The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-12-27
JULIAN SAYS ERRORS MAY
 HAVE BEEN MADE IN COPYING
Supreme Court Takes cognizance Only of Journal In Possession of the Secretary of State When
 Questions Arise.
By HERVEY w. LAIRD.

Montgomery, December 26.-(Special)- The King bill for Greater Birmingham appears to be unconstitutional. IF the opinion of lawyers who have made a study of the points involved 1t Is un- constitutional. This seems to be borne out by the journal of the senate, as filed with the secretary of state. which, ac- cording to the supreme court, is the only authority of law. The case of the Mont gomery Bottling works vs. the probate Judge of Montgomery county, 12e Ala, written by MT. Justice Haralson, bears on the point involved.
 The constitution. section 62, provides: "No bill shall become a law until it shall have been referred to a standing committee of each house. acted upon by such committee in session, and returned therefrom, which facts shall affiramtively appear upon the journal of each house" It is not shown in the senate journal that the King bill was ever reported from the committee to which it was referred after being received from the house.
 The constitution also says. section 6S: "Every bill shall be read on three diff ferent days in each house, and no bill shall become a law unless on its final pas sage it be read at length, and the whole taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered upon the journal, and a majority of each house be recorded there- on as voting In it's favor, except as other wise provided in this constitution"
 The nay vote on the final passage of the King bill is not set out in the senate journal on file in the office of the sec retary of state; neither is 1t shown there that a majority, or IS members of the senate voted for it. Hence, section 63 is violated, according to the record.
 The Official Record.
 It is a fact that the senate journal on file in the office of the secretary of state does not show that after the bill was referred to the committee on local legislation, it was ever reported upon at all The first item after reference is notice of intention to take 1t from the adverse calendar. It is also a fact, that the nay vote on final passage is not shown The writer has made an examina- ton of the said senate journal and finds that this is so..
 It is also a fact as Representative King charges that Senator Miller is recorded as having voted against his own amend ment, with Senators Spragins and Over ton voting for it. It is also likely that the copy furnished the printer had the negative vote on the bill set out in full The confusion in the way the votes were recorded may have occurred in copying. It may also be fact that Senator Miller,
 
 voted against his amendment in order to bring about a reconsideration, though this seems hardly likely. The discrep- ancy between the journal as printed and the journal filed with the secretary of state no doubt took place in copying from the daily record of the senate. Each day this record is kept in manuscript and approved after corrections by the Journal committee. Copies for the secretary of state and the printer are made from this manuscript record. In one, that for the printer, the entire record was copied; in that for the archives it was left out.
 The Bill In the Senate.
 The senate journal shows that the King bill krown as I'll. B. 929, to alter or re- arrange the boundary lines of the city of Birmingham. Ala" was reported as passed from the house on the forty-third day of the 1907 session, July 8. and re- ferred to the committee on local legis- lation.
 On the forty-fourth day, July "A, Mir. Overton gave notice that on the next legislative day he would move to take the bill from the adverse calendar.
 The bill had evidently been reversed but no report of it had been made (Sec- tion 62, Alabama Consttution).
 Bill Taken Up.
 On the forty-fifth day, July 26 on mo- tion of MT. Overton, the bill was taken from the adverse calendar, read second time and ordered put on the calendar. Yeas IT, nays Is, the vote being set out at length.
 Still there is no evidence that the bill had ever been acted upon ''by such com mittee in session.; no action being affirm atively shown by the committee. (Section 62 Colstitution).
 On the forty-sixth day, July 29, on a call of bills for third reading, the bill was taken up. An amendment by Mr. Over ton to correct a clerical error was adopt ed by vote of 23 to 0, the vote being set out at length on the journal.
 MT. Spragins offered an amendment, which was losl-yeas 13 nays 13-the pres ident untieing. The amendment and vote are set out in full.
 MT. Miller offered an amendment which, on motion of MT. Overton was tabled the vote being IA to IA, the president again untieing The amendment and vote are set out in full.
 The Spragins amendment was taken adopted-yeas A. nays 13-the vote being set out in full
 A motion to amend by MT. McWhorter was defeated, and one to take the Me Whorter amendment from the table by Hays was also lost, the votes being set out in full as well as-the amendment.
 The journal then shows: And the bill as thus amended was read third time at length and passed-yeas IA, nays IA. Yeas Messrs. Doster. Glenn, Hays, Hea- cock. Lowe. Lusk, Merritt. McWhorter Overton, Reese, Reed Reynolds, Spragins. Wilson-14."
 The next entry is Said vote being a