The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-02-27

material questions of important meas ures, while the third related only to a local prohibitory act, the amendlnent in that case being non-concurred In by unanimous vote. upon the request of the representative from the interest ed county, Etowah. All three refusals came up within . few minutes of one another. during the afternoon session of the lower house.
 One of the amendments, the second In the order of it's presentation to tho House, was an addition to the prison inspection bill, through which the Sem ators sought to make the jail and alms- house inspector also visit the cotton mills of the State and not only report their sanitary condition, but upon other features, especially upon, the question whether any children were employed there woh were under the age permit ted by law to work in such factories.
 This amendment was not obnoxious to the author of the bill, Mir. Foster of Tuscaloosa, and he moved concurrence in 1t. But the friends of the child la bor bill apparently thought they could detect the dark outline of some de- scendent of the race of Ham lurking in the vicinity of the amendment. and in- sisted in strenuous manner that they could not consent to concurrence in such an amendment.
 Refuse to Raise Judges Pay.
 The other amendment in which con- currence was refused was in the bill fixing the salaries of circuit and su- pernumerary judges and chancellor of the State. The House bill raised their salaries from $2.500 to $3.20O for the chancellors and supernumerary judges, and $3,000 for the circuit judge- but the Senate thought s3.5oo for eacn was none too large. Concurrence in the amendment to this affect was re- fused, and the Senate later decided 1t was not a material point, and passed the bill as it came, from the House originally.
 When the House bill for the inspec- tion of jails and aims houses in the State first came up in the Senate, 1t ar oused considerable discussion, but 1t was not on the amendment to make the jail inspector also visit cotton mills which was later adopted almost without debate, on motion of Senator Reynolds nor was. it on the merits of the bill. There was a suggestion to reduce the salary of the inspector from $2,400 per annum to $l.soo. The bill provides thst the inspector must be "a physician, learned in the law of sanitariums," and many Senators thought the salary none too large.
 The amendment to put the salary at $1,S0o was offered by Senator Hammer, who fought hard to have 1t adopted, but the Senate would not have it. Sem ator Hammer took the position that if a bank examiner received only $1,S00,, an examiner of jails should at least get no more --
 Senator Moody spoke strongly fn fa- vor of the original bill. He alluded to the report of Dr. Bragg. ana to the utterances of other leading physicians on the deplorable conditions of the Jails of Alabama. The inspector would have to visit each jail in the State twice a year, and he would thus be brought into contact with diseases of every character.
 Senator McWhorter spoke in the same vein. He described the jails of Alabama "as foci of diseases." tHe quoted statistics to show that in Aus trfan prisons 60 per cent of the deaths were caused by tuberculosis, willie the rural population who 1abored sinA the fields had deaths from tuberculosis amounting to 3 per cent ofsthe totalsys
 Says Office Is Economy.
 The proposed office would. in the opinion of Senator Hinson. offer d great economical saving to the State. because 1t would relieve the grand juries of the trouble of making the inspection, and thus relieve the County of the expense. He said, too. that the grand jury in spection was not effective because the Sheriff would promise to reform any evil condition which would be pointed out to him, but he would never keep that promise, because he knew a new grand jury would make the inspection. next time.
 Senator Reynolds offered the amend tnent making the jail inspector also an inspector of the cotton factories of the State.
 The salary amer ,ment of Senator Hammer was rejected. He protested to the Senate on question of personal privilege because he had not been all lowed the privilege of closing the dis cussion on his amendment The Rey- holds amendment was then adopted and the bill passed.
 When the bill was returned to the House MT. Foster, the author of the measure. merely asked if the Senate amendment, changing as it did the pur- pose of the bill, changed also the ti- tie. so as to make the bill legal. and being informed that 1t did, moved con- currence.
 Mir. John of Jefferson at once object ed, souding note of alarm in connec- tion with the proposed child labor bill,