The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-06-16
DID NOT REFLECT ON SENATOR MILLER King, Shelby and Bowie Issue
 Statement WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT They Maintain That one-Fifth Should Not Veto What Four.Fifths of
 the Citizens of the Val
 ley Want.
To the Editor of The Age-Herald:


 ticle in this mornings paper as- sumes that the communication pub lished by us in your Sunday mornings issue had special reference to him, and bases his entire letter upon that theory. Senator Miller is entirely mistaken. He is not candidate, nor is he in any way before the public at this time. IT he was candidate it would be proper for any citizen who felt disposed to do so to discuss his attitude on public questions, but when he is not can didate, and when the issue is between those who are candidates, a different situation is presented. So far as we are individually concerned, we desire to say that we have no personal diff ferences of any kind with Senator Mil Ter, nor did we intend to reflect upon him in the slightest degree. We re- ferred to private pledges which had been made for many years whereby the will of the people of this valley had teen thwarted and a Little BirminS- ham, hampered and confined, had been borne down by conditions which ought no longer to exist, and which needed to be overthrown. Senator Miller says that his pledges were not privately made but were publicly made, and that they were made to the Commercial club of Birmingham at its request. Tho article which appears under our sigma ture, therefore, could not have had any reference to him, and 1t seems to use a case of undue sensitiveness on his part to assume that a thing which he said did not exist was intended to be applied to him.
 The fact is. that one of the signers hereof, Mr. J. E. Shelby, wrote let ter to pr. Felix Tarrant and asked him how he stood on the question of Greater Birmingham, and pr. Tarrant failed to answer him. He has not an- swered that letter yet The public still would be in ignorance of Dr. Tarrant g position on this question if it had not been discovered that he had made a the city of Ensley, whereby a separate vote was promised those people on the subject of coming into Birmingham which was not promised to any other municipality, which had never been conceded to any other municipality in this valley, and which was offered with the expectation on the part of those to whom the promise was made, if not on the part of the one who made it, that by this device Ensley, of all the towns of this valley, would be left out of the city of Birmingh am, and would be given a privilege not ac- corded any other.
 We do not intent to thrash over the old straw about the Smyer bills. The Commercial club of Birmingham in dorsed those bills. not because it met the approval of every member of the club or the public at large. but simply because 1t seemed to be the only chance to get anything done at the time However, those bills were not passed by the senate until the legis- lature was about to adjourn, and the approval of the governor was not ob- tained until August 13, 1907, which was six days after the final adjourn ment. In the meantime the public had become insistent in their demands that some action should be taken. By ev- cry device known to the public they had manifested their desire to have the whole matter settled, and settled at once. As 8 result of this demand of the people, the King bill was passed by which Greater Birmingham was made an accomplish ed fact It was referred to the people, but it was to all of the people and not to few; it provided for one election and not for 6; it gave the people of the whole valley the right to vote on it as a unit and did not leave to particular localities the right to veto the measure at their individual will. The election was held, and by vote of 3496 to 300 1t resulted for Greater Birmingham. The majority was in the ratio of practically four to one. A substantial majority outside of the city of Birmingham voted for 1t, including the following towns: Gray mont, Elyton. Woodlawn, East Lake, West End and Avondale This cleo ton indicated the overwhelming senti. nent, both in tho present limits of Birmingham and outside of the same in favor of the measure. Senator Mill Ter says that he will not recognize this election; that 1t was a humbug Yet, in fact 1t was the best advertised election ever held in the city, and 1t brought out one of the largest votes that was ever cast here. If the voters who stayed away had come to the polls it. would have simply added to the ma jority.
 We have written what we have in no spirit of unkindness to Senator Mil Ter or Dr. Tarrant. We simply wrote in protest against the proposition of disregarding the wishes of four- fifths of the people on the part of a candi- date in order to get the support of the o+har 6fth on a trade. Greater Bir- mingham has been defeated too many times by the fact that the opposition was organized and it's advocates dis organized. As long as the friends of the movement will sit by and allow 1t to be done its opponents will kill it. and for all is to let 1t be understood that there Is another side to the ques- .,1- ond whoever tries to block the movement will have to encounter a SC. we're opposition.
 The question of home rule has noth- ing to do with the case. Is prohibi- tion any less effective because the city of Birmingham voted against it, and yet it was carried by large vote on the outside? Did not the state decide for Its own sake that liquor should not be sold anywhere in its borders. and was not this in opposition to the views of several of the counties? And did not Senator Miller himself vote for the bill In the teeth of the platform on which he was elected not because the people