The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-20
Failure of Antis In
 Fight for Mandanaus

of inc state ex rel woodward vs. Six eggs. decided by the Supreme Court adversely to flNe rpetitioners contention on Apris g.. 1908. that is to say U seeks to compel Judge Of frooate to issue q license for the sale Of spir- ituous. vinous and malt liquors. It involves one question only, which .is the identical question involved in the case just referred to, and is. whether the petitioner. correctly amrms that the Statewide prohibition law. ap- proved November 23. 1907. is unconsti- tutional and void.
 There Is no occasion to wait fur ther to know the mind of the highest court of the State on that question. and counsel for the petitioner freely comedies the decision of that court to be binding upon this to the full extent of. everything decided. They say. how ever. that certain objections to the constitutioanlity of the act were not urged upon the court on the hearing of that case. nor referred to by the courtIin its written opinion. and that in consequence this court is free to act upon It's own, judgment as to what effect they ought to have upon the act.
 But in ruling upon the demurrer. l have no rights to take evidence as to what was urged upon the court in that case, nor can assume that in the
 
 Court. thought it necessary or proper to answer every argument advanced. Looking to the record of that case, as I have looked. 1t appears that Tn state vs. Skeggs, the demurrer raising the question of the unconstitutionality of the act. took the form of the general assertion that the act was constitu- tional. The defendant was under no duty to speculate as to the objections to the act had in mind by the petition err or tb assign them for him. Neces- sarily then, the question before the court was In the form: Is the act un- constitutional for any reason whatev- err That was pure question of law. in deciding which I cannot conceive that the ocurt permitted itself to be confined and limited by the suggestions Of the counsel In argument Such a course in cases generally would put the court at the mercy of counsel who, for lack of learning or candor. might pass the most pregnant suggestions sub silentfo. Nor does the fact that the Supreme Court in writing its opinion made no reference to those considera- tions which are said to be urged now for, the first time, authorize this court to assume that they were not weighed.
 "As a matter of law that court knew the law of the case, had in mind every consideration bearing upon 1t, and
 
 these points. because, in It's opinion, they desirsed none Nothing being in- volved but the validity of the act, It's declaration was not only concrete to that case, but abstract and applicable to all cases So I think the decision in the State vs Skeggs conclusive on this court of all questions affecting the constitutional validity of the State wide prohibition
 Moreover, I feel safe in affirming of the alleged defects of the passage of the act in question. which are supposed to be brought forward now for ,the first time by the research of counsel, that one has no merit, and that the other, if 1t has merit was considered by the Supreme Court
 CD Section 64 of the Constitution of 1901, contains provision new Athat constitution, and, as am inforremd, peculiar to that of all American con- stitutions It provides that "No amend ment to bills shall be adopted :. unIess-fhe amendment .. shall be entered at length on the 1ournei of the house in ywh ich the same Is adopted" With reference to the act in question, the Journal of the House of Represen- tatives shows that the standing com mittee on temperance reported an afTiendfnent as follows:
 Amend Section 5 by striking out the word one pint in the third line of said section by inserting In Aeu thereof the words 'one-half pint"
 Petitioner contends that the passage was not in compliance with the quoted provision of the constitution do not know what purpose the provision