The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-11-12
OPINION ON LUSK ACT.
nEcIsfoN OF SUPREME COURT
 MADE PUBLIC.
It fs Lensthy Document and Recites Action of Conference Committee of LexisIature--written by
 Chief Justice.

The opinion Tn tuii ot Sniel 1uehSe
 Thomas N. Mcclellan. Of the state
 supreme Court. declaring the Lusk ac.
 redistricting the judiciary or the stals
 10 be unconstitutional, was handed :, down yesterday.
 It ia a document of great length, in- I volying intricate principles of law and fills over fourteen typewriter pages. Briefly this important decision or | Chief Justice Mcclellan holds that the House of Representatives did nov con cur in the amendments made 70 the
 Lusk bill by the Senate. The oecision answers every argument of the counsei contendinr for the validity of the biii, at the same time setting forth many corollaries of the parliamentary Ia" practiced in the Legislature of Ala bania.
 Chief Justice Mcclellan early In the decision recites shortly the history ano substance of the Lusk act IL was introduced in the House and proposed tn change the number of judicial cir cults in the State from thirteen 10 seventeen, taking Limestone and Madi- son out of the Eighth Circuit and put ting them In what was to be called the Sixteenth Circuit. This would have left in the Eighth Circuit Cullman. Lawrence and Morgan Counties. The amendments of tho Senate would have taken Lawrence County out of the Eighth to go into the Sixteenth and provided for one more circuit to pc known as the Eighteenth Circuit Other amendments were also made.
 An examination of the Senate and House Journals revealed that there was a disbursement between the two houses which was referred to 0 conference committee. A majority report of this Conference Committee was made to the effect that we recommend that the Senate recede from the amendments" in regard to Lawrence County and the formation of the Eighteenth Circuit. This report was adopted by a yea and nay vote of both houses which was entered in the journals -.
 The decisino rules that there was no concurrence with the amendments of the Senate in the adoption of the report because the latter did not make any affirmation whatever including the amendment, outside of the specific ones
 mentioned The Constitution appears
 to have been violated here. in that Sec
 ton s4 of Article W provides that mo
 amendment to bills by one house shall
 be concurred in by the other, unless a
 vote be taken by yeas and nays, and
 the names of the members voting for
 and against the same be recorded at
 length on the journal" Thus was part
 of the Senate amendments lost in the
 report of the Committee of Conference The journals further show that the Committee on Conference majority and minority reports were signed respect lively by a minority of the Senate mem-
 bers of the committee and a minority of the House members.
 Chief Justice Mcclellan, on this point. declares that the court does not decide" but justifies the inference that the invalidity of the Lusk bill might have been arrived at by attacking this
 defect in the passage of it. Q
 The following is the text of the decision touching the question whether the signatures of a majority of mem
 bers of each house Is required on the report of the Committee on Conference; There are two ways by which one house can concur in amendments
 adopted by the other; one is by yea and nay vote of concurrence. The other is by adopting by yea and nay vote the report of Committee on Com ference which recommends concurrence ss A report of a Conference Com. mittee must be one in which a majori- ty of the conferees of each house con! CUTS. for a Conference Committee is essentially two district committees l each of which acts by majority. and its report must be signed by majority of the members of each house compos' ing the committee. ="
 No report of a Conference Commit tee was made to either house in this | instance. One report made to eacf house was signed by all the House members of the dual committee ant | hv a rninoritv of the Senate conferees and the other report made to eacl house was signed by a majority of tho Senate conferees and by none of tho House members. The reports which | were adopted by the Senate and House
 respectively show that only one of thu
 three Senate conferees concurred 1T l them"
 The purport of this decision was an nounced several weeks ago so as tC facilitate the election which would have
 become badly involved if the judiciary of the State had been chosen under the Lusk act,
 |