The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-11-24
JUDGE COELMAN ! AND AMENDMENT Venerable Jurist Analyzes Measure. l ARGUES AGAINST ADOPTION Slows Fallacies Put Out by Stump
 Speakers. Calls m pr. CunninEham and others to Present the Case in the
 LaEhs of Rcsson--su-
 prene Court
 Opinion.

preme Court
 | opinion.
 I From his home in Eutsw Judge ] Thomas Wilkes Coleman. the yener- able jurist. has given out second statement asalnst the proposed consti- tutional amendment
 In this statement Judge Coleman punctures the arguments of Hon. J. F, Thompson, Judge W. S. Thorington and pr. R. M. Cunningham. Ills statement Is as follows: Editor The Advertiser:
 Fearing that my first article would bc toe long. cut out part of the argument by me upon one proposition. Sfnco then 1 have heard u speaker make the assertions therein considered. and now Dr. Cunningham is reported as saying that the second section Is necessary to enforce the prohibition statutes. I have concluded 1t best to supplement my previous article from which I omitted some of the argument which give below. and nope to read the reply U it from some newspaper over their own signature rather than have 1t discussed at some neighborhood meeting when there will be no opp or- tunity to reply. I have incidentally. towards the close, referred to Judge Thorington's last reply, as he does not truly state. through inadyertance. my language.
 The language of the proposed amend ment is as follows:
 Section 1. The manufacture. sale and EAanin4 far cal nf o1nnhnlig. mi liquors and other intoxicating bever- ages shall be forever prohibited in this State. but alcohol may be sold for medical, scientific and mechanical purposes. and wine for sacramental purposes under such regulations as the Legislature may have prescribed Nor may hereafter prescribe.
 Sec. 2. Nothing in the Constitution of Alabama shall be construed to pre- vent the Legislature, under the police power. from designating places where such liquurs may not be stored or kept.
 The reader will please keep the pro- posed amendment continually before his mind as he follows the argument in reply to the amenders, demonstrating that theirs leads to an absurdity t're- ductio ad absurdum. Answers MT. Thompson. Mir. Thompson Solicitor of the Fifth | Circuit (and other have followed the | same line) stated in his excellent ad- | dress at Eutaw, that as the words win I ous liquors" were omitted from the 1 first section of the proposed amend fnent, according to all previous con- I structions of the law. wine" could not 1 be included. He went so far as u I admit that so far as the consultations amendment interfered. unafded by feg-
 isiative action. saloons for the sale O kwine could be opened throughout the | State. without violating the constitu. tional amendment.
 It follows, therefore, If Mir. Thomp. son be correct. that the words "suct 1 liqu prs" used in the second section oi | the proposed amendment does not in- clude and has no reference to wines, ' whether "stored and kept" for use or l for sale. and the Legislature woul, | not have the power under Section
 to designate any place, neither In thu | home or elsewhere. where wine shoul, l not be stored or kept.
 pr. Dickinson and MT. welch, fl l their respective addresses at Eutaw each stated that the word ''manufac l iD meant, and was only intended, tt I>prohibit the making of "alcoh oil,
 liquors" and "other intoxicating bev | erages" for sale or profit; that whel l these liquors were made for home us,
 or social use in the home, the amend
 ment did not interfere, and that 1
 applied only to such liquors and bev
 erages as were made for sale or profit and that those for sale or profit wer,
 scope and contemplation of the prohibi
 tory clause of the first section of thu
 amendment.
 This Is the popular argument. anC l no doubt it has been spoken ant
 preached to thousands of pc ople.
 being settled. then. according to tnes'
 gentlemen that liquors and wine
 not made or kept for sale wer
 not within the Influence of tn
 Arst section of the amendment an,
 were net intended to be, 1t necessaril.
 follows that the words ''such liquors
 in the second section of the amend
 ment. had no reference to them anc
 could not be stretched to include ol
 cover them. It further necessarily
 follows that under the second section
 of the amendment in designating place
 where "such liquor ors'' shall not b.
 stored or kept. the Legislature wouIt
 have no authority under the authority
 to be granted In the second section. t;
 include liquor (whiskey, if you please and other intoxicating beverages. an'
 wine, not made for sale or profit, anc
 could not designate places where theS'
 liquors and beverages should not b.
 stored or kept. because the power wa.
 limited to "sucn liquors" and those no
 made for sale or profit were not ''sucl 1 liquors" referred to.
 No Reason in Argument. Now for the conclusion: All of thu
 three mentioned speakers, and man. others whose speeches I have read
 have said and reiterated and empha
 sized the statement, that the main req
 son and necessity for the nmendmen
 was to meet the decision of our Su
 preme Court in the Bessemer case
 That decision held, as have read iron
 extracts, and have heard 1t read. tha
 II..a. ,,,a. a r.ons. nrivatA nronArt V