The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-28

am told that they were hauled to Mont gomery in wagons. What has become of them now?'
 He urged the House to pass the bill which promised such good for the fruit growing industry.
 The bill was passed ss nays; 2s nays.
 The measure is almost an exact copy of the Georgia law.
 Montgomery Board of Revenue.
 Mir. Maner of Montgomery, presented the report of the Conference Committee on the disagreement between the House and Senate on the Montgomery County Board of Revenue bill. The report was accompanied by substitute for the bill as passed.
 The substitute provided for the appoint ment of the members of the Board. The bill passed by the House at the Friday night session made the members of the Board elective. The substitute reported by the committee is similar to the bill passed by the Senate.
 Mir. Arlington of Montgomery. said that although he had signed the conference report he was in favor of an elective Board of Revenue. He had promised his people in the campaign that he would assist them in getting an elective Board of Revenue. He had contended for an elective Board before the Conference Committee. but had realized that 1t could not be had because the Senator from Montgomery County was against 1t. Hall Opposes Substitute.
 Mir. Hall of Montgomery was opopsed to the substitute. He said that if four men were ever committed to a proposi- tion the four representatives from Mont- gomery were committed to the proposition of an elective Board of Revenue. The farmers of Montgomery County, he de- clared, had urged during the campaign that the Board be elected and the candi- dates had promised that the Board would be made elective.
 !, The whole question, Mir. Hall said, re- solved itself into the fact that there were two or three politicians in Mont gomery who wanted places on the Board, but never could be elected.
 The House refused to concur in the conference report. The vote was nays, 49; ayes. 4.
 Mir. Arlington of Montgomery changed his vote from aye to'nay before the re- suit was announced. He said that in the conference he had done what he could to have an elective Board, but when he had found out that he could not get 1t he yielded.
 State Land Bill.
 Senate bill 150 was called up and evoked some discussion. The bill in it's title provided for the vacancy to the State of lands not legally patented, and to settle disputed titles. It also increas- ed the salary of the State Land Agent from s1.20O to $500.
 MT. Wood of Macon said he was op- posed to the bill. It was. he said one of series of bills proposing to attain one object or the other. but in reality its object was to raise the salary of some clerk or officer. This bill he said in creased the salary of the State Land Agent from $1,2o0 to $1.5OO. There was no additional work in the department to demand the increased pay. He did not believe that bills increasing salaries should be passed when meritorious appro- priations had to be turned down.
 At this juncture MT. Rich of Mobile pre- scented a joint resolution, from the Com mittee on Rules with & favorable report providing for the raising of joint com mittee to prefare bills carrying out the provisions of the constitution. The resolution provided that the committee should consist of fourteen members, six from the Senate and six from the House with the President pro tenn of the Senate and the Speaker of the House as mem bers.
 The committee, under the terms of the resolution cannot draw pay for more than thirty days,
 Discussed Special Committee.
 MT. Rich explained the resolution and urged its passage.
 MT. Rushton of Crenshaw opposed the resolution and the expense 1t entalied. IL would not do any good, he said, as the House might reject the work of the committee as it did with the revenue bill.
 Mir, Kelly of Choctaw said he was op- posed to the resolution in its present shape, as 1t gave the Senate as many members of the committee as 1t gave the House.
 Mir Benners of Jefferson argued that the resolution was economical in it's na- ture The work of the committee would cost only $500. about as much as two legislative days For the members to serve on the committee. he said, would entail considerable personal sacrifices.
 MT Walker of Madison said that the reason the committees had not prepared the general bills was due to lack of time. The members of the comittee, would, during the recess, have time and opportunity to draft bills in line with their committee work. He doubted the wisdom of naming the joint committee.
 Mir Lusk of Marshall said that the joint committee could not do all the work that was expected of it. This work could be quickly done, he argued. by embers of the standing committees at their homes without pay.
 Will Not Delegate Authority.
 MT Walden of Morgan was opposed to Rhe resolution. He was elected from Morgan County, he said and he did not propose to delegate his authority to any body else.
 Mir. Goodwin of Montgomery argued that the appointment of the committee would save thousands of dollars in avoid ing an extra session. It was the duty of the House to avoid the possibility of an extra session.
 Mir. Thomas of Chambers desired to en- ter his solemn protest against the res olution. It would be better, he said, for the members to prepare the bills at home.
 MT Callahan of Morgan spoke for the resolution. There ought to be some kind of provision for the general laws, he said He did not think that any members ought to be called upon to serve the State without pay.
 Tunstall Advocated Resolution.
 Speaker TunstalI took the floor for the resolution. It was the duty of the Legis- lature, he declared, to provide for ma chinery which would assure them that general bills would be submitted on all propositions. If the committee was not provided some members, he said, might bills on some subpects, but bills would not be prepared on all suhiacts