The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1909-11-10

hibit members of the legislature from re-
ceiving brides? 1t might as well be
argued that IL the amendment is de-
feated the members of the legislature
would sell out to the whisky interests be-
cause by doing SO they would violate their
oaths of office. Whether the amendment
is adopted or defeated does anyone think
that members of the legislature who
would accept the bribe be deferred from
repeating the prohibition laws on account
of their oaths to support the constitu-
ton?
If the amendment is adopted the pen
altes in the prohibition laws could be
amended so as to carry only nominal
punishment. and while this would be
violation of the spirit of the constitu-
ton it would not be violation of it's
letter; and therefore not strictly speak
ing violation of the oath of office Of
the Legislators. If the amendment is not
adopted there could certainly be no brib-
ing of the legislators to betray the wishes
of the people without violation of both
the spirit and the letter of the constitu-
ton.
But I do not fear the bribery of the
legislature whether the amendment is
adopted or defeated For many years we
have had prohibition in about half the
counties of the state I have heard of
no effort to betray the people In those
counties by repeating the prohibition laws
against their will. Legislatures some
times make mistakes of judgment but
when they do the people have the power
to correct them at the next election. Be-
fore the brewers and distillers could Sc
cure a repeal of the prohibition laws
they would not only have to buy a ma
jority of the legislature but also the
governor of the state, or would have to
buy two-thirds of the senate and the
house 1t may be that I am resting too
securely upon the honorable record and
high character of our governors and leg
islators since the days of reconstruction,
but I am totally unprepared to believe
that any such shame and degradation
confrontS our state.
Construction of the Amendment.
It seems that our best lawyers differ
on the proper construction of the amend
ment- | am not lawyer and must rely
largely upon the opinion of the mem bers
of the profession on that subject Emil
nent lawyers in whom [ have great con-
fidence, both in legal knowledge and per-
sonal integity, have expressed widely di-
vergent opinions of the restrictions of
the first section and the power conferred
by the second section. This should cause
all thoughtful citizens to hesitate. If it
were statute, when it was construed by
the supreme court 1t could be amended
by the Legislature If construed contrary
to the avowed purpose of its sponsors:
but not so with the constitutional amend
ment. Before it could be amended an
other constitutional amendment must be
proposed and voted on by the people of
the state. 1t seems to me It would be
bad Judgment to put something In the
constitution over which there is so much
difference of opinion as to its true mean
ing.
Second Section.
This section confers an unusual and ex-
traordinary power on the legislature So
far as / am advised such a provision
has never been Incorporated in the con-
stitution of any state In the union. What
ever may be the purpose of the present
trainers of the temperance laws with ref
erence to designating the homes as places
where whisky and wines may not be
kept, we are confronted with the propo-
sition that the legislature is vested with
absolute authority under police power
without limitations or exception of the
home to designate places where prohib-
tied beverages may not be stored or
kept.
The power contained in this section Is
may not be exercised? The power to VIC
their intention or purpose may be Is not
conclusive of the question. The fact ex-
lists that such power is forever conferred
on the legislature. We know the high
tides of extreme action to which the
whisky question often leads When the
whisky interests are in power they often
become arrogant and ntolerant. On the
other hand, when the people become
aroused their representatives are liable
in their anxiety to suppress the evils of
intemperance to take extreme and dras-
tic steps; and who can assure us that
with the power vested in the legislature
to designate the homes as places where
whisky and wine may not be kept, that as
result of some crusade against the
evils of intemperance that this power
may not be exercise? The power to vio-
late the sacredness of the home should
never be delegated by our people to the
legislature regardless of whether or not
there is any probability of the exercise
of such power.
The principal basis for the submission
of the amendment is the claim that the
legislature can not be trusted to retain
the present prohibition laws and the first
section of the amendment expresses that
distrust and attempts to provide against
such action by the legislature While
ordering an election of the whole state
on account of such distrust 1t does not
appear consistent to add In the same
election to the powers of the legislature
and say that it is wise to trust them
on the extraordinary power then given
and as conferred by section two In dis
cussing the first section the advocates of
the amendment say We cannot trust the
legislature. In discussing the second sec
tion the same advocates say we must
trust the legislature. The inconsistency
of these arguments Is SO apparent as to
cast grave doubts upon the soundness
of each.
Conclusion.
The only Limitation upon the legislature
is the constitution Of the United States |
and of the state. Matters of public policy |
which are no longer questions but settled |
principles in government and which have |
been accepted as such. may with propriety
be Incorporated in the organic law. Mat
ters which are still debatable questions |
and about which there Il wide divergence ]