The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1908-02-08

stitutionality Of the law which pro-
posed to allow consecutive elections al
innnitum. which would after the hrst
election place ne commi.ssss BACK r =
before the law went into sffct.
30 animated was the discussion Of
the first speaker for the petitioner yes
terday that he characterised the
| Trainer OF the local option law as being
| very "ingenious" man and that the
| way the statute was proposed 70 oper-
ate was vicious"
II know we are on the unpopular side
Of this issue" said Mr.. Tiilman. but I
know yout honors will realize that
| there il something higher than the
moral question Involved here, especially
| for the courts Of the land. / know
that the sense OF the majority OF the
| out OF the driking evil and to that
say amen. but that has no relation to
| the question at issue In this case"
Local Feature Illegal.
| The main attack on the prohibition
law was in the contention that IL. too.
had Q local feature In it's operation In
that 1t allowed prohibition to 80 into
effect on Jan. /, 1908. In those counties
which had up to Dec. ~. 1907, voted
| liquor out. while the remainder OF the
| counties were to remain after that in
| stu until Jan. !, 1903. when every part
/ of the State - to go dry. Further
more. 1t was commended that II the local
| option law was unconstitutional. as
they had sought Just before to prove.
the prohibition law must fall thereby.
inasmuch as that provision giving pro-
| hobition where It had been voted prior
to Dec. IL, 1907, was founded on GER
| tain acts OF the people IN many coun-
ties under the local option law.
To every point raised by Opposing
counsel the attorneys for the State In
| terposed an answer. They could not
see how anyone could earnestly con-
| tend that the local option law should
| be declared null and void and wiped
| on the books because of perhaps
| iaxness In wording the titles However.
the States counsel would In no wise
concede that the title to the local OPP
| tion act embraced more than single
general subject. They admitted that
| the terms regulate" and prohibit" cc-
CURED in the virbiage OF the title. but
that taken in conjunction with the
body OF the act, one could not draw any
other inference than that the real pur-
pose of the act was to drive the liquor
| traffic from the state OF Alabama by
means OF elections to be held sever
ally in the different counties to deter
mine upon the method The States
counsel, Judge Weakley, insisted that
there would be no objection to this
wording OF the title and yet that 1t
was an easy inference and the only
one from the unbiased reading of the
title.
AS to the law providing for the
operation OF the statute in different
counties at different times It was con-
tended that here Is precedent for this
feature of q general act and 1t did not
reduce It to the category Of local act
as was charged by counsel for the petit
WNeaN IN he a frn n a &c
q local act because 1t was not provided
that it should so into immediate effect
throughout the State but might be-
come operative In the counties which
had before December "a voted prohibit
tion. Several cases were cited in the
statute Of general class had been
upheld which was suspended in its
statewide operation contingent upon
the happening of o future event. This
Notwithstanding the act might have
become operative and did in some In
stances become operative in certain
parts OF the states at various times.
The states Interpretation,
Referring to former decision OF the
Alabama Supreme Court. which had
held general act, could be sustained
large classifieations of the things ana
persons II was to be applied to- II was
argued that the prohibition law which
provided that certain counties. namely
those which should have voted cut
liquor prior to December H.. 1907,
formed just and reasonable classiftca-
tion within the purview of the former
opinion as distinguished from those
which did not so vote out the drink
evil. Thus 1t should be held to be q
general act i
Az for the claim that the classified
ton named would vanish II the local
option law were declared null, the
answer was that the people who voted
out liquor In some counties under the
local option law did SO under color OF
statute which they thought was valid
The Supreme Court was reminded that
In these counties there was great aai-
tatton. voters deliberated and seriously
went TO the polls where they register
ed their will Cases were cited to show
where It was held that because q law
was declare1 null and void IT was neces-
sarlly blank paper. It was, therefore
insisted that though the local, option
law were declared Unconstitutional,
sometntng they would not admit except
Tor the sake OF argument, there was
plenty Of substance on which to claim
the classification.
IN closing their appeals for the up
noiding OF the statutes under fire,
states counsel expressed the belief
Inat the court would proceed slowly
before oyerturning so important a
pieee Of legislation in the history of
Alabama as the laws SO overwhelming
~ expressing the win of the majority
OF people.
There was no assurance from the
supreme Court that there will be an
early decision on the issues submitted.
1t Is so near the end of the present
session of the tribunal that some fear
Is entertained that 1t win be a long
In April before a decision Is rendered.
At the end of next week the court adj.
Journs its sitting until April 6. Two
OF the Associate Justices are absent.
Justice Dowdelr being Ill at his home
in Lafayette while Justice Mcclellan
has gone to attend the funeral of hts
uncle who recently died. Thus the
court Is short in members and much
work is said to remain for the re-
nainder Of this and next week.
FIOrala Case Up.
The Supreme Court paused long
enough yesterday in the midst of the
special hearing to receive a case sub
mitted by Attorney A. L. Rankin. of
Andalusia, representing a petitioner FOR
rule nisi which was asked OF the
Judge OF the City Court OF Andalusia
to, be directed at the probate Judge
Of covington county compelling him