The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-09-19
Local Attorneys on the
 Situation.
CULVER BELIEVES
 OBJECTION IS UNTENABLE
C1fes Numerous Reasons for Taking View He Announces-Candi- dates for City Judge
 ship Are Securing
 Advice.

leading attorneys of Montgomery there e no doubt but that the act making { nc judges of the City Court of Mont \ wonery is elective. They say that no technicality will be able to defeat the intSnt of the act which is to permit the people of Montgomery County to elect their judges
 Opinions secured from leading attor- neys indicate that the proposed light against the election will not be based upon sufficient reason for the act to be held invalid and that the election will be held according to the terms of the law.
 Michel H. Screws and John A El. more. candidates for the place of Asso- ciate Judge. some days ago consulted attorneys who confirmed their opinion that the law was valid and that the election would be held as the law di- rected, and the man elected seated. This is confirmed by opinions secured by Colonel Alexander Troy, a candf- date for the place and who, like Messrs Screws and Fillmore, have made a caa- vass for the place.
 Mir. Troy was convinced that the in- tent and purpose of the law should be carried out and he was convinced that the law was constitutional, but ne SC. cured the opinions Of some of the lead. ing attorneys on the question raised by which 1t was attempted to prevent the people of the County from selecting the Associate Judge.
 He wrote Hon. W. A. Gunter the following letter:
 s.Tn The Advertiser of Sunday last, the 18th inst, there appeared an inter view with n prominent attorney in which the attorney volunteered the opinion that the act of the Legisla- ture of Alabama, approved July 2s, 1907, providing for the election of a Judge and Associate Judge of the City Court of Montgomery by the people of this County is unconstitutional.
 "As . citizen of the county. and with out regard to the fact that expect to be q candidate for the office of Asso- ciate Judge of the Court, respectfully request you to give me your opinion in writing as to the validity of the act"
 To which he received this reply:
 Mr. Gunter says:
 ssYcu ask for my opinion on the point whether or not the act of the Legtsla- fure making the offices of Judge and Associate Judge of the City Court of Montgomery elective is unconstItution- al. on the alleged ground that the title is single. while the body of the act is double.
 .The purpose of the clause of the constitution requiring singleness of the subject of every law and its expression in the title is not intended to embar- rass honest legislation. but only to prevent the vicious practice of Joinimg in one act heterogeneous and unrelated matters:' and the pH ovision must be given a broad and ext Wlded meaning, 50 es to allow the Legislature full scope to include in one act all matters having q logical and natural connec- tfon.. Of course, under this view, 1t cannot be said that the body of the act in question treats of more than one general subject
 sThe rule in reference to the express sion in the title is tLat the provisions embraced in the body of the act shall be congruous and have natural com nsction with. or be germane to the subject expressed in the title.'
 'The title in question is: TO make the Judge of the City Court of Mont gomery and the Associate Judge of the City Court of Montgomery elective by the people The body of the act goes on to prescribe date of election and term of ofiice Of the elected Judges. shortening thereby the rerms of the in- cumpent Judges. It seems reasonably plain that the specification of the date of election and the term of office as to commencement and ending are matters cognate, germAne and referrable to the subject of the election of judges ex- pressed in the title. which Is all that is necessary. The thought of electng judges has a natural connection with the date and manner of election and the term of office of the elected per sons. If the subject Cprovisions, is the better word) embraced by the statute, but not specified in the title, have con gruity or natural connection with the subject stated in the title, or are cog. nate or germane thereto, the require ment of the constitution is satisfied.
 'aThe precise question seems to be decided in State vs. Price, 50 Ala, 568. In that case the title was: An act to ratify and confirm the election held on the 4th. 9th. 9th, 7th and Sth days of February. 1868. for Commissioners of Revenue of Mobile, Chambers and Baldwin counties, and providing for filling vacancies in said board, and the body of the act included a provision extending the term of office of the per sons elected. The court upheld the law. saying: Section of Article of the State Constitution must not be construed as to defeat the reasonable purpose for which 1t was intended. 1t is one thing to prevent gross imposi- ton on the public in the passage of laws, and another to include under one caption or title matters germane to the principal subject" In this case the terms of incumb ents are shortened. in that case they were prolonged. The principle in the two cases are identical. The officer In neither case being con