The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-02-15
Letters to The Editor.
Senate Bill No. 66.
Editor The Advertiser:

Editor The Advertiser:
 Believing that In the passage of the apoVe Dill by the Senate increasing judi
 cial salaries, the whole letter ana spirit of the constitution were violated, and
 that such utter disregard of the tunda-
 mental law Is perilous to the welfare and safety of our State. is my apology
 for this letter.
 Although the bill as passed, in terms.
 does not say that the present incum-
 bahts shall receive the increase, yet tho original bill provided that 1t should Sc apply; and the friends of the measure
 voted down a proposed amendment as follows: Provided, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to the present incumbents." And they advocated on the floor of the Senate, that 1t was not tuition to increase the salaries of the present judges. But that 1t was entirely
 m keeping with the instrument. thus showing, and in fact admitting. that the
 main purpose of the bill is to provide
 Tor the present judges, That the bill viewed in this light Is ut terly subversive of the constitution
 needs only that the plain language Of the constitution be turned on il. There is no room for construction. To uphold the bill, Section 150 of the constitution is relied upon. 1t reads as follows:
 '-The Justices of the Supreme Court
 Chancellors and the Judges of the Circuit SOuA tsb anu COuI lS Ol LSCOLu, OA-
 cept Probate Courts, shall at stated
 times. receive for their services, com
 pensation, which shall not be diminished
 during. their official terms.'
 Were this the only provision on the subject. 1t might be that the bill would
 not be offensive to the constitution. leav-
 ing out the question of Justice and right
 This section was in the constitution oi
 1875, and no doubt was put Tn the new like great many other provisions, with out any discussion.
 Another section of the constitution bear
 ing on this question is 2Sl. which is as follows:
 The salary. fees or compensation oi profit under this State, or any county, or
 municipality thereof, shall not be in
 creased or diminished, during the tern
 for which he shall have been elected ol
 appointed.
 This section Is not in the constitution ventton had some purpose in view by put ting 1t in there. It may be suggested that 1t was intended to meet just such a con. dition as this bill brings about-the ever lasting worry and annoyance of tn, Legislature by the office holders for ar increase of their salaries. The friends ,oi
 the bill admit that this section applies
 to all other office holders save judicia officers.
 If so can any one tell us why thi. distinction?
 When the convention excepted any ont
 from its provisions. 1t so declared. Se' Section 1l9.
 And in line with Section PSI. and :f any thing, more conclusive of the proposition
 that the bill is wrong, we quote in par
 Section 6S, as follows;
 The Legislature shall have no power tC
 grant, or to authorize or require any county or municipal authority to grant nor shall any county or municipal au l thority have power to grant any extrs compensation, lee or allowance to any l public officer, servant or employe agen | or contractor. after service shall hav' | been rendered or contract made, nor t' | incrSase or decrease the fees and com pensation of such officers during thei | terms of office, etc
 As will he seen the word grant is ar | piled directly to the Legislature and alst to the power of delegating to counties and municipalities the authority. Leave out that part of the section re
 ferring to delegating the power to coun | ties, etc, and the section would read: l ''The Legislature shall have no power | to grant any extra compensation, ice o | allowance to any public officer. servan | or employe, agent or contractor, afte l service shall have been rendered or con l tract made, nor to increase or decrease | etc" thus showing that the Legislature II l plain language is prohibited from enact | Ing such laws this
 | Significant too is the fact that this sec | ton also Is not to be ofund In the con
 stitution of 1S7o.
 l trust >the House will defeat the bill l or at least annul 1t so that there wil 1 be no question about it's constitutionality | by providing that 1t shall not apply t
 the present judges.