The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-11-13
". s. THORLNGTONl
 MAKES CLEAR POSITION
November II. 1908.

November II, ts0s.
 In your issue of the 1ith inst, you published an article from Judge Thom- as w. Coleman on the proposed con- stitutional amendment In which he ioasiy written by me on the same sub 1ect. as he had a perfect right to do. l am sure. however, he does not wish to do me any injustice ,and yet be- cause of his having mistaken some of feet. fec ' s s ms ' :.
 For instance. he assumes that said the dictionary definitions of the word places do not include home. when places" as used In the amendment is not suggestive of the home and does not include home. and Atiil so insist. M M Ss sSa sssy nsssy M T easss s dictionaries give several different dst- tions. tc the ssias word. and the prop termined by the connect tiom1 or associa- ton In which the word is used. So In giving the definiticn of the word "placee the dictionaries give home us one of them. but of course. all the ds. @ instance if should say. there are places in Birmingham" no one could possibly understand what was meant by the word pieces. notwithstanding l
 
 should say. there are suitabie places in Birmingham for the restaurant business" my met,ning would be plain but no one would understand me as referring to homes but to business
 And, again. if I should say, There are good places in Birmingham for carrying. on the saloon business" no one would understand me as referring to homes but to business places.
 In each of these instances the mean- Ing of the word places" Is determined hy the connection and coliocatfon of words And so in the amendment the word places Is used in connection with the manufacture and sale of intoxi- cants and therefore has no connection with the home.
 The other point referred to by Judge Coleman Is my statement that the home Is not expressly mentioned in the amendment and could not be in- cluded in It by implication or con- struction. He lost sight of the predi- cate for this statement, which was the home was 8 common right which the state had never attempted to take away. that tt was right which our forefathers brought to this country 1t could not be taken away even by a constitution except by clear affirmative words. and that Is undoubtedly sound doctrine.
 In the Amer. & Eng. Ency. Of Law the following proposition is thorough ly supported by. authorities: "In con struing constitution. an intention to take away or destroy individual rights is never presumed; and to give effect to a design so unjust and so unreas- enable would require the support of the most direct and explicit affirmative declaration of such intent"
 There are certainly no express, al. rect affirmative words In the amend ment giving the legislature the power to deny to the people the common right to keep such beverages in the home, and as that power Is not ax- pressiy and affirmatively given in the amendment 1t could not exist st all even If the amendment should be adop-
 Nor did I say that the amendment would have to conform to the prohibi- ton statutes as Judge Coleman as. sumes when he expressed the hope that the constitution would never ton statutes. which. of course. would have been an absurd statement if had made 1t. My position was that In construing the amendment the court would not be confined to it's language alone but would also look to formei constitutions and to contemporaneous history. and that is generally recog' nized rule of construction for consti' amendment the prohibition statutes passed about the same time, and ther | in force. would be part of that con. | temporaneous history to which tnt court would look in arriving at tht | meaning of the amendment, and 1T doing that 1t would appear that on. | of the statutes expressly authorized 1 the serving of the prohibited beverage, | in the home, and that would be a fac | the court would consider in passins 1 on the meaning of the word places | in the amendment: and the cour would not give q meaning to th, | amendment which would destroy a par of the statute unless there was ar irreconcilabl ble conflict and that no con | fict would be irreconcilable which tn, ! court could by any reasonable con struction avoid.
 The Supreme Court of Alabama fl an opinion delivered by Judge Brick ell said: A new constitutional provis ion adopted by d people already hay | ing well defined institutions and sys | tems of law must not be construed a. intended to abolish -he former system except in so far as 1t Is in manifes | repugnance to the new constitution | and in determining the real scope am | meaning of the new provision 1t mus
 be read fin the light of the former lav | and the existing system. | This is all l contended for on thi
 proposition and l am amply supporte | by this decision.