The Birmingham age-herald., 1905-01-08
SERIOUS FLAWS IN
 THE REVENUE LAW
Leading Lawyers Believe lhe
 Act Unconstitutional
MAIN TROUBLE IN PASSAGE
1t Seems as if the Same Trouble Will Arise as In the Lusk Act-May NecessItate an Extra
 Session.

The attack on the constitutionality or the state revenue law by the Manhattan Trust company of New York and the Continental Trust company of Baltimore, filed in Montgomery and Russell county, has thrown wide open question which leading constitutional lawyers of the state have feared for a long time, and through which the revenue law may be declared invalid. In this event 1t is believed that the calling of an extra session of the leg islature will be necessary to provide rev cnue for the transaction of state business.
 For long time 1t was thought that the little troubles which were known to exist in the revenue law could be passed over until the next session of the legislature, but the filing of the suits mentioned, in all probability, good law yers declare, will lay the entire matter open and the weak points will be brought before the courts
 Believes It Unconstitutional.
 A leading lawyer of Birmingham, who has given this matter deep thought, is os the opinion that the revenue law is clearly unconstitutional. This opinion is based largely upon the decision of the Alabama Supreme court in the case of the Board of Revenue vs. Crow. In other words, sne test suit against the Lusk redistrictins bill which was filed in this county. 1t will be remembered that in that case the irregularity in the passage of the bill was the grounds of unconstitutionality. It Is said the same trouble exists in the revenue law.
 In plain language the facts are about as follows: When the revenue law was passed by the House it was sent to the Senate. There several amendments were added and in these the House refused to concur. The matter thereupon went to conference. On page 1073 of the House journal the conference report appears, part of which says: That the House concur in all the Senate amendments ex- cept the following (here several numbered amendments are given)." The next sec tion of the report then says
 ''2 That the House non-concur in the Senate amendments specifically set out in the foregoing paragraph.
 '"3. Recommending certain additional amendments. the report was adopted by both houses"
 .,efused to Concur In Five.
 There were five amendments which the House refused to concur in, and these were mentioned in the report which was adopted by both houses. Now, the trou- ble arises in the fact that while the com mittee agreed that the House should non- concur in five amendments, 1t did not say that the Senate should recede from such amendments. In other words, the report set forth what the House should do, but 1t did not say what the Senate should do except by inference.
 As leading lawyer said yesterday it would be natural for the Senate to think that by agreeing In the non-concurrence of the House 1t would mean that the Senate should recede. But that is not constitutional law, according to the decis- ion of Chief Justice Mcclellan in the Lusk case The same question arose there
 
 cannot be enacted by inference. Lawyers basing their statements on Chief Justice McClellan's written opinion in the Lusk case, say that when the conference com mittee agreed on the non-concurrence of the house in five amendments to the reve- nue law it should have agreed that the Senate should recede from those same amendments. If the senate did not re- cede from the amendments 1t would naturally follow, they argue, that the amendments still stand so far as the Senate is concerned.
 May Mean Its Death Blow.
 There are other fautly points in the bill which have appeared in the newspa- pers during the past few months but a constitutional lawyer of repute says tfat the irregularity in the passage of the bill as given above means it's death- blow. All other questions are insignifi- cant in comparison, according to his state ment, as this point invalidates the entire act.
 It is understood that in the meantime Governor Cunningham is giving the mat ter deep thought and has called the At tcrney General into consultation as well as other leading lawyers. It is believed sary If the bill is declared unconstitu- tional. This would cost the state an im- mense amount of money and the governor is anxious to avoid this expense if the integrity of the state can be maintained