The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-09-30


 that speech. want 1t understood.
 that I thought In the main 1t was a good speech, and am somewhat "sot"
 in my way of thinking"
 Like pronunciamento ex Cath edra. | the good roads advocates have made | the following deliverance and others | like them. T want it distinctly un- derstood tsay they) the amendment 1 prohibits in the clearest possible man | ner, any thought tof such thing as creating debt. Also, "The language
 of the amendment prohibits the crea- | ton of a debt"
 Judge William E. Clark. formerly
 of Marengo. a man of nne intellect. of
 keen perception. an experienced law l yer and judge used to say that occa- | slonally he met up with lawyer, who was so confident that he knew the law. that he held himself ready all
 the time to make an affidavit to 1t.
 We beg pardon for asking such learn ed lawyers and statesmen to relieve
 us from the strain put upon our cre- | dulity. Our trouble comes about in
 this way. Let us suppose the consti- | tution Is amended as proposed So
 far as the question under considera- l ton Is affected the Constitution would read as follows; Section 93-The
 State shall not engage in works of l internal Improvements, nor lend money l or its credit, in aid of such; provided, that for the purpose of constructing. repairing and maintaining pu bile roads in the State. the Legislature may | make appropriations" Surely that is
 fair statement of the Constitution | as It. would be If this amendment be
 adopted. It must be kept in mind that | there remains no limitations upon the l power of the Legislature to make ap- | propriations. Now let us apply the
 rules of construction, which apply | ah ivl al Ior AAlrn
 every court in the Union. "provIso" | in statute is intended to restrain" | limit" qualify" the enacting clause
 Of the statute. so-as to exempt from
 its operation that which follows or Is
 excepted. As framed in the amend
 ment the enacting clause is-"Shall l not engage In works of internal im-
 provements. nor lend its money or
 credit In aid of such." and the | proViso relates back to, and qualifes
 and limits the application of these
 three several provisions so as to ex-
 cept from their prohibitory operation
 the unlimited power of the Legislature
 to make appropriations. to construct. 1 repair and maintain public roads in l the State. If 1t does not relate back
 to the prohibitory enactments cited,
 and qualify them. and each of them
 alike. then the proviso is abortive. |
 am not an affidavit lawyer or states | court made law" but If there Is any
 falacy in the foregoing argument and | logic. and the application of the
 principles of law involved. I cannot detect It.
 The case of these .fpse dixit" law yers and statesmen is not near so | good as even this consideration gives them.
 1 If should do violence to grammar. l logic. and law and concede that the | 'proviso" related back and qualified only the words, shall not engage in works of internal improvement" an- l other principle confronts them from | which there is no escape, so 1t appears l to me. | It ia universal law that when au-
 thority or power is granted to a legis-
 lative body to do an act the grant
 carries with 1t all necessary authority
 and power to make the grant effective.
 Inis rule prevails in the construction | of the Constitution of the United
 States. applicable to Congress-which
 has no power other than that express l ly granted by the Constitution of the United States. Much more vigorously l does the rule apply under the State
 Constitution. the rule being that all l power is vested In the Legislature ex-
 cept that specifically restrained. If the 1 Legislature Is granted the unlimited l power to make appropriations for pub He roads--with 1t goes the power to | provide for the payment of these ap- 1 propriations. It Is folly to deny such | plain and we'll settled principles. Noth-
 ing but an express positive negation
 and prohibition by the Constitution,
 can limit the discression of the Legis-
 lature In providing means to meet the 1 appropriations. and there Is nothing here, left under the amendment. nor elsewhere in the Constitution which n fn l-k contrary all the rules of construction are against the contention. respect | fully invite & written reply to the ar gument over some signature. Clarify | racy."
 presume we will be told again that the Legislature can be trusted that | they would Hose their right arm be- | fore engaging in such business. Even | If they had the power these disinter- ested patriots. might some day die what then? Who would remain to pro- l tect us? Have the people of Alabama | so soon forgotten that there was intro- | duced in this very Legislature-and now the Legislatures bill to take ef- l feet from and after it's approval" 1 | which with one sweep took from the | general revenue of the State more than $3SO.000 annually. and which also ap- | propriated not exceeding $3.600 to an engineer appointed a commissioner with $10.000, provided an of1ce in Montgomery, and put in operation | new department for good roads. In all | probability the bill would be law to- 1 day but for the constitutional provision | which these parties are so engaged in 1 trying to get rid of by this amendment. do not propose to discuss the objec- tonable features of that bill. but mere- 1 ly refer to 1t to show how narrowly | the State escaped. this useless expense | except if the constitutional barrier is l removed. It seems impossible for the State to meet its liabilities promptly with the use of all of its revenues. in- cluding convict fund. We would be swamped if the act introduced and re- ferred to had prevailed. and the State deprived of so much of it's revenue. Ask
 the Governor of the State. Inquire of the Auditor. Get official and reliable information. The Ledger of July IS, last, gave expression to sentiment widespread, when it said: "The Gods truth is Ala
 bama Is getting afraid to have her Leg islature meet"
 It is said. assessments of property for
 taxation are listed at only SO per cent of it's real taxable value. If this be true, the assessment may be raised | nearly 40 per cent, or nearly double the present taxes. Does not every tax payer know this will be done if it be- comes necessary to meet the appropria- tons made, rather than let the State | default and depreclate it's credit? The amendment opens the way to unlimited