The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-09-12
STRONG REASONS
 GIVEN AGAINST
 THE AMENDMENT I Bowie and Campbell Show In- expediency of the Proposed Change In Organic Law
STATE SHOULD BE SLOW
 10 CHANGE CONSTITUTION
Experience of Other States Shows Lack of Desired Results When Prohibition Has Been lncor-
 porated Into Organic Law.

Bowie and E. K. Campbell, a member of the state democratic executive com mittee, both of whom are prominent attorneys of Birmingham, have written a joint letter to Lee Long giving their reasons for opposing the proposed prohibition amendment to the state constitution.
 The letter is regarded as one of the strongest that has yet been written. It comes with especial force in view of the fact that MT. Bowie and MT. Campbell were both in full sympathy with the proh hibition movement in Ala bama.
 The letter is as follows:
 Hon. Lee Long, Greenville, Ala.
 Dear Sir-Noting that you are ac- lively opposing the prohibition amend ment, we write to commend your ef- forts In that regard.
 We are opposed to the amendment putting proh hibition in the constitd- tion"-and, while there are seevral good reasons for rejecting it, we have yet to hear a reason which, in our judgment, shows either the necessity or the expendiency of adopting the amendment.
 Is Police Regulation.
 1. The prohibition laws come under the police powers of the state and. be- ing in the nature of police regulations, have no proper place in the constitu- tion. That instrument Is presumed to contain the framework of government, and to express the principles of or ganic law. The state constitution Is not a grant of power, and, under our system, the right and power to deal with questions of policei regulation. such as prohibition, are vested In the legislature. No police regulation, therefore, should be in the constitution, about the advisability of which there is material difference in the opinions of the people; and it will be found that where any police regulation appears in our constitution, 1t involves ques- tion about which there Is a substantial unanimty of opinion. But prohibit tion is not so, as yet, and there Is not only large element of our people who oppose 1t entirely, but there Is. per- haps, a larger element who question the wisdom of putting 1t into the or ganic law. These latter prefer to leave 1t where 1t properly belongs, in the hands of the legislature. Already some very stringent laws have been placed on the statute books relative to this question, and, whilst some parts of these laws indicate quite as much en- thusiasm as wisdom, they are as tight" as such laws can well be made and, If enforced, will ensure prohibl- tion. The amendment Is not necessary to the enforcement of these laws and 1t adds nothing whatever to any of them. Without the statutes, the amendment would be dead letter; and, with the amendment, the statutes are not a whit stronger or more eff fective, or any the more enforcible If, therefore, the prohibition statutes are, or can be, enforced, it is not necessary to adopt the amendment, or to put proh hibition In the constitution;" and if these statutes are not. or cannot be. enforced, then prohibition ought not to be in the constitution. The fact Is. that the enforcibility of prohibition laws depends on the sentiment to- ward them of the people in the local ity concerned. If the people in a given county oppose prohibition, the juries are likely to reflect that senti- ment and will not convict. It Is, tn ere fore, of much greater importance to cultivate a sentiment favorable to pro- hibition than 1t is to put it in the con- stitution.
 Only in Urgent Cases.
 ?. Changes in the organic law, by amendment. are not desirable except in urgent cases There have been, it seems to us too many amendments to our con- stitution already proposed. In the late call for an extraordinary session of the legislature several amendments were sug- gested Our constitution was framed by delegates sent by the people and select ed by the people for that special purpose, and the work of the constitutional con- vention was ratified by the people. It Is not an instrument to be tempered with. And 1t Is not desirable that legislators, sent to legisate under the constitution. should be continually submitting amend ments to the constitution itself Though the present constitution was only adopted after many years of urgent effort to get a new constitution. and after much discus sion of constitutional questions, 1t did not occur to the framers of that instrument that prohibition was one of the essential things. Nor were they unmindful of the importance of legislating on that ques- ton, for, while they threw around the leg islature many restrainst against local Legislation, the framers of that instru- ment, mindful of the importance of reg ulating or prohibiting intoxicants, pro yided, in section 104, as follows
 provided that nothing In this section or article shall affect the right of the leg islature to enact local laws regulating or prohibiting the liquor traffic."
 Under this provision a local law can be passed to regulate the whisky question. as by dispensary. for instance; or the sale can be prohibited by local laws. applicable to any one or more counties or localities. But the proposed amendment wipes out this power to regulate. now secured by our constitution. if it does not entirely re- peal section 104.
 If statewide prohibition succeeds all well and good: but If 1t falls. the new amendment will defeat any effort to do what can now be done under the consti- tuition. namely, relief by local legislation.