The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1905-02-06

dun. or meaning Wooster die
tieuary.'
"0n examination of the Jnrnals of the
house and senate. TO see what publication
was had and shown. find that there was
notice given in the Labor Advocate OF
Birmingham. and properly proved. signed
by r. E. Middleton. that an application
would be made to the approaching legis-
lature for the passage of an act which,
dsb makes the judge of the police court
of Birmingham elected by the qualified
voters Of the city of Birmingham, and
cd increases the salary of the said
Judge.
There was another notice set out on
the Journals, signed by the Mayor and
myself. but this was not proved by af-
fidavit. as required by section 106 of the
constitution above set out. and conse-
quently must be disregarded
THE first question In regard to the
validity of the act which raises your
salary. in my Judgment rises here: Is
this notice, signed by r. E. Middleton.
sufficient to sustain any act passed by
the legislature. raising the salary of your
office? Does it contain the essential and
material parts. the essence, or an abstract
or compendium of the substance of an act
to raise the salary attached to your Of
flee. such as would give the people fair
information of what ii VASE In other
words, is 1t sufficient in these notices.
under the ruling of the Wallace case. to
merely say that an act raising a salary
will be introduced? Would it not be nee
essary to say to what point the salary
will be raised, or If there was to be any
change in the method of its payment
how it was to be paid, etc, etc. Would
not this notice, If valid as to raise from
been equally valid if the bill had provided
for an indefinite or exorbitant raise in the
salary?
House Bill No. 369.
But, passing on from this point, which
| hardly thing will be necessary to a cor
rect decision of this matter, 1 find that
the act introduced in the house, and as
finally amended and passed, was not sim
ply an act providing that the judge of
the police court should be elected by the
qualified voters of Birmingham, and
providing for raise in the salary of the
judge of the police court but as house
bill No. 1863 was introduced as An act ,
to amend section of an act entitled An
act to establish an inferior court of GRIM
nal jurisdiction In the city of Birming-
ham, to define its powers, and provide
for the election of a judge and appoint
ment of a clerk therefor Approved Feb
ruary IL, 1895.
AS is indicated from its title. the act
being amended here was the act under
which your court was established, and
from which ii draws the powers and jul
risdicton which 1t now exercises This
act will be found in the acts of 1894 and
1895. page 81
House bill No. 1863, above referred to-.
re-enacts the provisions of section 2 of
the original act with the exceptions
hereafter to be specifically noted, which
Sc lion of the original act provides for the
election of a judge of the police court,
the length of his term the salary he is
to receive, his qualifications, his powers
in regard to reeognizances, bail bonds,
processes, etc, his Impeachment, the fill
ing of his office in case of vacancy, etc
the qualifications of the person filing the
office as temporary judge, and other mat
ters of like character.
Proof of Notice Necessary.
again, | ask If House bill No. 1863
merely re-enacted the provisions of sec
ton of the original act, amending it
only as to the method of election and as
to the salary of the judge would the
r. E. Middleton notice and proof be SUI
ticient under the provisions of the con-
stitution and the decision of the Wal
lace case as above set out? 1t seems
to me that one would expect accompany
ing the notice and proof referred to, a
bill, not n its terms amendatory of any
other act although such amendment
might be accomplished by implication)
bill in terms to accomplish simply the
two things advertised, to-wit: The change