The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-09-17
Bill Appropriating $l5,-
 900 Defeated. FEE IN THE GILES CASE Debate on Measure Providing
 for Its Payment. Thompsor of Bibb Declared That House Would Save Time by
 Appropriating. ,ooo for
 Each Member of Mont gomery Bar.

Following it's precedent of Tuesday the House of Representatives yesterday re- versed itself on the general stock law bill, passing the measure which IL hao rejected the day before.
 The stock law bill had been indefinitely postponed during Tuesdays session. majority of the members wanted stoch law but they did not agree on the Kind of stock law that ought to be passed. The members could not get together on the details of an eauable bill which would hsatisfv the conflicting views on the inn iportant question.
 Minority Wanted No Law.
 A strong minority of the House did not want a stock law of any sort. They would ,haye opposed any bill that had the woros .'stock law" in it, no matter what eise Iit might contain. Taking advantage oi Ithe division this anti-stock law minority secured the indefinite postponement or the tbiil and it's pending amendments
 Rut there was large contingent in the House which wanted stock law worse than if wanted any other legislation. These members implored the House iead- ers to do something. They labored ener- Retically Tuesday night and yesteroay morning to secure a reconsideration. Q accomplish their purpose they got tiie conflicting clements of the House toseuh- CT on a substitute which embooaeo tne ,nrinciples of the Senate Recess Commit itaa rybtcb had previously divided the tIJouse. This bill they presented yester- tdav morning when the motion or Mr. Thompson, of Bibb. to reconsider had prevailed The House hurriedly adoptea line substitute in It's desire to have done with stock law legislation during the kpresent session.
 Fee in the Giles Case.
 The most interesting contest of the day Twas over the bill to appropriate $l.O50 TOT ithe payment of the Montgomery attorneys ! who successfully defended the test case brought by Jackson W. Giles. negro, against the constitution of Alabama. A
 The bill in question had passed the Sen- Aate, but 1t met with considerable opposi- Ition in the House. For awhile the bin lappeared to be in imminent danger. MT. IIusk of Marshall in assailing the meas- ure, offered an amendment reducing the fee to $500. The House refused to indefi- nitely postpone the amendment, but voted 1t down finally. The bill was passed at the afternoon session with votes to spare.
 The bill was attacked as repugnant to Section 68 of the constitution, which re- lates to the pay of public officials and the pay for special services.
 Messrs Lusk of Marshall and Callahan ,of Morgan were in the forefront of the fight against the Dlll Wnlle MeSSeTS SlIup- son of Lauderdale and Arnold of Calhoun measure.
 Mir. Goodwin of Montgomery supported Hhe measure in a strong speech.
 Opposed by Lusk.
 Mir Lusk went at the bill as soon as ythe clerk had finished reading it. It vas he declared, clearly in opposition to sec tion 6s of the Constitution. He said further that under that section of the constitution no State official had the right to make a contract for any such services.
 MT. Goodwin explained that the attor- neys had fought the case against the constitution through all the courts to a a successful termination in the United States Supreme Court. For the services rendered no man would deny that the lfee was a reasonable one. There were more cases against the constitution on the court calendars assailng the new con- stitution which these attorneys would be called upon to defend.
 MT Thompson of Bibb offered an amendment declaring that inasmuch as there were several bills on the calendar for the relief of Montgomery lawyers that the House would save time in voting each member of the Montgomery bar S1,O00. The amendment was ruled out of order.
 MT. Arnold declared that MT Lusk had shown remarkable inconsistency. He had declared that it was unconstitutional to Ipay an attorneys fee in the case, yet hhe proposed in his amendment to pay out $500. If it was unconstitutional to ypay a $1.O 900 fee why was it not unconsti- ,tutional to pay out $500 in the same case. 11e asked.
 He took issue with MT. Lusk's construc- +ion of the constitution declaring that it was erroneous. He recounted the his tory of the case and declared that the attorneys had established the constitu- 6ion of their State in the courts of their country The question then arose, he said, should the attorneys be paid for Eheir services. He was authorized, he said. to deny that the Governor had made any contract with the attorneys. The Governor with other State officials had agreed that the fee was a reasonable one.
 Callahan and Simpson.
 Mir. Callahan contended that the con- etitution forbade the payment of the fee by the Legislature. If the fee was paid and the constitution over-ridden, he said fl would establish bad precedent.
 Mir. Simpson argued the constitutional point, differing with Messrs Callahan and Musk There was nothing in the ,con- stitution. he declared. to forbid the bay ment of the fee and he supported the bill.
 The bill was passed.
 The House at the afternoon session killed all hope of a State exhibit at the St. Louis Exposition, The bill carrying an appropriation of $15OOO for that pur- pose was decisively defeated.