The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-19

the senate. Az wac suggested by the gentleman from Jefferson In hie h. quiry to the gentleman from Lee. about persons who wanted to defeat bills. abssntina themselves, to prevent the passage of a measure. So that would work both ways. It might stim- ulate those who wanted to pass measure to assemble. while It might on the other hand stimulate those who wanted to defeat measure 70 remain away. Now suppose that either House, or branch of the Legislature. was near Iy equally divided between two polit- ical parties. Then the political party upon whom the responsibility for the legislation rested, having . bare ma jority, if one member should be sick, or absent, the minority could defeat the will of the majority, though that party be held responsible for the legislation having the majority in that body. Mr. Long (Walker)-Seventeen con- stitutes a quorum in the Senate. Could not nine men indefinitely postpone . bill. which means it's death, whereas. It would take . majority of the Senate, seventeen members, to pass itf Could not nine men kill 1t by indefinite post ponement, whereas it would take sev- enteen to pass the bill, and would not that apply to the House as well? Mir. White-That seems to be . cery strong objection to the meas- ure. as suggested by the gentleman from Walker. Less than a majority might defeat a bill. while it would take a majority of the whole House to enact a law. In other words, nine members of the Senate might indefinitely past pone . bill and thereby defeat 1t. whereas 1t would take seventeen oI more to pass the measure. Now. the complaint that nine Senators may enact law Is . complaint showing the nsc- essity of increased representation. If there Is an evil in that. then the evil Is further behind us than the point that we are discussing. We need more | representation In Alabama if there is anything in the objection. or anything | in the suggestion that nine men in the l Senate can pass law. In other words, | if that objection is well taken. then we need increased representation in the Senate, for as long as we have the rep- resentation which we now have. and which we have already decided to have | in the future. it Is right and proper that a majority of that body. or of either body. should have the right to enact legisiation, and that the will of that majority might not be defeated by tht minority of another party in the body Therefore. am opposed to the amend l ment In other words. 1t Is an inno' | vation as first said, and without soms strong reason, we ought not to niak' 1 that innovation.
 | MT Henm (Randolph)--Tf the amend ! ment offered by the gentleman from Lee should prevail. would not quorum | be powerless to pass bill If there wal one dissenting vote?
 | Al he ~ quorum with one dissenting vote eouit defeat any bill.
 The President--Does the gentleman make any motion with reference to thu amendment7
 MT. White-I do not wish to cut of debate. regard this ss very import ant measure.
 | Mir. Bulgsr-It has been well sait l that this is a departure and an inno walton on the practice and custom ol the law-making power of this State since the organization of the govern ment of the State. Now, there are two or three reasons, in my humble tudS, ment, why this amendment should moi be adopted. It is not unfrequently the case that there are twenty-five mem 1 bers of the House of Representative who are absent from Q session; thai would leave in session seventy-fivs !
 l members. .. 1 MT. O'Neal--If the gentleman will permit 6 question: You say that thii ia an innovation upon the practtc'
 which has prevailed in this State. Wal not the question of quadrennial ses
 sions of the Legislature. which VI
 adopted yesterday, an innovation; an'
 didn't you vote for that innovation!
 Mr. Bulger-Yes. think so; and therefore, I favored biennial sessions Now, as I was stating when interrupt ed-if there are seventy-1ve nemoerl present.
 MT. Harrison-Wasn't 1t an innova ton upon the customs of the State when, thirty i've provisions were stipu lated prohibiting local legislation.
 MT. Buiger-Yes. think so.
 MT. Harrison-You voted agains that, too.
 MT. Buiger--I think so; I was in ia
 vor of local legislation by the Legis laturc and not by the Commissioners Courts, and have yet no reason to re grst how voted.
 Now, if seventy.hve members onl, are present, which frequently occurs Il the Legislature. 1t will require nfty one members Co pass Dill. It VII oniv require thirty-e eight members t' defeat a bill. That practice ought no to prevail in any Assembly, whether l is of the importance of legislative as sembly or not. It should require In tn Legislature as many votes to defeat bill as 1t requires to pass 6 bill. this amendment Is adopted. that VII not be the case. Before any importan hill can become a law in this state when there are only seventy-five mem hers present the opposition can rals twenty-five votes and defeat the pill because we all know that motion ' indefinitely postpone a pill amounts !. defeating the measure, and It woul' reouire ffty-one votes to pass the bill therefore I move to lay the motion cl the table.
 Upon a vote being taken. division
 was called for and by a vote ot nIty six ayes and thirty-five noes' the mo tion to table was carried.
 Mir. Sanford (Montgomery)-l one an amendment.
 The amendment was read as follows
 "Amend Section 20 by inserting Tn tn second line of said section after m words at length the following, Wnic, fact shall be entered on the journal.
 Mir Sanford-I make that anendmen sirnnIy because the Constitution unoe
 which we now live contains prett.
 much the same words. but sometime
 bills are read by merely reading tn
 title. and it appears as if they wer
 read three times. By entering this fac
 on the Journal it will show that 1t va
 read at length, and that Is the reaso 1 offer the amendment.
 Mir. Oates-I do not sec the neceseit
 for the amendment. and, therefore
 think that the section as reported p |