The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-04-07
PROHIBITION LAW HELD VALlB BY
 SUPREME COURT
CONTINUED ToM PAGE 1.)

(CONTTN LIED B>OM PAGE 1.)
 shall be prosecuted more than once on the same offense."
 GIst of Opinion.
 In his opinion on the Carmichael act MT. Justice Anderson first goes into the case in so far as it relates to section 10 of the constitution, providing a penalty for the violation of the general prohibi- ton act. The justice declares that the law is complete and plain, as defined by section no of the constitution. Tt is true," the justice says, that section 13 post pones the operation thereof In certain counties, until January l, 1909, but 1t nevertheless applies with full force and effect to the entire state.'
 Further, the opinion reads: Tt Is not dependent upon the more liberal construe- tion given section 110 of the constitution, in the case of Covington vs, Thompson, in order to fall within the definition of a general law"
 Getting down to the gist of the case, tho judge says: Tt is insisted. however, that 1t was rendered a local law by vir- tue of the proviso inserted in section Il, fin that said proviso retains the local or special laws and thereby must exclude this law from applying to any territory except what was not then covered by local or special prohibitory laws. This proviso merely prevents repeal of the special or local laws, tn so far as they prohibit the sale or other disposition of any of the liquors mentioned in the first section of the act The act in question does more than prohibit a sale or other disposition, as 1t prohibits the manufac- ture as well, and the proviso does not exclude its operation in any county, in so far as 1t prohibits the manufacture of liquors, etc., as the local acts are only thereby retained in so far as they pro hibit the sale or other disposition of liquors as mentioned in the first section.
 If, therefore, the local laws do not cover all liquors mentioned in the first section of this act. then they operate only to prohibit the sale of such liquors as therein mentioned, and the present act would apply to those liquors or beverages covered by Section l. and not covered by the local laws. For instance, many of the local jaws may not be broad as to liquors, beverages, etc, as the act in question, therefore, when an article is sold or dis posed of, and which is not covered by the local law, but is included in the present act, there would be 0 field of operation for both laws-tho focal laws as to liquors therein prohibited, and the present act as to liquors therein prohibited, but which ars not covered oy the local law. It is clear that this act applies to the entire ototSt " tiic CAtSiit Ol pfOLAOltliB t4t manufacture and reDeals all laws in con- fiict therein to this extent, as none of the local or special jaws are retained in force. except insofar as they prohibit sale or disposition The law, therefore in this respect applies to the entire state under any and all conditions, to the wet territory in all respects, and to the dry territory, not only to prevent the manu- facture put to p~ohibit the sale also in case the local laws are not as broad as Section 1 In the enumeration of the liquors, etc., thereby prohibited.
 "The result is that all the local or special laws can be retained to the ex- clusion of the present laws, in so far as there may be conflict, and still leave a field of operation for the present law throughout the entire state as to one of its chief features, notwithstanding 1t may not apply and operate in every part there of in its every detail. If law applies to a whole state 1t is a general law. as de- fined by Section no of the constitution. and would not be converted into a local one simply because it was limited as to certain parts thereof in some of It's de- tails. Here we have a law which applies to the whole state in some of it's major parts, without the aid of additional legis- lation, but of it's own force and effect, and notwithstanding the retention of the local laws for the purpose provided in Sec tion IL"