The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-10-30
Tells Riverside Audience of
 Section 2 Dangers
ANSWER TO TH0RINGTON
Birmingham Attorney Maintains That Section 2 Would Be Accepted in Case of Conflict With
 Section 5.

T night to an audience of about 250. in eluding many ladies, against the consti- tutional amendment MT. Latady sub mitted an answer to the argument re- gently advanced by Judge Thorington in favor of the amendment. Mr Latady | said:
 There is nothing concerning which 1 entertain more serious misgivings than concerning the opinions of the learned. Cranmer was a learned man; but he did not agree with the Pope of Rome. Who was himself learned man; Calvin was learned man; but he did not agree with Cranmer; Servetus was a learned 1 man; but he did not agree with Calvin; and neither did Fox: nor Will Hams, nor Wesley agreed among them selves nor with the others I have men toned, and yet they all undertook to vent their opinions concerning the doc | trine of an unlettered man, a man Of the people, son of carpenter a com panion of publicans and sinners. How apt IS the scriptural comparison of faith with ! milk and honey, for neither milk nor money can be preserved in vessels of gold or silver, but in vessels of earthen-
 
 ware only. No more can these learned vessels preserve the word of God in it's integrity, and if it is to be found in it's purity 1t must be sought among the number vessels of clay more nearly re- lated to this same companion of publicans and sinners, this son of a carpenter, this man of the people. The question we nave under consideration can far more ha cd to pie with whom the rule of common sense obtains, than with the learned on either slde' the sine qua non being that the let 1 ter Of the law shall be submitted for their interpretation
 His honor, Judge Thorington. If he is correctly reported in the Evening News of October 23, says The same protec- ton is given by the prohibition laws against such an abuse (the invasion of the home) as has existed in all other cases; no warrant could be obtained un- der these laws without an affidavit being made that there is reasonablt cause to believe that the law is being violated and that the person against whom the war rant is being taken out is guilty of the onense, and the facts which justify tile belief must be stated in detail in the aft davit, and even then the officer is not authorized to issue the warrant unless he IS satisfied the affidavit is true and that IL Is made by a credible person.. Now, the true balance upon which to weigh this opinion Of his honor is the law itself which may not, in the minds of some of my hearers, be so pregnant of the secur- ity his honor is willing to accord to it. Now, section of the bill of rights reads: That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses. papers and possessions from unreasonable seizures or searches Mark you the word 'unreasonable' that Is they are not absolutely secure, the security being qualified by this same word unreasonable. This same section 5 of the bill of rights further provides: And that no warrant shall issue to search any place or to seize any person or thing without probable cause sup ported by oath or affirmation But sec ton of the proposed amendment reads Nothing in the constitution of Alabama shall be construed to prevent the legis- lature under the police Sower from designating places where such liquors may not be stored or kept Where. now are the constitutional or statutory pro- tections to which his honor appeals? What force or significance is left to this same word Unreasonable, if 1t shall not be found to comport with the police power to be conferred on the legislature by section of the propdsed amendment? What force and effect shall be given to the remainder of section of the bill of rights if it shall be found to be inconyeni- ent in the exercise of the police power to be conferred upon the legislature by this proposed amendment? I leave it to my audience as the triers of the cause. But let us not dismiss the matter so sum mariy. What statutory provision made in pursuance of the qualifications of the right of search given by section of the bill of rights have received the stamp n QcfQ at fftra nd tttIf ta1 many years? Section 775S of the code provides that a search warrant May be issued on any one of the following grounds:
 " I. Where the property was stolen or embedded
 " 2. Where it was used as a means of committing a felony.
 |" 8. Where 1t is- in the possession of any person with the intent to use it as means of committing a public offense, or in the possession of another to whom he may have delivered it, for the pur- pose of concealing it, or preventing it's discovery
 Now, the Fooler law, enacted by a Comercratic legislature, has provided as nearly within the limits of these provis- ions as the ingenuity of its author could devise for search for liquids kept for sale, the sale of liquors having been made public offense; and keeping them for the purpose of sale falls clearly wiAh- in subdivision three of the section of the code just read to you. But what dignity or sanctity do these statutory provisions possess when they shall be found to be inconsistent with the police power it Is proposed to confer upon the legislature by the second section of the proposed amendmtnt? The legislature is to have unlimited power to designate places where prohibited liquors may not be stored or kept, and there is nowhere therein a provision that the legislature shall not go beyond the tissue protection of the Fooler law
 "f there were such limitation upon the power of the legislature embodied n the proposed aAendment I should un- >doubtedy say that his honor, Judge Thorington, had expressed common sense opinion, and l should rely upon 1t as likely to be your opinion.
 But there is no such limitation upon the power to be conferred upon the leg isature, and your constitution might as well read; Section of the amendment of November 29 1909, shall be the su- preme law of the land, anything in the remainder of the constitution to the coz trary notwithstanding His honor Judge Weakley says: You can't fool the peo- ple They know we are not going to in- wade their homes To which beg leave to subjoin: You can't fool the people. They know we are not going to estab- fish any religion But would any of my auditors like to see that provision of the bill of rights stricken out whic.i reads: That no religion shall be establisted by law? VII answer for you, No! A thousand times no! And for the simple