law, or whether the relief sought can
 be granted by a court. The provision
 Is not that the matter could be provid- , ed by 6 general law, but whether IL ls' and any lawyer can tell whether 1t is provided for, although nobody could tell whether it could be provided for. MT, White--I wish to ask the gentle ] l man q question. OO UHoeTStdnu run
 the committee that in the. event this motion to reconsider is not carried, and this section is allowed to remain
 in force, that the committee will then . offer an additional section or provision saving that this shall have no applica-
 ton to the enactment of any local law for the regulation of the whisky trat- fc? MT. O'Neal--I desire to state that l will introduce a section of that klno' as have repeatedly stated.
 Mr. Watts--I desire to answer the gentleman's question. We are willing |, to say that the passage of local laws in reference to liquor shall be passed in accordance with Section ?, but not that 1t shall be passed notwithstanding this article, because that would enable the Legislature to pass any liquor law } regardless of whether the notice ts { given or not, and we want notice given for every liquor law that is passed.
 MT. Hefiin (Chambers)-If 1t is the
 purpose of the committee to introduce
 a new section to cover this. why not reconsider this section and adopt an amendment like this which the gen. tleman from Henry has written: pros . vided that nothing in this section or article shall affect the right of the
 Legislature 10 enact local laws regulat- , ing the liquor traffic." : MT. Watts-I have already answered se R0 hn