The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-11

seems to me fk iS e Wi1c PfOFiSi31. II . substantially this: That there shai, be . committee in each house, nine in the House of Representatives and five in the senate. to which any bill which is introduced to be enacted into . local law shall be referred.
 and that committee shalt pass upon 1t. They examine the statutes In existence and see whether any general law has been enacted, under which the relief sought by that bill can be obtained. If SO, then 1t is the duty of the committee to report adversely in writing. stating the reas ons why they wont recommend 1t. In other words. the committee is to examine into 1t and report whether it be practicaf>or proper to pass such a law. If the committee In either house reports adversely, then 1t requires a
 majority of all of the members elected to that house to pass the pressure over the report. If they report ad- verseIy, 1t requires an affirmative vote of the majority of all the members elected to the house to pass the bill. If they report favorably. 1t would be accepted. no doubt. and the bill would be passed. MT. walker--Is 1t not the duty of the Legislature not to pass any local or special law, unless they find that sub
 
 eral law?
 MT. oates--Such provision is now in the Constitution. MT. walker-Isn't 1t a fact that that provision in the Constitution has been completely and notoriousiy ignored by the Legislature?
 Mir, Oates--It has. It is a metbod which has very largely prevailed. But if the committee is directed by the A~,k ~A tempts to do. to direct them. they cer- tainly would not evade that duty or disregard it, as has been insinuated is the probable fact in regard to the pres- ent Constitution. Now certainly I have no objection to the change in the phraseology of the provision which think will be. read little further on in the report pf the Committee on Lo- cal Legislation, in substance that if notice be given by publication in the newspaper of the Intent to prosecute the passage of a local measure. and 1t is passed. if the record affirmatively shows that such notice was given. I would like to have the attention of the chairman of the Committee on Local Legislation on that proposition. You have said substantially, but not in the exact language, that wherever a bill Is passed, notice of the intention of the parties must be given apd that the
 record shall affirmatively show 1t has
 been done. Then. of.course. 1t will be-
 come a question for the courts If that be overridden, because If it was dis regarded, the law would be unconsti-. tutional. would favor a provision of that kind to have a committee in each house to pass upon these local bills, and make their reports in writing,
 which would be safeguard upon 1t. It does nobody an injustice, and I
 think 1t is an entirely proper proposi- tiop to make; and whether 1t be entire ly proper in this place by striking out
 the language which they have report ed or not. if in the opinion it is not, | then I think it ought to be put in as an independent clause. I certainly
 think that a provision for a commit tee in each house. as provided by the amendment which I have presented, ought to find its place in the Consti- tuition in connection with this local legislatop.=
 MT. O'Neal--what is the necessity of
 putting a provision in the Constitution to create a Committee on Local Legis- lation? Would not the Legislature
 have the power to do that without any Constitutional enactment on the sub ject?
 Mr oates-They certainly would in the loose way in which such things are usually done. but if they were directed by the Constitution they could not ig- nore the duties pointed out by that in-
 strument. especially under their oath | of office.
 MT. Fitts of Tuscaloosa here took the chair.
 Mir Jones (Montgomery)-This Is one | of the most important questions that | has arisen in the debate on this sec tion, for upon the actiop of this Con- yention on this mattef may depend
 whether any Of these requirements | will be of any practical force. The gentleman from Greene made e very pertinent suggestion. and l want briefly to call the attention of the Con yention to it. Now it is known to all lawyers in this body, and I think to a
 good many other delegates. that wben a convention acts upon, or changes section of the existing Constitution, which has been considered by the Su- preme Court, that they do it''with ref erence to the decision of that court. Now we have had a decision of the Su- preme Court on a section almost iden- tical with this, and which would pc Identical if the amendment offered Dv the gentleman from Limestone IS | adopted. That is the question before | the house, then. If you leave 1t in | there YOU know that it is nothing more than waste paper, because the Supreme Court has decided that no matter what you say in the Constitution, 1t Is within | inc province of the Legislature if they SO choose, to disregard 1t.
 MT. Oates-Will you
 Mir. Jones (Montgomery)-I am not after your amendment.
 MT. Oates--I know, but l want 10 ask my colleague if he Is not stating that proposition too broadly?
 MT. Jones--I think not.
 MT. Oates-Did not the Supreme Court decide in the case before 1t in regard to that local law, that they l would presume that all was done that
 was necessary to be done?
 MT. Jones-No, sir; they decided that the Legislature was the exclusive judge. and that the courts could not revise it's action. At least that is my recollection of the decision. have no doubt about it. and think If my friend will read the decision, he will find that the Supreme Court said that when the Legislature acted. the mat ter was conclusive upon tine court. Mir. Fereuson-The decision of the Sunreme Court was to this effect, where the journal did not show to the con- trary everything in favor of the regu- Iaritv of a local law would be pre-
 MT. Jones--Of cou7Se. but am talk
 ,ro a about a different thing. The pre- sumnfion of the advertisement, If the ;ournal dId not show to the contrary,
 atc hut this is where the Legislature