The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1909-01-03
TAKE BACK YOUR
GOLD, IT'S NO GOOD"
Application for License to Sell
Liquor Is Refused
MANDAMUS WRIT DENIED
Legal Proceedings Are Begun In Selma
To Test the State Prohibition Law
and the Case Will Go to
the Supreme Court.
MANDAMUS WRIT DENIED

Selma, January 2-(Special)-Four
hundred and fifty dollars in gold, with
an additional so cents in silver, was ruth
lessly pushed back to the tenderer today
by Judge P. H. Pitts, judge Of probate,
and the application made by Arthur Coll
man for license to lawfully sell vinous,
spirituous and malt liquors was refused.
The tender of the application and IL
cense money was made by ]. T. Letcher
of Montgomery, a member of the firm
of Troy, Watts & Letcher, the firm with
Attorney Lee H. We'll. also of Montgom-
cry added, having been employed by the
liquor interests of Mobile, Montgomery
and Selma to contest the constitutionality
of the Carmichael statutory prohibition
law. Mr. Letcher reached Selma In the
morning and after comforting with local
liquor interests went to the courthouse
where he saw Judge Pitts and the latter
set the hearing OF the case for the noon
hour. At that time Mr.. Leteher, with
Mr.. Goldman, appeared and presented the
old form of application with the names
of 20 property holders thereon. Mr..
Letcher rendered to Judge Pitts $3.50 In
gold and the application, then commenced
an argument on the constitutionality of
the law. At the conclusion of the argu-
ment, which lasted about an hour and
10 minutes, Judge Pitts, was expected,
refused to accept the money and declined
to issue the license.
NJ fba lou 10
attacked on section &c of the constitu-
ton, as has been stated, but upon section
Ga, which reads:
Section GA. No amendments to bills shall
be adopted except by majority of the
house wherein the same is offered, nor
unless the amendment with the names Of
those voting for and against the same
shall be entered at length on the journal
of the house In which the same is adopt
ed, and no amendment to bills by one
house shall be concurred In by the other
unless a vote be taken by yeas and nays
and the names of the members voting
for or against the same be recorded at
length on the journal"
The contention is that in amendments
to house bill Z Carmichael bilD in the
house changing sections 8, 10 and u
and adding section 10, said amendments
were not set out at length as provided
for in the section of the constitution No.
GA. In, section when the bill was before
the house the journal of that body shows
that an amendment was passed, "strik-
! ing out the word pint in the fourth line
and inserting half-pint." That such man
ner of amending the bill does not Set out
the amendment at length. The contention
against section ~ is that the words Sec
| ton 10' in the amendment Is not set
out, the section having been amended
| by striking out section 10 and insert
| ing In lieu thereof, etc"
1t is the contention to section u of the
bill where the unique part of the contest
against the constitutonality of the law is
made. 1t seems that in the engrossed bill
II. r. Z, two sections numbered u ap-
pears and between them is the word cor"
The printed copy of the house journal
contains the two sections numbered u,
but the wore or does not appear. When
the bill vert over to the senate an amend
ment was offe<ed and adopted striking out
| the woIS or, and adding a provisor 10
the first section II and the second section
| Il was stricken out The claim of the
attorneys for the liquor interests is that
sections which express an alternative as
y
| mean nothing as no choice is expressed
| by the vote thereon, no more than man
| going to hotel and sayirsy he would take
| tea or coffee would express the beverage
| of his choice. The claim is therefore set
| up that the bill amended by the senate
| was not in fact the bill passed by the
house, nor the bill signed by the governor
| was the bill passed by both houses, and
| it is therefore invalid and unconstitu-
| tional and that the law in effect prior to
| its passage is effective and the license
| should be granted
The decision of Chief Justice McClel-
| land in the 141 Alabama In the case of
| Grove VS.. the Board of Revenue of JEFF
| fcrson county, is cited on the point that
| no conjecture must be taken as to what
| the legislature intended, and a case from
| Cleburne county in the 145 Alabama, de-
| cision rendered by Justice Anderson is
| cited in the contention as to setting out
at length of the amendment.
Mandamus Writ Denied.
This afternoon Attorney Letcher went
before Judge j. w. Mabry of the city
| court of Selma and made application for
| bate Judge to issue license to Mr. Coll
man. The constitutionality of the meas
ure was argued before Judge Mabry
| briefly, the same grounds being alleged
as before the probate judge and Judge
| Mabry denied the writ. The attorney
stated after the hearing that an appeal
would be Immediately taken to the SUI
preme court.