The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-12-25

case involved a construction of Sec. 26 Of the charter of Demopolis, which is as follows: That all funds arising under the general revenue of the State for liquor licenses issued to parties carry ing on business within the police juris- diction and limits of said city, shall be paid over by the probate judge of Maren- go county. to the treasurer of said city of Demopolis, to be held and used exclu- sively for ahe maintenance and support of the public schools in said Demopolis district" s.s
 Mir. Justice Haralson in declaring the opinion of the court. says. (speaking of the title of the acD: "One would sup pose its object was to do no more than give to the city government some com plete and better adjusted legislation. ju- dicial and police powers-such as com monly appertain to municipal govern ment-but he would gather therefrom no intimation or suspicion of a purpose to incorporate into the act an en- tirely new provision, making an appropriation by the State, out of it's revenues, to support and maintain the public schools of the city. Such educa- tional institutions are not regarded as necessarily belonging to municipal gov ernment. They are important and con tribute greatly to the well being and pEOSpST1Ly OA any tOWh OA sSAhSb ~N0 N~ public buildings, charitable institutions for taking care of the sick, and other like institutions, but all such are of a class, and constitute subjects, not ger mane to municipal organizations" And for this reason, and another, this section of the charter of Demopolis was held un- constitutional. In the case of White, Auditor vs. Burgin, 113 Ala. TO. 1t is held that the caption of the act ito regulate the management of State and county con- victs."" does not express the subject of the provisions of Sections S4 and S5 of said act relative to the payment by the State of certain costs incurred in the prosecution. trial and conviction of convicts. and said sections are therefore. unconstitutional and void, as being violative of Section 2 of Article of the Constitution" of fS75
 See also the State vs So Ry., 113 Ala. 254; Sanders vs. Commissioners Court, IF Alabama, 543.
 Section 20 of the city charter confers a privilege on certain class (whether how ever contrary to constitutional limitations I do not deem it necessary to decide) in that. 1t exempts all persons who procure license from the City Council for carry ing on any business in the city, from the payment of any tax or license to the county for carrying on the same business in the city. It is legislation in a muni- cipal charter, of which it seems we could gather no intimation or even suspicion from the title of the act. ''To establish new charter for the city of Montgom- cry In other words, the subject mat ter of Sec. 20 Gas said in Woolf vs. Tay- for supra) 'fs not germane to municipal organizations" Although indirectly 1t may be promotive of raising revenue for the city by encouraging business within it's corporate limits, such privileges ''are not regarded as necessarily belonging to municipal government" From the fore going conclusions do not deem 1t neces- sary to pass upon the other grounds of demurrer
 The demurrer to the complaint is sus- tained.