The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-01-09

these children. nor has any greater power over them than any other well meaning person. It is seen at a glance that the power which he seeks to have exercised in this case is not only of ex- treme deiicacy but is paternal to n far reaching extent. It Is the power of a Parens Patrie. which in England re- sides irH the Court of Chancery, as rep resenting the King, and as to infants. not delegated to the common law courts. Tn this country such a power is anomalous. but. what there Is of it. Is exercised by the Legis'atuec or under It's authority and dis cretion. Nor have l been able to find more than one case which fairly and fully decided that it might be in- voked. where courts or judges do hnn- dertake to exercise 1t, by a mere stran- ger.
 Tn one case. which arose in Geor- gia. where they have a statute to cov- CT emergencies of this character. (see Church on habeas corpus, Section 80. read. and the authorities there cited), in the cases of Re Allen, 9 L. R. A., 1l72, which was a case in hand as to It's facts. decided by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. within the last twelve months, and brought here as iauthority. it was said: No illegal re- straint being shown. it was not error to &tothaNeC tHG Wfit' lS5utu aL the instance of a stranger.
 Needs Legislative Sanction.
 T am not disposed to exercise such power without legislative sanction Furthermore. as suggested in Matthews V. Hobbs, 51 Alabama, 210. and in Woodruff V. Conley., 50 Ala 304. and as put into practice in Striplin V. Ware. 36 Ala, S7, it may be that the proper procedure for cases of this sort Is by bill or petition to a court exercising chancery powers for the appointment of guardian for children situated as these are. in that court and in that way the court not only disposes of the child for the present, but retains over sight and control of the guardian and the child for the future. and may ex- act security for Its well being. things which cannot be done on habeas cor pus. For the present I must decline to act on the facts shown.
 Tt will be understood that no per- manent disposition is made of these children. The mothers acquire no right by the order made. The chill dren are merely left whre they are found. The social and moral consider ations urged against the present ar- rangement will become more serious as the children become more susceptible to their Influence. l trust a remedy may be found at the proper time.
 oNuSENu aS u lHciiud bdTenSs Ndn- coll Barnes. Dorothy Hudson and Charles Eugene Bronner. the writ Is discharged.
 ''As to Genie Owens alleged to be restrained by Bessie Ellis. the hearing is continued for further testimony.
 "A. D. Sayre,
 Judge City Court of Montgomery"
 It seems that it was on the state ments of Judge Sayre in his opinion that prompted Captain Odom to file the suit in the Chancery Court yesterday. The habea corpus plan failed and now Captain Odom will try another course | to reach the end he has in view.
 T have received an adverse decision, in this case. but I am not through, and if necessary I will carry this thing to the Supreme Court of Ala bama," said Captain Odom yesterday. 'T am going to fight it in the Chan cery Court, and I don't see how a guar dianship for these children can be re- fused. believe that I'm right, and | am going to do everything in my power to have those children taken from the places where they are now being raised"