The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-16
 ATTACK ON
 ANOTHER LAW Anti-Shipping Statute
 Under Fire. SUBMITTED TO JUDGE sAYRE Capitol Brewing Company Would
 Ship "White Top" s . zfandamus Against L. & N. sought to , Compel shipments of .Near ' Beerv Occassoas Attack on censtitutienality,s t.,. 1. is. sf Law.
TO JUDGE SAYRE

Once more allegations of faulty leg islative records are made in an effort to render null and void another phase of the prohibition statutes This time it is the anti-shipping bill that is un- der fire.
 i: Directly attacking the constitution aIity of the anti-shipping bill. embod- jed In Sections 7371-7377 of the 1907 code of Alabama. an application of the Capitol Brewing Company, for a man. damus compelling the Louisville and Nashville Railroad to ship it's products into prohibition territory. was submit ted to Judge Sayre for consideration Friday. on briefs and demurrers.
 The application was originally filed June 2s, 1908, when the Louisville and Nashville Railroad refused to trans port @ consignment of "White Top" a beverage declared by its makers, the Capitol Brewing Company, to be non- intoxicating, to Fort Deposit, town then feeling the effects of the local op- ton prohibition law. The Capitol Brewing and Ice Company sued then for a writ of mandamus, to compel the shipment of White Top" On Friday the original application was amended. so as to not only include the White Top" in Its terms. but to assail the en- tire act. so that intoxicants of any na- ture might be shipped hereafter, In case the allegations of unconstitution- ality holds good.
 Lee H. Well, attorney for the Cap itol Brewing Company, in his bill of complaint. ayers that Sections 62 and 63 of the Constitution of 1901, have been violated by the passage of the anti-shipplng law.
 Section s2 provides: No bill shall I become a law until it shall have been referred to a standing committee of each house, acted upon by such com mittee In session, and returned there from, which facts shall afnrmatively appear upon the journal of each House."
 In substantiation of it's averment of violation, the bill declares that the journal of the Senate shows that the anti-shipping bill was referred to a standing Committee on Temperance, but fails to show of any action by that committee, or of the return of the bill to the Senate.
 About Section 6s.
 Further, the aHerment is made that the House journal falls to show that the bill was referred to a standing Committee on Temperance. or to any other committee.
 Section e3 of the State Constitution is also violated, according to the alle- cations of the bill of complaint. Sec- tion 63 provides that: Every bill shall be read on three different days in each House, and no biaI -shaii become law unless on its final passage 1t be read at length.'
 It is this provision which. the com plaint alleges, Is violated. It Is de- ciared that the journal of the Senate fails to show that the anti-shipping bill was read on three different days before being voted upon.
 In their demurrer the counsel for the Louisville and Nashville Railroad hold Sup the constitutionality of the bill, 2 and aver that the allegations of fimsy ,, methods of passage and of record are . without weight. The bill, with de- murrers and briefs was submitted to Judge Sayre Friday, for decision that will probably como during the present term of the court.
 By the bill of complaint, the anti shipping bill is subjected to an attack similar to that which rendered null and void the Greater Birmingham bill. It will be remembered that Represent tatlve Jere King, when in Montgom- cry Investigating the charges of in- validity against his pet, the Greater Birmingham bill, rendered his opinion that. in case the Birmingham bill was invalid, the anti-shipping bill was lil5e- wise without effect.
 The anti-shipping bill provides that 1t shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to ship. accept for shipment or to solicit orders for ship nent any spirituous vinous, malt or otherwise intoxicating liquors into ter- ritory where the sale of such liquors Is prohibited by law. except in such in- stances where the provision of the j, statute, if carried out would conflict