The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1905-12-22
BAY MINETTE IS
now COUNTY
SEAT
History Of Baldwin COuHB's EN.
BsHSTs Court House LOCa-
ton Fight.

Under an act of the Alabama leg
+ islature passed Ia 1900, the county
I seat of Baldwin county was removed
from Daphne. where it had been for
half century, 10 Bay Minette,
place more easy Of approach by rail
road. and more accessible to attOT-
neys and the actual removal was some
what 0f a sensation. The promoters
of the rev county seat visited Daphne
iE the middle Oi the night. and took
f records documents and prisoners 70
Bay Minette. while the inhabitants OF
Daphne slept, courthouse and jail
having been Constructel at Bay Min
erie when the prospective removal be-
came apparent From that time until
Tuesday the exact county seat Of
Baldwin has been a disputed point
In the early part of 1901, the PEG
pie of Daphne represented by q. L.
q IL n. Smith and J. TT. Webb, attOr-
neys of this city, filed a bin i'm the
chancery court of Mobile under the
title Of Saplet0n vs.. Hand. seeking to
continue the county seat at Daphne.
and enioining che county commission
ers of Baldwin from eKpending conn
ty moneys in the removal to Bay Min
ere The title of the case was OBJ
tanned because the name of staple
ton was first on the bill fled bT
Daphne and that of y. d. Hand, a
millionaire lumberman, first on the
list OF Bay Minette The case has
been in the chancery court here three
times ana IN the supreme court OF
the state an equal number of times.
At the outset the Bay Minette people
were represented by w. A. Collier, OF
Canton. Ala. r. II. q n. r. Clarke, OF
Mobile. and Bromberg d Hall, of Bay
Minette. But the Messrs. Clarke re-
tired from The case in the early pro
ccodingE. the FIRST appeal being taken
by Messrs. Collier and BrOmberg q
Hail. The second appeal was taken by
the same attorneys, with the addition
OF Erwin a McAleer, of this city; and
che 6nal appeal decided Tuesday
found Stevens a Lyons, and Erwin &
McAlser. of this city, the attorneys
for appellants before the supreme
court. the second named firm repre-
senting the county commissioners,
and the first the bOnahOlders Of the
new jail and court house bonds at
Bay Minette.
The Daphne contentious in the bill
filed I'M the chancery court were that
the act changing the county seat
was unconstitutional and that if not
unconstitutional Was so contradictory
in fits terms as TO make Dc unenforce-
able and that if neither of these cOnten- I
tions were true the bill had never
zone into effect because the board of
court house commissioners had failed
% ascertain that the court house /
could be built cut of the revenues oil
the year 1907. without raising the tax
rate of the county
In the first instance The supreme
caurt held that the act was cOnstitu- I
tional. and that its terms we're not !
SO contradictory that it could not be
enforced and the court also held that
fhe act meant that only the revenues /
OF the year 1901 could be used and
that III the board of court house com /
uissioners had not ascerained thai 1
the court house and jail could be built /
cut of the revenues for the year with /
out raising the tax rate, the act had /
never gone into eject
The second appeal simply repre- 4
scented the last question on the first 4
appeal and the supreme court adj
hered TO its former ruling. Judge 4
John r. Tyson dissenting and holding
that the act meant that the revenues 4
OF future wears could be drawn upon I
for the purpose of building the court 4
house and Jail. provided that the
court house commissioners as
certained that this could be done
without increasing the then tax rate
OF the county.
Both of these appeals we're from in /
terloGutOry degrees of the chancery /
court The case came back 10 the /
Chancerv court after this, and answers f
were interp0sed 10 the bill and the /
ease finally tried in that court upon
an agreed statement of facts. which .
showed that the board of court house 4
commissioners did ascertain that the
county could furnish the money nee
essary to build the court house and .
jail without increasing the then tax .
rate. bW only by drawing against the /
revenues Of future years at the rate of /
$1,000 per year for ten years. the first
Of these installments 90 be PAYABLE in /
sos. and that this course was fol- \
lowed
The chancellor following the former.
rulings OF the supreme court held
upon this statement of facts that the
act az removing the court house FROM
Daphne 10 Bay Minette had not gone
into effect enioined the payment %
any OF the county warrants for tbs
building and decreed that everything
which had been done toward building
the court house and Jail al BAY Min
cite. and removing the county seat 10
that place was unauthorized and lille
gal
From this final decree defendants
again appealed and again presented
% the supreme court the precise legal
uues ion which had been passed upon
bJ shat court on the two former ap-
peals on this hearing the supreme
court revised its two former decisions
in This case upon the pivotal PROPOSE
ton and held that the act authorized
drawing against revenues of the c0un-
OF future years and. therefore. that
the agreed statement OF facts upon
which the case was tried showed that
TIE act had gone into effect and that
the removal of the court house and
1an was legally and regularly cone. I
and an of the uutstandiuE warrants
and obligations incurred therefore,