The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1908-02-08
LOCAL OPTION
LAW ATTACKED
Also General Prohibition
Legislation.
---s--
CASES BEFORE SUPREME COURT
Text Of Bill IS Said to Be In
valid.
General Bml Alleged 10 ne Local q.
Naturs--BrilIiant Counsel Dissects
Recent Prohibition
Measures.
Asses BEFORE SUPREME COURT

Able arguments, consuming four
hours. were presented yesterday to the
Alabama Supreme Court for the uphold
ing Of the general local option and the
general prohibition acts passed by the
Legislature last year.
Alternately with this. the highest
tribunal of the State. together with the
unusually large circle of Interested
lawyers present. heard some very earn
est, and also able, arguments OF at
torneys employed to assail the validity
OF the measures which aim at the ex-
pu1sion Of the liquor evil from Ala
bama.
The entire morning yesterday had
been set aside for the submission Of
the test cases which were brought from
the Birmingham City Court and the
Morgan Circuit Court Involving the
mighty contest between the prohibition
and the anti-prohibition elements Of
the state. The proceedings which
landed the question OF the constitu-
tiona1ity OF the acts in the hands OF
the Supreme Court were started In both
OF the lower courts by petitions for
writs OF mandamus. These we're ask
ed to be directed against the Probate
Judge Of the two counties. compelling
them 20 issue saloon licenses to the
petitioners Ben Meyer In the county
of Jefferson, and NJ. E. svo I'd .verd in
Morgan County. In Doth instances the
tower courts denied the petitions end
the appeals were taken.
II those present at yesterdays sreu-
ments who believed the celebrated
statutes Of the last Legislature end
the special session to be 'rnpregna-
Bile, they must have WINGED at moments
under the broadsides OF the eminent
counsel engaged in the attack IN the
liquor laws. In q dozen spots these
untiring and eloquent lawyers hred
their shots Of logic and deductions, and
when the champions OF the enactpaents
built mp their hedges still higher the
assaiianta renewed their assaults with
redoubIed energy and reasoning.
Brilliant Attorneys Speak.
Appearing for the support OF The To-
eAi ontion law and the prohibition stat
ntes were former Chief Justice OF the
supreme Court Samuel d. Weakley and
Hon. Carlson @. WhitsoH. a member
pf the Alabama Constitutional Conven-
ZION Of 1907. Opposed to this array
II counsel were Hon. John p. Tillman
II Birmingham and Hon. Gregory L.
Smith OF Mobile.
THE tash az the gentlemen who at
tackled the measures has been almost
HercuIean. In the very nature OF the
caaa they have been forced 20 show 70
the Supreme Court that both the laws
are Unconstitutional. II they have
succeeded In striking down the local
option law and have left the prohibit
tion act standing they have failed as
dismally as far as their clients are
concerned, as II they had never gone
into the trenches TO nght. ~ they
knock the props from under the gem
araI prohibition law and the Supreme
Court declares the other constitutional
the saloons are just as badly squelched
as ever.
BY the terms Of the prohibition
statute 1t will be recalled that liquor
would have been banished from tne
counties which have voted 1t out re-
gardIoss of the local option law. This
application Of the prohibition law APP
piled on january /. 1903, and SO that
under this comprehensive provision or
the later Law the fruits OF q prohibi-
kion victory gained any time in any
County up 20 December ~, 1908, would
nave ben secure regardless Of the va
Hay Of the local option law passed ct
the sunnrner session OF the last Legis-
lature.
Reaiising the double barrelIed aspect
Of the Job IN hand, Messrs. Tillman and
Smith entered ardentiy into the argu-
ments Of their cause right from the
Jump. They dissected the acts, both OF
them. from the title to the tail end Sec
FanIt with TatIe.
Fault was found with the title OF the
local option law, the counsel alleging
that It contained two separate and dis
tinct subjects. In the title appear the
words prohibit" and tregulate." It
was argued with considerable force
that this title is misleading and in vio-
lation OF the State Constitution which
provides that the title to any general
act must contain but one subject. It
was claimed that the local option law,
in the body Of the act, did not of itself
prohibit the sale OF liquor in any part
" the state but only gave q chance to
counties as units to vote on whether
the liquor trafic should be driven from
It's borders.
Another serious objection found to
the local option law was that 1t except
ed certain localities from it's operation
for q stated period and then 1t would.
on the happening OF future event, so
into full operation and its extent would
be Statewide. The implication from
this phase of the counseps argument
was that no act Is general that Is local
in its operation and which is suspended
in some parts OF the State less than
the whole while 1t is in operation in the
remainder Of the State, and then at a
given time applies equally over the en-
tire Commonwealth.
Doubt was also expressed of the con-