The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-08-12
BiII of Restraint Grows Out of
 lusk Act
REVENUE BOARD DEFENDANT
Attorney Samuel D. Weakley as Chair man of Bar Committee to lnVesti- gate constltutionallty of Lusk
 Act Files Petition.

Attorney Samuel D. Weakley. chair man of the special committee appointed by the bar of Birmingham to investigate the constitutionallty of the Lusk act yes- terday filed in the chancery court of Jef- ferson county a bill seeking to restrain the board of revenue from renting or oth- erwise providing an additional court room and purchasing supplies necessary for the provisions of the act.
 It will be remembered that day or two ago Circuit Court Clerk McAdory peti- toned the board to make such provisions. That acquisition was understood to be the preliminary to a friendly suit to test the law.
 The title of the petition is Edward C. Crow vs. board of revenue of Jefferson county and A J. Tarrant president, de- fendants.
 Facts Recited.
 The bill recites these facts, to-wit;
 1. That the orator is a resident citi- zen and taxpayer of the county.
 g. That the board of revenue has been exercising the power of the court of coun- ty commissioners, providing court rooms for the county courts, etc.
 B. That the circuit court of Jefferson county has one judge, A A. Coleman. the court presided over by him being ac- customed to be held In one room of the county court house, to which room it was assigned by the board of revenue. That among the acts of the legislature of 1903 is act 565. house bill 763, which was ap proved by the governor on October F. ''upon the assumption that the same had been duly passed by both houses of the legislature" That this bill provides that in the Tenth judicial circuit there shall be two judges of the circuit court, elect ed according to law and empowered to summon Juries. etc
 History of the Bill.
 4. That the act was not passed by the legislature of Alabama and did not be- come a law for the following reasons:
 House bill No .76S was introduced into the house and passed the house, was sent to the senate, where a substitute for the house bill was reported, and then. In several particulars, amended, as shown by the senate journal; and the senate substitute, thus amended, and sent to the house for its concurrence, and that the senate did not pass or adopt the bill in the form in which 1t had left the house. The substitute. with amendments coming on in the house, the house nom concurred therein, and requested com tnittea of oonfaranca. and tba cornn,ftt aa on conference was duly raised consisting in this instance of three members of each house, and that thereafter the fol- lowing report was made to both houses:
 Continuing, the D.il of complaint sets forth that upon, the presentation of the majority and minority reports of the committees in the legislature the house concurred in the majority report, upon motion of MT. Lusk. The following pro- ceedings which occurred in the senate, upon the presentation of the bill there, are set forth in detail:
 Powell moves the substitute of the mi nority for the majority report.
 Motion lost.
 Rogers moves the adoption of the ma jority report.
 Thomas moves to table Rogers motion. Lost.
 Senate concurs in majority report
 Summing up the whole of the preceding allegations, the bill then charges that the proceedings were not a report of the conference committee. because the report of said committee was not concurred in by a majority of the senate conferees and of the house conferees; therefore the respective houses were not authorized to take action on the said so-called minority and majority reports. or either, as being proper report of the conference com mittee."
 In other words. the two houses simply concurred in the majority report
 The last count of the bill filed today states that the journals fail to show that the bill, in the form in which it was signed by the speaker of the houso and by the governor, ever had the sanction of the house.
 To Save Expense.
 Upon the grounds that the county and the taxpayers will be put to a great ex- pense if the board proceeds to lease court room, and that the court holding therein would be illegal the petitioner above-named defendants compelling them to plead, answer or demur to this bill that a writ of injunction issue restraining the