The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-09-12
Candidates Now Arc at
 Variance.
 JUSTICES REACH POINT OF MOST INTENSE RIVALRY
 ]! Personal Matters Are Sunk
ose of Contestants Issues statenent in whioh He Outlines Ills Pc sftien--The Natter h
 the Air.

A more or less important political sensation has been created by the an- nouncement that because of the alleged unconstitutionality of the act making elective the Judge and Associate Judge of the City Court of Montgomery. there will be no election for those two of- aces next year, and that the incun,- bents. Judge w. H. Thomas and Judge Armistead Brown, will continue in of- nce. The claim does not settle the question. but 1t does open way for a court proceeding will be inaugurated to prevent an election.
 The fight next year over the position of Judge and Associate Judge of the City Court of Montgomery promises to be one of the most notable contests in Montgomery County. The announce. ment that the law Is defective and that the judges cannot be elected by the people, will come as . distinct sur prise. At any rate. the claim fore casts some kind of q fight on the act.
 The candidates. real and possible. for the position will, 1t Is claimed, con- tinue their canvasses for the place. and unless the contest Is stopped in some way. claim the places if they win
 Tse reason for the faith of the at- torney who says that as the act is un- constitutional. there shall be no elec- tion. is clearly set forth.
 What One says.
 This prominent attorney says he has run across constitutional defects In the legislative act of July 2s. 1907. page 517, of the General Acts of the regular session, 1907. which will. no doubt, cre- ate a sensation in the local political circles.
 The act referred to. he says. att tempted to shorten and change the terms of ofice of the Judge and Asso- ciate Judge of the City Court of Mont- gomery. In this repect, the attorney asserts that the act is clearly unconsti- tutional and void. and that the terms of the Montgomery City Court Judges remain as they were under the original acts creating said offices.
 -@ If this contention be weil-founded. then Judge Browns term will not ex- pire until 1918. or about four years from now, and Judge Thomas's term will not expire until 1915, or nearly six years off.
 The well known attorney gave as his reasons for this statement to an Ad- Nertiser representative, as follows:
 'Under the original act of February 1873, 1t was provided that sfter the ex- piration of the term of the then Judge of the City Court of Montgomery, the
 
 the person thus selected should be Judge of the Court and should hold his once for six yearA and in case. or any vacancy in the effico. the vacancy should be fliad by appointment of the Governor and the person thus appoint ed should hold the offics until the close of the next ensuing session of the Gem eral Assembly. at which time. or course, his successor. elected as above provided for. should the ofiics for six ..rhe act of February 2. 1901. cre- ating the office of Associate Judge of the City Court of Montgomery. provid- cd that the Associate Judge should be elected by the Senate and should hold his ofice for six years. and that every six years thereafter successor should be elected. This act further provides that vacancies in the offlce should be filled by appointment of the Governor. and that such appointee should hold his office for the unexpired term.
 Gome Statistics.
 "Judge Thomas was elected by the Senate to the Associate Judgeship in February, 1901. and was reelected to n full six-year term in February. 1907. He resigned in February. 1908, to &C., cept the senior judgeshfp. and Judge Brown was appointed by tho Governor to i'll the unexpired term. Judge