The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-12-17
HOLD BILL FOR BIG CITY GOOD Greater Birmingham Is Now
 Assared. SUPREME COURT DECISION Justice Sayre Answers Attack ol
 BilRs Opponents. u Lengthy opinion and withsuf Dis- seat, Jurist Takes Up Mest saE- niacant of the Fourteen
 Pssnts of Attack.

creation of Greater Birmingham for more than two years. lost their last redoubt Thursday. and the greater city is assured by the decision of Mr. Justice Sayre of the Supreme Court. upholding the King bill
 Every significant point of attack of the fourteen which were raised by the assailants Of the bill was answered by the decision of the court There was 10 dissent-
 Birmingham awaited. breathiess. the result. As soon as the decision of the court was announced Thursday morn- ing. teiegrams and telephone mes sages were fired to various men in the northern city bearing the news.
 A greater Birmingham has been the dream of a resoiute faction for years. The faction has been opposed by an- other as resolute.e The original King bill. providing for the extension of the city limits. was passed during the session of 1907. shortly before the time of It's operation. 1t was found to be unconstitutional because of errors on the Senate Journal.
 At the extra session of 1909, the at- tempt was made to pass a second bill. Ik was one of the Issues of the ses- sion. Ensley. the largest town con- ttBnous to Birmingham. opposed an- uexRtion and the fight waxed hot The bull as finally passed, excluded Ems ley
 Governor Conner returned the bill. recommending an amendment where by Ensley was included In the amend ment The amended bill passed By It's provisions the city limits of Bir- mlngham were to be extended over a doubled area. and so as to embrace q doubled population. It was to be eff xeetive January 1. 1910.
 Fight in Court.
 Immediately the recaicitrants began their fight. They attacked the bill in eeilor Benners held the bill unconsti- luIionaL An appeal was taken to the supreme Court. and the Chancellor re- yarsed and the bill sustained.
 appeals were taken in two cases. that ok James Robinson, of Montgomery. against the City of Ensiey, and the oth-g CT that of the city of Ensiey against simpson The opinion of Jus xace sayre was. drawn from the Simp- son case. and the rulings applied to the analogous Robinson case.
 The opinion is lengthy, covering fif- teen closely typewritten pages. and in this respect is in keeping with the bulky arguments offered by the assaii- ants of the bill
 Acts Net la Censzaes.
 At the nrst Justice Sayre takes up the argument that the local act. pro- yidfng for the extension of Birning- ham boundaries. was in conflict with general act of the Legislature, pass ed prior to the other. The general act provided for the annexation by cities or towns of contiguous municipalities. Of this the justice says
 Here Gin the King bill) the, Leg 1slature has embodied in one compre- hensive scheme the inclusion, not only pf contiguous territory and municipal itfes. but of municipalities not contig- uous at the time of the passage of the bill- True, under the general law the same result might have been obtained by tedious and embarrassing process of repeated additions to the territory of absorbing city but the Legislature had the right to weigh the sdvantagss of the scheme as a whole and enact law accordingly to accom- plish the desired end at one stroke. Under no general law could the same considerations be submitted to the same electorate or the same result reached in the same way"
 Rights of Legislature.
 The next contention of the attack up- on which the court expatiates Is that the passage of the King bill was an arbitrary exercise of legislative discre- ton. As to this. Justice Sayre quotes the case of Hunter vs Parrish, POT u. s. If the State grants the charter of municipality. 1t is the States prerogative and right to effect change or modification in the charter, Is tho general trend of the citation. The granting of charter is in no sense n contract between municipality and State that cannot be abridged because of Federal constitutional limitations, 1t was cited. The attack. in hte rGeat- CT Birmingham case, had hung one plea upon an alleged inhibition of the Federal Constitution which. it was claimed, would apply in this case. The opinion said;
 ''The State may. at it's pleasure. mod fly or withdraw all such powers, may take without compensation such prop erty, and hold it itself or vest 1t in other agencies. expand or contract the territorial area, unite the whole or part of it with another municipality, repeal the charter and destroy the cor poration. All this may be done. con