The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-10-24

than three months nor more than SIX
 months. at the discretion of the court
 or judge trying the case
 The carmichael bill was approved
 August eth. 1909. The Fuller bill was approved August 2sth. 1909. The Fuii- CT bill is therefore tho latest express sion of the Legislative will. and In case of conflict, ts controlling. Under sec .tion nine of the Fuller bill the social Eserving of liquors at private residences is absolutely prohibited. under heavy penalties. unless it fs on the front Isporch or with the doors open and the
 windows up in plain view of citizens, spies and informers who may congre- saee around or be passing by. ss | Mir Faith repeats the worn out and | exploded pretext offered as an excuse for section two of the proposed amend ment, to the effect that the same was rendered necessary by the decision of | the Supreme Court in the Bessemer IaAntf-Storage case. In order that this pretext may be used no longer to mis- lead the people I will quote both the Bessener Ordinance and section two of the Amendment. In this connection, |tit is to be noted that Judge weasiey admits the authorship of the amend
 ment, and 1t has been stated that he Is
 also the author of the Bessefner or
 iinance. At all events, the terms of
 the Bessemer ordinance were before him when the amendment was written. as he Is one of the attorneys of rec ord for the city of Bessemer in the application now pending for a rehear- ing in that case. Section one of the Bessemer ordinance as reported by the
 decision of the Supreme. Court con tains a clerical error. but its meaning
 Is perfectly manifest, 1 quote 1t as
 follows: ,,'-.'. | '.Be # ordained by the City Council lof Bessemer as follows: ..~s .., . That it shall be unla wful and con- stitute a violation of this ordinance if | any person, firm or corporation in the | city of Bessemer,, to have or keep on storage or deposit or have therein any | wines spirituous or malt liquors CT intoxicating liquors or any beverages
 which Is. the product of maltace or l gencase is a substantial ingredient. in
 beverages, are sold or kept for saie.s now quote section two of the pro- posed amendment: ..,s..ts 5 .,.si F@ | Nothing in this Constitution shall
 be construed to prevent the legisla-
 ture, under the police power from
 designating places where such liquors
 may not be stored or kept"
 It would take an intellect with more
 sstuteness than that of a Philadelphia
 lawyer to seriously maintain the prop
 osition that the amendment was mere l ty tntendedato meet the case provided
 for by the Bessemer ondinance. If this was its sole purpose. as has been | confidently and frequently asserted, l WI hts n al naf n~lo . | rCity of Bessemer" stricken out of that ordinance and "The State of Ala :
 bama' Inserted, and the ordinance It. l self presented for our consideration?
 Judge Weakley in an endeavor to l reconcile section two of the amend | ment with the section quoted from
 the Bessemer ordinance treated the
 Bessemer ordinance as If 1t related
 only to soft drinks. He says that if
 the amendment had been proposed In l that form there would not be a soft drink stand anywhere In Alabama. but they all would be hard drink stands.
 But the difficulty with this explana- ton Is. that neither soft drinks nor hard drinks are mentioned in the Bes- ] semer ordinance, but the same relates to "any drinks or. beverages" If the l purpose of this section was merely to
 meet the supposed evil resulting from
 the decision in the Bessemer case no
 language could possibly have been used
 50 inapt or inappropriate to that end. But MT. Faith insists that section two of the proposed arfiendnient gro
 vides merely for the regulation" of pHMes where 1t may not be kent. 'IiThM argument is far more ingenious
 than sound. There is nothing said I ab9ht regulation" in section two, It II is prohibition and not regulation that IFS found therein. The legislature shall net have the power to regulate inc places where hquors may or may not ] pc stored or Kept, but Its power Is to
 oesignate the. places jswhere they
 may not be stored or kepts, Ii is
 just as competent for the legislature
 nnder this section to designate the
 nome as place where liouors may not be stored or kept as 1t is to desir.
 nate store or an office or a club. One | or these places Is as well within the express terms of the section as inc
 other. and no sort of ingenuity or I sopnistory can evade or obscure the proposition. ,..,....-, -..''' has ben argued as the excuse for ttne adoption of the amendment that tps legislature in the future could moi oes rusted to maintain the prohibition 1tpopcyFi Fin force. It for this ver,, rao s- Fon5that we oppose section two of tho '| proposed atnendment In the ueb+ ns
 what this legislature has done who can say what another Legislature nav not do? When has the spirit of fa.
 naticism once unframed over been sat- isned? And 1t must be rememharea II that the present legislature does moi expire until 1911. and the Governor is
 great believer In extra sessions. V AS . hnal argument, it is claimed mat the right of the citizen to Laer
 nquor in his home is protected bv tbe
 interstate Commerce clause .oS th.,
 Federal Constitution. There ara .r,e
 answers to this suggestion. Tn ,ho 1 nrst place. the Interstate Compoa.as I clause of the Federal Constitutior AZ not apply after the liquor has been re
 rs.ved in the State and deliveroS
 when this occurs. the police nouor o.
 the State attaches, and the FaSao,
 Consultation disappears. All that Is
 provided by the Intersate commeroo
 clause Is the right to shin fror, ,ao l state to another, and even that right
 ist proposed to be taken away, not. if 1 Is true, by he act of the Legislature
 but by the act of Congress, which
 has express Jurisdiction over the sub- I Jeet. 5 ste
 l Mir. Faith we'll knows. as does every other man of intelligence in the State.
 that pr. W. B. Crumpton; the presi. dent of the ti-Saloon League of l Alabama and Mir Brooks IawrAnce