The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-12-27
OPINION IS
 ASKED FOR Relative to Juvenile Court
 Act. HAS LAW BEEN REPEALEDs ---s- ]. I. .Leteher Writes Attorney General Garber. b conssnaea That i,epsalinE Act rar- porfed ts Repeal Act ia auessisa aad Nbt speciac section
 of Code.
 

>venlIe Court act or the 1901 code. pro- yidinR specific courses for the trfai of Juvenile prisoners. Is stIll effective, and that the act of November 2S. 1907. ln- tended to repeal the original Is inyaiioi J. T. Letcfer, an attorney of Montg9fa- cry, has suggested, in an explanatory letter to Attorney General Garber to substantiate hIs claims, that the inval- idity of the repeating act and the fete fectiveness of the original De placed berore the judicial officers of the State.
 These officers have conducted their prosecutions with the belief that ths repeal was effective, and have dis- posed of juvenile prisoners contrary to the provisions of the original act. And aS the act provides severe punish- ments for any violation of It's terms, the officers, sheriffs. solicitors aud judges nave subjected themselves to numerous penalties, And TO obviate the mourning Of further penalties. Mir. Letcher suggests that an opinion from the Attorney General, relative to the validity of the act, be made.
 The. original act provides that only courts of chancery, or those with equity powers, and police courts. shall prose- cute prisoners aged less than IA years, and that violations of such provision shall become a high misdemeanor pun. ishabie by fines of SIG to, s1OO, or by iTu- prisonment for terms of from one month to six months. In case the con tention of MT. Letcher Is proven, the Judicial officers of the State, in prose- cutting juveniles through other chan nels are open to punishment though working on the supposition that tba repeal is effective.
 In the following letter written to the Attorney General, MT. Letcher explains his opinion, and substantiates hts claims of invalidity of the repeal in several ways. Mfr. Garber, replying stated that though the letter, as unom cial, required-no answer at present, he, will likely render an opinion when ar- preached through official channels.
 MT. Letcfler contends that the repeal ing act, passed November 2S, 1907, pur- ported to repeal the act of March 3s. and not a specific section of the code. But the act had been incorporated In the code during July the code adopted, and the act thus ceased to be law, and, therefore. in repeating the act. which in itself was not effective. the effort fell fiat, he declares.
 The letter of Mir. Letcher relating the opinion and it's standardization. is as follows:
 Hon iaxAnder M. Garber. sAttorney
 General of Alabama, Montgomery,
 
 8 Dear sir-By an act approved March, 1s. 1907. as shown on page 442 ct seq, of the General Acts of 1907, the Leg islature of Alabama created certain courts for the trial and supervision of juvenile deliuduents. These courts were given exclusive Jurisdiction of all offenders of the, Jaw under IA yeaEs'of age, except in certain specified cases and a code of procedure was estab- Iished for the trial of such, offenders radically differing from the usual court procedure in other cases. Large su- pervisory powers over children gener- ally under IA years of age we're given these courts with full authority to take charge of such children whenever necessary and place them under the control of probation officers or In re- form institutions. The act further provided heavy penalties for the i'm ] prisonment, detention or trial of such children contrary to the provisions of the act, by judges, sheriffs, solicitors and all other persons whatsoever.
 This act was incorporated in the a Code of 1907 as sections 6450 to 6465, E inclusive. and became a part of the Code by virtue of the act of the Leg islature adopting the Code, approved July 27.e 1907. The Legislature at the special session of 1907 undertodok to repeal the. law. popularly known as the Juvenile Court Law" by an act "To repeal an act entitled An act to define who are delinquent children and to provide for their arrest, care and reformation. approved March 13, 1907, and all acts amepdatory thereof ap- proved November 2S, 1907, which act appears on page 49 of General Acts, special session. 1907.
 It seems to be generally thought by the courts and offlcsers of the State that, the act of March F. l90T and the said Code Sections 6450 to s465, have been repealed by the act of .No- vember 2S. 1907. It Is my opinion that the said Code sections have not been affected by this act. Iii view of the fact that if these Code sections are now operative, many of our judicial and other public officers are subject Ing themselves to heavy penalties l believe it is important that these of fieers should be advised on the subO ject.
 If the act of November 23, 1907, is a valid statute, 1t is extremely doubtful whether it. operates to repeal the said Code sections 645O to 6565. It does not purport in express terms to repeal any part of the Code. IL attempts to ex- pressly repeal the act of March 12. 1907, and all acts amendatory thereof. BV the incorporation of the said act of March 18th in the Code and by vir- tue of the act of July 27. 1907 adopt ing the Code, the act of March 12th ceased to be the law (exeept perhaps in the interval between the date of the adoption of the Code and the date of it's taking effectl The Code. having superseded the act of March 12th, any attempt of the Legislature to. repeal this act after the adoption of the Code could not affect the Code. Whether inc Code Sections 6450 to 6aS5 were repealed by the act of November gard depends on the question whether these sections come within the terms ''and all acts amendatory thereof" ." If the r'ode is to be considered as an amend ment or an amendatory act of all acts incorporated therein. then the said sec- tions were repealed by the act of No- venlber .23rd. if the said act was val- idly enacted. It appears without an extended examination of the question that the Code merely re-enacts the statute law of the State and is not an amendatory act of former statutes.
 There is. however, a further and more convincing reason for believing that the act of November 23rd has not repealed the said Code sections It appears not to have been constitution ally enacted. Section 62 of the Con. stitution of 1901 says: 'sSo bill shall become a law until 1t shall have been referred to a standing committee of each house. acted upon by such com mittee in session, and returned there. from which facts shall afHruiatively nDpear upon the journal Of each house"
 This section. of the Constitution has been ably considered by our Supreme Court in the case of Walker .vs City