The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-04-10
PROHIBITION LAWS
 CONSTITUTIONAL
tconsinued from Page one.)


 Der of members of each body of whicn snajofffy shall constitute the House for the transaction of business. After uo exprSssly providing, and unless eronf6r kproportion of the respectivs n1efnb srship of the branches Is requirec bv unrnistakable language, the term House can only intend such numoer presef,t4or voting. as the case may os. sa ,xct,ad make quorum. for the stateo transaction of business.
 Consultation Not vfciated.
 'i Disposing of the claim that oec.ion es oft the Constitution was .,o vio,s1 Tw m fhe cpassage Of the Prohipition Lsw, ths. oninion of Justice Mcclellan has
 .srhe Journal is the oficial narrative os sfsfe proceedings of the respective Houses. Unless legally organized to 1eStsIatively act, no Journals ol tne nrnSeedtngs of the Houses can existi ssA,1rar nroceedings had properly pass l,,Sn inc Journais unless. the Houses TT constitutionally organized.
 sf.Yt follows then that what IS re- n,tred to be set forth in the Journals y,ast pertain to the House in session, duly organized as provided In the orr ganic law. So interpreted, the term fnct comprehends only the act Of sign fig bills and Joint resolutions and not The surroundings at the moment the Kct Is done, since the Houses must be present to warrant the existence or the ,Journais.> This construction is fur sther emphasized in correctness by the 4 llcencomitant requirement that the bills and Joint resolutions shall be public ly read at length immediately before eirnins' for certainly no one could be found to assert that this reading is commanded, unless properly dispensed with In a presence other than that or the House. We. therefore, consiude that the fact with respect to the signing required to be entered in the Journsi. Is the act of signing the bIii and joint resolutions passed as pro- . vided."
 tior that the Exhibition Law violated Section 45 of the Constitution, which allows nothing in the body of an act which does not appear in the title or is not cognate to the subject thereof. Justice Mcclellan declares that the reception to the Prohibition bill are cognate to the subject of the enact mept." and adds that 1t would be a patent contradiction to say that an exception. which reduces the whole. affects to add thereto." ="
 Regulation and Prohibition.
 Continuing on this point which was stressed by counsel attacking the bill. Justice Mcclellan writes as fol- lows:
 Counsel for appellants assert that because the exceptions created by the act provide the methods whereby those exceptions may be availed of without violating the major purposes of the act, the act contains the subject of regulation whereas the title only fore shadows legislation in prohibition of dealings in intoxicants. The case of Miller vs. Jones' 80 La, S9. decides that regulation and prohibition are dis tinct and incongruous subjects of leg islation. But this holding Is not in- pugned here. The title of the act pur- ports to announce that the act to folr low will treat of prohibition of the sale. etc, of liquors. except in cer. tain cases. These exceptions. which. as indicated, merely limit the field of operation of the prohibition declared, are created by providing that certain dealings. accomplished after prescribed methods, are not prohibited.
 t''The power to legislate includes nee. eseariiy the power, within legal lim- itss not necessary now to be consid- cred, to select the object and scope of an enactment and to define what of a broader subject shall not come within the condemnation of the act for the purpose for which it was enacted. The Legislature exercised this power by ex- captions and defined them with respect
 
 scribe processes or methods of deal inKs herewith and to specified uses of certain liquors and to enforce the ob- servance of these exceptions, together with all the provisions of the act, af- fixed penalties.
 Accordingly. unless the methods or processes or the particular kinds of liquors or the specified use of certain liquors conform or are within the ex- 1Aa In ThAr1 is prohibited, not regulated. True, regulation presupposes the right to deal. but under this act the right to deal is wholly dependent upon com pifance with requirements thereto which are plainly written in exemption of those who comply with them from the charge of a violation of the gen. eraI prohibition declared by the act. .In a sense. a regulation is accomp- lished, but that regulation is only a method by which the universal prohi- bition is bereft of it's penaiizing qual- tiles by affording to him who com plies the exemption stated. Intimately germane to the general purpose and effect in the creation of these excep- tions and to conformity to them, are those provisions requiring the filing and recordations of statements ana prescriptions mentioned in the act. These are important in the enforce nlent of the observance of the methods to be pursued in order to enjoy the immunity carried by such dealings as the exceptions provide and also to de- tect any violation of the prohibition which is infracted unless the dealing is within the exceptions created.
 e'we. therefore, affirm the constitu- tional sufflcfency of the title of the act as well as the presence of but one subject in the enactment itself.
 Legislaturo Acted fin Good Faith.
 Concluding his lengthy opinion on the prohibition law. Justice Mcclellan
 Tt is perfectly apparent from the whole of the act. that the Legislature, in good faith, wrote to a statewide pro- htbition of certain dealings in intoxi- carts ,on January 1, 1909. reason ably near, and definite date. the law will be actually effective from border to borden of the State. While in 1908 the law will not be operative in every county in the State. but will, beginning with the succeeding year, be opera tive throughout the whole, State. mere ly postponing for such definite and reasonably limited period the partial efteetiveness of the law, yet the law is q State law. applicable fin due season to every county in the State, thus clearly coming within the principle laid ,down-ip Thompson V. Covington." / So completely did the decision of the Ebpreme Court uphold the closing law tNkt it's effect is to make amenable to itS provisions all licenseable places in the State of Alabama where intoxicat- 9Sg liquors are sold. This strikes even