The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1909-10-01

record (and that is what we are to be
guided by, the proposed amendments
might have been defeated had they voted
on it separately, or the election might
have been called at a different time. OF
course, we know from newspaper reports
that the proposed amendment would like
ly have been carried in any form, but
the courts in considering this matter CAM
not look to newspaper reports.
In the case of ex parte Selma and
Gulf Railroad company 46 Ala, 230, the
supreme court of Alabama had up the
question of holding an election by
county 10 determine whether the county
would take stock in railroad. This
election was held under an act of the leg
islatnre. The question submitted to the
voters was submitted with the provision
that the railroad company should build a
certain bridge. The supreme court said
that the proposal of a railroad company,
authorized by statute, TO a county to sub
scribe to the capital stock of such COM
pany, is manifestly confined to building
a railroad. The statute gives no authority
to add to the proposal something else as
a make weight to catch the people, and
to induce and influence them to vote for
a proposition containing two objects, one
to build railroad and the other TO build
a passenger and wagon bridge across the
ed with the building of railroad. If
that can be done. who cannot tell which
of the two objects had the greater weight
with the people to induce them to vote for
subscripton-the building of the railroad
or the building of the bridge? Who can
tell, in any given case, if the proposal
had been to build a railroad merely the
people would have voted for subscrip-
ton at all? 1t cannot be told In this
n
propositions, the one lawful and the other
unlawful. The said railroad company
joined the two together in their proposal
and they cannot now be separated The
whole proposal. therefore, is unlawful and
must be so declared.
The supreme court of Alabama in the
case of Crosswhite VS.. the commits
sioner's court of Colbert county, rendered
an opinion June 2, 1909. and the same is
reported in the advanced sheets, No. H.
Vol 4g, Southern Reporter, page $40 In
this case it was passed on an election
held to establish a stock law district
under the provisions of the code. The code
allows an election to be held to prohibit
certain named animals from running at
large in a given district. The court held
the election void because the people voted
on the proposition to prohibit, among
other animals, geese from running at
one of the animals that could be so pro-
hibited from running at large. The court
said
THE statute defines the issue to be sub
m1tted to the voters, and the addition of
extraneous matter to that issue most nee
essarily render uncertain. incapable of as
certainment. whether the majority would
have favored the creation of a stock law
district had the issue been unaffected by
oh
able that voter would favor the estab-
lishment of such a district If by the
election a lawful fence was to be de-
lined; whereas, if the determination of
what would be lawful fence was to be
desired by the proper authority, viz, the
commissioners court, without the infr-
ence of ballot thereon, he would not
so eorder his ballot. Such was the view
entertained by this court on a substantial
~ similar inquiry in ex parte, Selma and
Gulf Railroad company, 46 Ala, 2so. The
reasoning in the sited decision is, it seems
to us. conclusive in support of our opin-
ion in this instance. Like considerations
lead to a like conclusion with respect to
the enforcement of geese in the question
Submitted"
1t will be seen from the foregoing, If the
proposed amendment carries, the supreme
court of this state will be compelled, how
ever 1nuch IL may desire not to do so, to
declare that the proposed amendment can
not become a part of the constitution OF
the state.
havessubmitted this matter to a num-
Der of the best lawyers in this state who
agree with me in my opinion about the
matter. I do not write this in the spirit of
controversy, but with a desire that the
people may have an opportunity to con-
slider It for themselves. IT has been sug-
gested to me that say nothing about the
matter until after the election and then
spring 1t In suit. T do not think that
would ne right, so I give It to the people
in time for them to thoroughly investi-
gate It,