The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-04-10
Supreme Courts Decision
 So Declares. NINE O'CLOCK LAW
 IS ALSO HELD VALID Justice Mcclellan Author of Both
 Opinions. Cneet of Judgment is to Make Prohi- bitien Certain--Perpetuates t in Already Dry Counties --cullman Case.

In 4 sinrle voice of unmistakable' tone the general Prohibition Law or tha extra session and the act or the resular session of the last Legislature known as the Mine O'Clock Closing Law" were upheld yesterday by the Alabama Supreme Court in two de- osaions handed down al the same time
 One by one, the numerous and re- aourceful contentious of counsel wag- ing lights on the constitutionaiity or the two epoch making measures were brushed away by the Supreme Court decisions. Not on a single point did that tribunal agree with the claims advanced by representatives of the liauor interests aimed at the conss.- tutionality of the acts.
 The Supreme Court speaking through Justice Thomas c. Mcclellan, decided Chat every limitation and requirement of the Constitution had been substan- tially met in the passage of these acts. The opinion of Justice McClel- Ian In the cases testing the Prohibition statute answered at length the point made by counsel for the appellants that the bill was passed in violation Of Section 6s of the Constitution.
 This is the section which gave rise to the swiftly travelling rumors of Wednesday that the act would fall be- cause of this constitutional require ment having been violated. It was evidently given the careful attention of the Supreme Court in consultation as we'll as by Justice Mcclellan. The section provides that all bills after their passage must be signed lin the presence of the Senate" by the presld- ing officer.
 It.had been strongly urged the un- constitutionality of the act because the Senate Journal ouits to show m writing that the bill as passed was signed 'in the presence of the senate.s Justice Mcclellan. however. sweeps away this argument by saying that there was substantial evidence that the fact" of the signing had taken place.
 Justice Mcclellan is the author of both opinions. Tn upholding the con- stitutionaiity of the Prohibition Law he met with the concurrence of Jus tices Anderson, Dowdell and Denson who sat in consultation in the cases. Justices Anderson and DowdelI and Chief Justice Tyson concurred in the opinion upholding the Nine O'Clock Closing Law" being all the members of the Court who sat on the case
 The opinion in the Prohibition case smploye upwards of 4.5Oo words. That of the Closing Law contain ed only two type-wrltten pages.
 Local Option Not I'm 1t.
 To the surprise of the prominent counsel who instituted the test case in- volving the constitutionality of the pro- htbition law, the Supreme Court ves- terday saw fit to sustain this measure without passing at all on the validity ot the local option law of the last Leg. islature. The lawyers made desperate attacks on this local option law. They formed much of their argument axainat the constitutionality of the prohinition law on the hope or being able to tear down the local option law, since certain ptovtsons of tho former are Contingent upon county elections held under the option act.
 The opinion of Justice Mcclellan, however. would not admit of attribut. ing such dependence to the prohibition law. The opinion denies forcfbIy thar the constttutionality of the one law ia dependent upon the constitutlDnanty of the other. Therefore. having no occa- sion to pass upon the constitutfonality of the local option law, the s;prenne court declined to do so.
 The condition, of the going into es- feet on January l, 1908, of the State prohibition law in the counties of Nor gan and Jefferson does not import more than an electton--an expression of the popular will-which was had in both the counties named" says Justice Me- Clellan- 2 Hence, whether the local op- tion law be valid or invalid is not a vital inquiry on this appeal"
 The Counties of Morgan and Jeffer- son were here mentioned, by Justice Mcclellan because the test cases were brought up from lower courts in those counties. The cases were joined in one by the Supreme Court as the points at Issue were practically identical. The suits were instituted by saloon men to compel by mandamus the Probate Judge of Jefferson and of Morgan Counties to issue the petitioners licenses. The wrtts were denied and it was from these judgments of denial that the ap- peals were taken.
 Dryness Petpetuated.
 It Is genrally believed that the eff feet of the decision of yesterday on the prohibition law is to perpetuate the reign of dry" in all counties that have voted prohibition under the local op- tion act on December 12. In all the counties of the State which had voted for prohibition prior to that date the prohibition statute went into effect January l. 1908. In all other counties of the State prohibition does not apply until January 1. 1909 Therefore, it will be seen that whether the local option law is ever decided as to it's eonstitutionality the prohibition forces will not be any better off
 This is true because prohibition has already gone into effect under the terms of the prohibition statute which purposely took the place of the local option measure.
 For this very reason, 1t Is believed that the dozen or more men who de- fled the prohibition law in Cullman County are in a precarious condition. It was the opinion of lawyers. express ed yesterday. that the effect of yester- days deliverance of the Supreme Court will be to render valid the several in- dictments brought in CulIman County Also in a precarious condition seem lngiy is the $2.400 worth of licenses which were collected by the Probate |