The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-06-19
BLOW FOR THE WHISKEY MEN |Cullman County Case Was Affirmed. SALOON MEN ARE ROUTED Supreme Court Declares Proceed ings Illegal ghe Saloon Men Under License Is- sued by The Probate Judge Had
 Deen Keeping Open Doors
 Subject to Heavy Penai-
 ties.

The last hopes of the Cullnnan county saloon men went glimmering yesterday morning when the Supreme Court of Alabama put its approval on the judg- ment of the Circuit Court below in the case of Al Richter vs. State of Ala bama. Absolutely every contention of counsel for Richter was knocked from it's base by yesterdays decision Of the highest tribunal in the State.
 The opinion was written by Associate Justice R. T. Simpson. It Is common ly agreed that the predicament of all other saloon proprietors in Cullman, Hancevill and other towns who dared the prohibition law is the same as that of Al Richter. His was the test case applicable to all. and 1t is believed that the verdict of the Supreme Court will be accepted as final.
 The effect of again upholding the prohibition statute, which nad passed already through a grueiling battle or legal lights, might be to bankrupt the liquor dealers of cullman, and land them in jail for the span of life- time. This, of course, contemplates the prosecuting officers of Cullnan Coun- ty being relentless under the law. The prohibition law has been in effect Tn Cullnnan County since January l, 1908, and since that date. on advice or coun. sel. the saloon men, or majority or Iheu1s nave been opening uaAtJ 1hcaA places of business.
 Tine penalty clause of the general prohibition statute passed at the extra session of the Legislature has a severe provision. For the first offense the penalty Is a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500. For every subse- quent violation the offender shall be sentenced to not less than three months nor more than six months at hard labor ttA Fwa
 Counting each day as separate violation. those saloon men who have kept open saloons since January l and up to the decision of the Court yester. day, would, if given the extreme limit of the law. be imprisoned for no. less than eighty-three and one-nalf years in addition to fines running up into the thousands of dollars.
 May Have Mercy.
 It Is predicted, and one of the jus tices said yesterday 1t ought to be so, that the law will consider itself suf- ficieutly redressed if the conviction of each offender stands only on a single indictment. The lesson would be the same, it is declared, and as the Ger mans, accustomed to their beer almost as Americans to their bread, were not guilty of moral turpitude. it would be too much to send them to 1ail for the limit of the law.
 Moreover. those saloon men who kept open after January 1, 1908, paid the full amount of their annual license to the State and County, and the States money Is even now locked up in the State treasury. The licenses were regularly issued by the Probate Judge of Cullman County, but the Supreme Court holds that the licenses were no protection. It will require a special act of the Legislature. mayhaps. to re- store the rebate on the unused portion of the licenses.
 Tn the main discussion of the case. Justice Simpson reiterates the pro- nouncements of the Supreme Court through Justice Thomas c. Mcclellan. This was the original test Of the con- stitutionality Of the prohibition statute, Like Justice Mcclellan, Justice Simp- son holds that 1t Is immaterial whether the local option law passed at the regu- lar session of the last Legislature Is constitutional or not. The people went to the polls on December 5, 1907, in Cullman County and a majority of the voters cast their ballots for dry" thus obtaining an expression of the popular will.
 It matters not if the conditions prece- dent or subsequent requirements were irregular, the thing had happened which put prohibition in effect January + even admit that the requirements Of the local option law were not substan- tially complied with in the holding of the election in Cullman. One by one, he sweeps aside the contention of counsel for appellant.
 Computing Time.
 It had been advanced by Richter's court at which he was convicted was not held in accordance with law. that there was insufhcient notice of the call ing of the court by Judge D. W. SDeake.
 Answering this point. Justice simp- son writes:
 "The rule of computation of time in this State is settled that the first day of the court is included in the twenty days required for the service of process When 1t is held that q decree pro confesso taken on the thirtieth day is day too soon. 1t iS the result Of the same principle, to- wit. that the law makes no note Of fractions of day; any moment on that day is thirty days, and defendant has every moment of that day within which to answer The rule is es- abolished in this as well as other ju- risdictions that when a notice of SO many days Is required before a cer. tain thing is to be done, the first day is to be excluded and the last includ- ed. so that if the act is done on the last dav 1t is sufficient The mo- tice was sufficient for the calling of the special term of the court"
 Speaking to the insistence of counsel that there was error of the lower court In inserting January instead Of February. Justice Simpson says:
 The error In organization of tho court in inserting January in place of February . . was self-correctinE The facts set up and proved did not show any fraud in the drawing of the jurors; hence, there was no error in the action of the court"
 On the question of the prohibition law going into effect in certain coun. ties on January l. 1908. Justice Simp. son declares:
 With regard to the validity of tha general prohibition law and its effect in those counties where an election had been held on the subject of in- toxieating liquors. this court has re-. gently. after careful consideration. sus- tained the validity of said general pro- hibition law and has distinctly held that the provisions of Section IS of said act providing that said law should go into effect on the first of January. 1908. in all counties in which an election shall have been held on or before December 12, 1907. does not re- quire that said election shall be valid, the court saying: Tt follows, we think. that the condition to the going into efect on January i, 1908, of the State