The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-08-18
HOUSTON IS NOT RELIEVED Must Share Portion of
 Debt. GOT MAJORITY OF VOTES Fell Short of the Necessary Two
 thirds, However. Henry County Was on Hand With . stubborn Attack on the Attempt sf Houston County To Avoid
 the Debt.

Houston County. through it's House friends. won an apparent moral victory Dut siost the.r ngnI 10 be relieved oI part or Henry county's debt. wnen yesterday the piIl or mr. Lee Tor this purpose was lost because 1t lacxea a .wo-tnirds majority. This Was re- Quired. since 1t was not mentioned m me Governors call for the extra ses- sion.
 The bill received a majority of the votes cast on the measure. the journal showing SS tor and 35 against 1t.
 The battle occupied most of the af- ternoon session and was traught with the only intense interest that has aI- tached to local bill since the session began. Henry County was on hano with stubborn attack on the att tempt of her offspring to avoid what the former regarded as moral ana statutory debt which houston owes Henry.
 Henry fought through her represen- tatives. Messrs. Malone and Vann while Houston was championed in elo- quent style by MT. Lee of that county by MT. Pitts. Chairman of the commit tee reporting favorably on the biiL and MT. Rice of Tuscaloosa. member of the same committee.
 Houston County was formed Feb. ruary 9, 1903 .out/ of the Counties of Dale. Geneva and Henry. Section 124 of the Polotical Code provides generally in such cases that the inhabitants of new counties cut off from old counties are 'liablef in law and equity for the payment of their pro rata amount of the existing debt of the counties from which they have been severed"
 Under this section of the Code--the law existing at the time of the forma- tfon of the county Henry County has / tried to persuade Houston Coun- ty to 'come across'' with her share of about s1o,0oo of bonded indebtedness chargvable to Henry County and maturing in 1910 and 1914. This indebtedness existed at the time of the separation.
 But Houston, for what it's citizens claims are equitable reasons, refused to pay the alleged share of the debt. and when 1t seemed that suit would be brought to compel her, relief was sought in the Chancery Court. It was asked that Houston be relieved from the charge because there was in the Houston County treasury at the time of Houston's creation, about $1b.00o. This was alleged to have been 8 surplus to which property in the territory now embraced by Houston contributed In the ration of 3 to 2. As this was the state of the case, Houston averred that she owed no part of the debt because there were assets at the time of sev- erance more than the total indebted ness--the latter being estimated at e10,o0o.
 Twice the case went to the Supreme Court, which decided after fashion in favor of Henry County. but Houston friends declare that the decision in April last inferentially directed them to get relief from the Legislature. That was the cause of the bill. 1t was nd nm n of the law makers to finally adjudicate the dispute.
 Henry champions strenuously main- tained that the Legislature had once spoken on the controversy in the gen. eral law (Section t24), that the Su- preme Court had twice denied relief to Houston. and that even if the Leg islature should interfere and grant the relief it would be violating Section 95 of the Constitution. which forbids It's taking away @ cause of action already begun in the courts or pending.
 To this point. Mir. Pitts of Dallas, and other advocates of the bill. answered that Section 95 did not. in their opinion. relate to causes affecting political sub- divisions of the government and there- fore a retroactive law as in the pend- ing legislation would not be violative of the Constitution.
 Henry County's Flea.
 The following is part of the brief which Henry County Representatives laid on the desk of each member of the House:
 "Thsy are asking you to enable them to avoid an agreement as will now be shown. It is admitted that Houston County was formed out of parts of Dale, Geneva and Henry Counties with an agreement that Houston County should pay their pro rata of the Inc debtedness of each county Houston County paid Dale and Geneva Coun. ties the amount owed to each of them (though they could have made the p same defense as to those counties that they are making as to Henry County but they have never paid Henry Couns ty the amount due as was the agree. ment. It Is further admitted that Henry County then brought suit in the Circuit Court of Houston County for the amount that Houston was due Henry and the Circuit Court held if Houston had any defense 1t was in a court of equity.
 Therefore. Houston County dled bill in the Chancery Court setting up that while 1t owed Henry. still 1t had paid the amount alleging in its bill that when Houston County was formed that there was in the Treasury Of Hem ry County certain moneys which were collected as taxes and which as cash on hand 1t claimed in it's bill that cer- tain part of 1t belonged to Houston County: 1t is further claimed In its bill that Houston County should be allowed its part of the cash money that was on hand at the time the county was form- ed and severed from Henry.
 Tt was further alleged that should Houston be allowed that proportionate . part it claimed that 1t would amount to