The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-07-03

the record after adjournment. but be- fore the records had passed out of ms possessiori:
 "Tt cannot be doubted. we think and indeed it is quite obvious, that the clerks official connection with the original journal--except the duty or copying 1t for the printer-ceases upon his delivering 1t to the Secretary or State for safe keeping, after 1t has been signed by the speaker and him i self. From and after that time he mas no custody of 1t no control over H. no right to It's possession except for the specific purpose above referred to. no power to alter 1t nor to prevent others from altering it. and is under no duty | to keep 1t safely nor to preserve IL from mutilation or interpolation, Act Is Constitutional. ''TlAe sact that the statute permits the clerk to keep the record forty days after | adjournment before depositing 1t with | the Secretary of State, shows that the Legislature recognized the impossl- | bility of his completing 1t before ad- | journment, and the necessity for his completing it after adjournment. | Y am of the opinion that the entry
 referred to above Is apart of the House
 Journal, and that the act was consti- | tutionally passed, so far as the point l above discussed is concerned. 1 The writer has personal knowledge | of the practice with reference to the | making up of the journal of the House 1 for the past sixteen years, and knows that the proceedings of the last few 1 days of every session for that length
 of time have been entered in the official | record by the clerk of the House | transcribed from his manuscript. which
 the court has held is not the journal l after final adjournment. If he had no
 authority to do this hundreds of i'm l portant statutes, which have been act l ed upon and supposed to be the law,
 were never constitutionally enacted. Very respectfully, Massey Wilson, 1 Attorney General" 1 Sanders and Conner.
 Explaining his conduct in spreading
 his statement f. regard to the valid ity of the act throughout the State, President Conner said his attention had been drewn to it ty Mir. Peroue l of Montgomery, who said the law had | not been properly engrossed. The Pres | ident of the Commission then, he said,
 had submitted the matter to the former | Attorney General, W. L. Martin, for an
 opinion. His object in doing this, he
 asserted, to learn the true state of
 things beyond question Of doubt. He | thought the people ought to know | whether or not it was true.
 | Associate Commissioner Sanders ex- pressed 1t as his opinion that jt was the 1 duty of the commission to uphold ,he
 law which authorized Its actions, and
 they should support 1t until it should
 be declared invalid by some -ourt of last resort.
 President Conner replied that he
 thought the matter was one on which no
 mistake could afford to be made. In
 the early struggle to get the bill
 through the Lse islatnre. he and his friends had fought for better commis-
 sion law. The act finally passed was
 in the nature of a compromise. He him.
 self, had been in favor of the Texas
 law. He waated to ttract the at
 tention of the people to the question ot
 the validity of the law. He thought
 they should know all about 1t prior to
 the meeting of the Legislature. so that
 they might think 1t over, and be ready
 through their representatives, to make
 law which will hold Ale then asked
 for further opinion from MT. Sand
 CTS, to whom ae had mailed a copy of the Martin letter.
 It was at this point that MT. Sanders ! made his criticism of the course fol- lowed by the President of the Commits sion. He said:
 q do not think it proper for a mem ber of the Commission to saJ whether
 Or not the law is invalid. The duty of
 the Commission is to sustain its au- | thority unless tife law should be de-
 clared invalid by the courts
 The candidate for Governor insisted
 1t was his duty to bring the doubt existing in regard to the law to the St- tention of the public. His colleague per- ! sisted in his be eff that it was the | duty of the Commission to protect the law until the courts should declare 1t invalid at the instance of some per son resisting an order of the Commis } sion. This. he/ did not believe, would be done, as the case of Montgomery vs. } Gaston, quoted in the Martin letter and in the letter of Attorney General Will [ son, was strongly persuasive Of the va- lidity of the act.
 MP. Sanders said further that he thought 1t the duty of tho President [ of the Commission, since he believed
 the act to be illegally enacted, to ad-
 wise the Legislature of the fact, but
 that 1t was not his duty to proclaim q throughout the State on an ex parte
 opinion that the Commission was with , out authority to enforce its own deeis-
 ions. It was the duty of all tribunals
 he declared, to support their own au- z thority
 The discussion of the Railroad Com mission act, while positive and filled
 with plain speaking, was carried on with calmness and dellberation. There
 was no ranting or eloquent language from MT. Conner. He merely attempted i to give an explanation of his reasons for taking the stand he had, reasons which were as calmly opposed and crit : icised by MT Sanders.
 a 1 ugWn