The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-09-29

subsequently, aDdnuOneu, lS IL COAhhioh right belonging to all citizens In that situation.
 If the words, privileges and fran chises,' which occur in the act of the Legislature, are to be construed as having reference to Lee street, they are awkward and inapt. Probably they were intended to refer to the case of Commerce street, the continued exist enec of which as public street in all parts was half-heartedly recognized in the ordinance passed by the City Council But that Is another story.
 My conclusion Is that so much of Lee street as wes vacated Is no longer street for any purpose; has fallen back into the category of land in gem eral; the enjoyment of its exclusive use by the defendants is not a privi- lege or franchise; and 1t is not touched by the constitutional provision here urged against it.
 There is nothing to the contrary, in the Birmingham Street Railway case. 79 Ala, 465. In that case there was no consideration of the question whether the Legislature might not vacate street, nor was there any suggestion that this constitutional provision in- terfered in any way with the doctrine vouched for by Judge Dillon; As respects the public or municipalities, there is no limit upon the power of
 
 streets may be devoted.--2 Dill Nun. Corp. sec. 657.
 "Third-The State says in argument and brief that the ordinance is fncon- sistent with the general law. and 50 void. Agreed. But the question now Is whether the curative act of the Legislature is void
 Legislature Had Power.
 "Fourth-Finally. the State urges that a curative statute, such as the act in question purports to be, cannot cure an original lack of power in the City Council to pass the ordinance. If the lack of curative power in the premises were attributable to the Legislature, this objection would be fatal of course
 But the lack of authority had in mind. in consideration of what has already been said. must be held to be- immaterial The question now Is upon the power of the Legislature to cure a void ordinance of the City Council. There are many decisions which hold that the Legislature may cure an ir- regularity or defect in the adoption of ordinances and even render valid or dinances which without such curative legislation, would be null and yoid.'- Hewlett vs. Camp, 115 Ala. 502.
 50 the Supreme Court of the United States, quoting from a case decided in Illinois, and at the same time stating the same as us own lnuepenQenL JuuB- ment, said Unless there be a consti- tutiona1 inhibition. a Legislature has power when 1t interferes with no vest ed right. to enact retrospective statutes to validate invalid contracts or to rati- fly and confirm any act 1t might law fully have authorized in the first in- stance.'---Anderson vs. Santa Anna Township, 116 U. s. 356.
 And Judge Dillon says: If the act could lJage been lawfully performed or done rad 'r precedent legislative author eaning authority which might n4,e been precedently conferred by the Legislature but was no), the Legislature may subsequently, ratify 1t and give it effect'-sec. 79.
 Tt is hardly necessary to say that this suit is concerned about the in- terests of the public only, and that there is no constitutional requirement. against retrospective Legislation in general-on the contrary, 1t Is quite common-nor can the public have any vested right in Lee Street which needs protection against its own encroach- ments.
 No Equity in Bill.
 My judgment is that there is no equity in the bill
 The Register will enroll the follow Ing decree:
 This cause having been set down for hearing at this time by the com plainant. was submitted for decree on the demurrer to the bill and on the motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity And upon due consideration the Court Is of opinion that there is no equity in the fill.
 'Tt Is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the com plainants bill do stand dismissed
 Done this 2sth day of September 1907
 "A. D. Sayre, Judge of the Citl Court of Montgom- cry"