The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-12-21
CITY BONDS ARE VALID
SUPREME COURT DECIDES A MONT.
 GOMERY CASE.
Important Opinion Written By Justice Dowel1 Settles Much-MOOfed Question As to Municipalities
 of Alabama.

The Supreme Court of Alabama yes. terday not only held, the legality or Montgomery's school bond issue or sSo, 900 in 1903 but defended the general act of the Legislature regulating bona issues against varied attacks.
 The guise under which this defense was undertaken by the Supreme Court was the case of Robert O. Blakey vs. the City Council of Montgomery. rms was an appeal from the Montgomery City Court which tried friendly suit to determine the validity of the bond issue following the Greater Montgom- cry Extension.
 The suspicion. attached to the bond issue seemed to interfere but little with the sale of the securities as they have long ago been floated and funds de- rived therefrom used for the erection Of school buildings in the suburban sec- tions The test case was instituted at the instance of the City Council to cast away any future doubts as to the legs ality Of the proceeding.
 The attack on the methods of the bond election and issue had been so formed as to draw what is regarded as valuable decision of the Supreme Court on the question of municipalities and counties generally increasing their bonded indebtedness. The opinion which puts an iron hasp on the gen. eral act of the last Legislature regu- . lating this, was written by MT. Justice J. R. Dowdell.
 Mir Justice Dowdell, whose opinion was upheld by the other members of the Division. overruled every objec- tion to the general State law. Counsel for MT. Blakey had alleged that the law under which the City Council of N Montgomery acted. the general law, is Unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirms the constitutionality of the act in that the act is not, as alleged, violative of Section 45 of Article of the Con- stitution. This section requires that every act passed by the Legislature shall contain in the stated purpose but a single subject.
 The general act under construction authorizes cities and counties to hold elections to determine whether they shall issue bonds for prescribed pur- poses and authorizing the issue of the bonds in all cases where there is an affirmative expression of the people. The assailants of the law maintained that 1t contained two separate sub- iects. The Supreme Court holds that such is the reverse of fair interpre- tation of the law.
 The provision for the election and the issuance of bonds in accordance with the result of the election" says MT Justice Dowdell, are embraced
  ferable to the general subject express ed.''
 It was also contended without avail that the bond election law is local and not general and that as such its pass age should have been preceded by the constitutional notice to the people. The ground asserted by the bill of MT. Blakey was that the act exempted from it's provisions the cities of Sheffield and Tuscumbia. This objection is met by the Supreme Court which recalls that the law is but an enactment of the constitutional provision on the same subject. The constitutional provisions excepted these two cities.
 Another objection put forward to the specific case of Montsomery's bond issue was that the ordinance calling for issue offered either coupon or reg istered bonds. The general law makes it necessary to issue coupon securities. The Supreme Court answers that the proceedings will be sustained because it is not shown that the bonds as final ly issued were other than coupon.
 To the objection that returning off cers were not appointed for the Mont goHery election whereas the general law provides that they shall be ap- pointed, one for each precinct, the de- cision answers as follows:
 Section Is of the Act provides that TO irregularity in the proceedings to authorize the issue of bonds under the act or the omission or neglect of an officer charged with executing any of the duties imposed by the act. The purpose of the election provided for by the Constitution and by the Act was to give voters the privilege of saying whether or not the bonds should be is- sued" ~=. ..
 These declarations were the same in general as those of Judge A. D. Sayre, of the Montgomery City Court