The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-11

ter could be provtoed tor py ecn0Ni law. and if they determine that they did not think that 1t could. they would have the power to pass q local or spe- cial law on the subject.
 MT. Smith (Mobiie) Suppose the leg isiature were to pass a local law which was provided for by 2 general law. and the Supreme Court should subsequent ly SO decide, what effect would 1t have Would 1t not have the effect to uphold the right under the law because It was covered by the general law?
 Mir. Walker-If it is already covered by a general law, yes.
 Mir. Smith (Mobile)-What effect on 1t does the decision of the Supreme Court have? It just simply says that it was covered by 2 general law!
 MT. Walker-If the Supreme Court passes upon the question whether or not the local law or special law Is . valid piece of legislation. if rights are claimed to have accrued under that local or special legislation, why if the local or special legislation should be held to be invalid. the right could not be sustained.
 MT. Smith (Mobile)--If the court held that it was covered by q special law the right would be protected. would 1t not?
 Mr. Walker-Yes, sir.
 Mir. Smith-If, on the contrary. 1t held that 1t was covered by q general Jaw. 1t would not be covered by the special law. so the adjudication of the court will be a nullity in either case, so far as the rights are concerned.
 MT. Waiker-I really don't under. stand the purport of the question?
 Mir. Smith-If the Court decided that he had a right under 2 general law. and that 1t was covered by the gem eral law. he would have the right un- der the general law.
 MT. walker--Yes. If the local law did not amount to anything.
 Mir. Smith-And If they decided the other way. and held that he had the right under the special law. but that the special law was covered by the general law. he would stiil have the right. would he not?
 Mir. Walker-The decision of the legislation was wholly useless. Mir. O'Neai-This section provides that no special or private law shall be enacted in case which is provided for by a general law. Now was go- ing to make the inquiry along the line suggested by the gentleman from Mo- bile. If you obtained your rights un- der a local law, and the Supreme Court should hold that that local law was unconstitutional. because the mat ter of that local law was already pro- vided for by general law. then a party could not be were acquired under the local law, and he would still hold his rights under the general law which Is in existence.
 MT. Walker-That Is true.
 Mr. o'Neal--Is not that complete answer to the proposition that this would affect property rightsf How could it affect property rights when, # the property rights were acquired under a local law. that local law was void on the ground that a general law existed at that time which covered the case. and the general law which ex- isted would protect his property rights. would 1t not?
 MT. walker--of course If the subject was covered entirely by the general law. the special legislation would amount to nothing.
 Mir. Wilson (Clarke)-Well, then, suppose the Court would hold that the relief sought could have been obtained from a court. but the fellow went along and acted under a general law, what would be the result?
 Mir. Walker-He would not have the relief. because he did not apply to the Court. He ought to have followed the law and not proceeded on his rights under the voic act of the legislature. MT. Wilson (Clarke)-But his money is gone under that act. .,. | Mir. Walker--Certainly, and a mans q money Is always gone when he acts
 under a void act of the legislature. Mir Coleman (Greene)-Not necessa a- riiy. but may be.
 MT. Long (WaIlSer)--That is the re- suit of invalidating any act of the leg islature.
 MT. Long (walkerJ--Mr President. I have sat here for fortv-one days and can truthfuliy say that in that entire time I have heard a great many att tacks uron the legislature. The legis- lature has done many upwise things in the past. The last legislature did many unwise thinRV. but am con- strained to believe that about the worst thing it did was the calling of this Constitutional Convention.
 Now. MT. President, after stating in Section 1 of this article thirty odd things that the legislature cannot do, lit goes on to say here that they shall not be the judges of their own acts. and shall invite the criticism of the courts of the country as to what they do. Then in the next section 1t says that no special. private or local law shall be passed on any subject not enumerated in Section 1 of this Article, except in reference to courts. etc. They are not satisfied with naming every thing that they can think of. but they so further any say that they shall not do anything else. and then they want Ito put a special article in here that the courts shall construe this thing and the legislature shall have nothing to do with 1t. Now, gentlemen, the diff ference betwen a legislature and this body is that the legislature represents the people. and this body of 155 men claim that they are the people. But that is a mistake. They are not the people. the legislature Is nearer the people than this assembly Is, though we are as big as we think ws are. As far as I am concerned. 1t makes no difference. but I want to call the at tention of this house to the danger that we are getting into. Why not abolish the legislature in its entirety. Why not put a provision in there that they shall never call another Constitu- tion&l Convention. Why should we not say that they shall not do anything in the future and abolish them forever from the face of the earth. That Is exactly what you are driving at in these articles. Two distinguished Chairr1Aen of different Committees have consolidated to name the things that the legislature shall not do. The leg islature has existed ever since the Dec laration ot Independence was firmly established upon this continent. It is