The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1904-07-25
JUDGE HARALS SONS
OPINION ON COURT
Full Text of Decision in Local
Court Case
WILL BE FAR REACHING
Influence of the Decision on Local
Legislation In the State Prom
lses to Be Very
Important.

| ferson county," and the "ehancery court
| of Jefferson county," into one court to
be known as the Circuit court of JEFF
ferson county" with a sufficient num-
Der of judges for the transaction of the
business of such consolidated court, as
provided by section las of the constitu-
ton of Alabama"
Said section las of the constitution pro-
vides, THE legislature may confer upon
the circuit court or the chancery court
the jurisdiction of both of said courts.
In counties having two or more courts
Of record, the legislature may provide
for the consolidation of all or any such
courts of record. except the probate
court, with or without separate divisions
and a sufficient number of Judges for the
transaction of the business of such con-
soidated court"
The constitutionallty of the law con-
soidating said courts is here questioned
on several grounds set forth in the bill,
which is demurred to on many grounds.
The main contention of the complaint
is, that the consolidated court act is
local law, within the express definitions
contained in section 40 of the constitu-
ton and this being true, 1t could not be
constitutionaly passed without the COM
pliance win the provisions of section log
in respect of the suffciency of notice.
Said section ITO declares: "A general
law within the meaning of this article
is law which applies to the whole state;
a local law is law which applies to any
political subdivision of subdivisions of
the state less than the whole; a special
or private law within the meaning of this
article is one which applies to an indi-
vidual, association or corporation
Section 1O6 provides that, mo special
private or local law shall be passed on
any subject not enumerated in section
1O4 of this constitution, except in reference
to fixing the time of holding courts ur-
less notice of the intention to apply
therefor shall have been published, with
out cost to the state, in the county or
counties where the matter or thing to be
affected may be situated, which notice
shall state the substance of the proposed
law and be published at least once week
for four consecutive weeks In some news
paper published in such county or coun-
ties. or If there is no newspaper publish
ed therein. then by posting the said
notice for four consecutive weeks at five
different places in the county or counties
prior to the Introduction of the bill; and
proof by affidavit that said notice has
been given shall be exhibited to each
house of the legislature, and said proof
spread upon the journal. The courts shall
pronounce void every special, private or
| local law which the journals do not af-
firmatively show was passed in accord
ance with the provisions of this section
If the statute were general law, within
the definition of the constitution, no notice
was required, although one was given in
an apparent effort to comply with the
quirements of the constitution in respect
to local laws. This is manifest from
what occurred, that the promoters Of
| this scheme for consolidating the courts,
| thought, at the time, that the act was
| local legislation or that 1t might be de-
| clared to be such. and out of caution, at
| least, they proceeded upon the presump-
| ton that it was local legislation, and If
so, that the notice they gave answered
the constitutional requirement.
| That this act is a local and not gem
| eral law, under the definition of the con-
sttution, Is so manifest as to make it
difficult to bring forward a plausible sug-
| gestion to the contrary: when language
| dn a constitution or statute) is not only
plain, but admits of but one meaning, the
| task of Interpretation can hardly be said
| to arise. - II Is not allowable to in
| terpret what needs no Interpretations
| Parks VS.. State. 100 Alabama, 653; Rob-
ertson VS.. McGough, lis Alabama, 1866.
| 1t would seem, when the term, "a gem
eral law" is employed it would be UNDER
stood without extrlnsic aid to mean a
| law which applies to the whole state and
rot to any subdivision of the state less
than the whole. Prior to the adoption o.
said section 10, this court stated a mere
truism when 1t said, Every general law
is necessarily public law, but ever pub
lie law, as defined is not a general law.
A general law as used in our constitu-
| ton is n law which operates throughout
the state, alike upon all the people or all
of a class Any law affecting
| the public within the limits of the county,
or community, would be a public law.
| though not a general law, within the
meaning of the constitution" Holt VS..
Mayor, II Alabama. 1913. II every public
| law is to be regarded as a general law,
It would be difficult to conceive of local
law that was not general. Every local
| law affects the public within the limits
it is designed to operate. but it does not
apply to the whole state.
The trainers of the constitution deemed
II wise to place in the fundamental law
the definition of general and local laws,
such as had been given previously by the
court.
The act we consider is one of SO sections,
dealing exclusively with courts and their
procedure, having references to the con-
| veniences of the people of Jefferson coun-
| ty and economy in the administration Of
justice therein The act is public, II is
| true, but local In effect and not general
in its aplication to the people Of the
whole ttte. No one outside Of the county
/ who does not bring himself within its in
! fiuence is affected by 1t. If part Of the
state. ii cannot, on that account as urged
| be held to be a general and not local
| act. If so. any act dealing with courts
| and their procedure, such as fixing the
| times for their holding; the acts estab-
| fishing the different city courts of the
state; the regulation of trials of INSIDE
! meanors in county courts. and the trans
| fer of misdemeanor causes from the cir
cult to the county courts, would be gem
| eral laws. These have been uniformly
treated as local and not general laws
| Lancaster VS.. Gafford. in MSS; Kumpe
| vs. Irwin. in MSS; Morrow VS.. Earle 122
Alabama 100. Moreover, the constitution
itself in the section providing for notice
| recognizes law fixing the time for hold
ing courts as local law--Con. d9O1) Sec
106 IF every public law is to be held to
be general. II would be difficult to con-
ceive of local law. which Is not general
Being a local act. 1t could not be con-
stitutfonally passed without a compliance
with the requirements of section 1c6, as to
notice and proof of notice. This notice
bv that section shall state the substance
Of the proposed law and be published as
specified therein. proof of which notice,
as required shall be exhibited to each
house of the LEGISLATURE" and spread
upon the journals, and 1.-THE court shall
pronounce void every special. private or
local law which the Journals do not af-