The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-09-20
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Amenders and Defenders.

|
 To the Editor of The Age-Herald
 There are some significant admissions in the declarations put forth by the late meeting of the constitution amenders, and they show the deceltfulness of the issue which these amenders are trying to make. They say: "But we do declare that we are | free from saloons" All sides are agreed on that proposition, and the constitution defenders declared at Montgomery that the saloons. having been eliminated by 1 law, were no issue in the present cam 1 paign.
 Everyone knows that the adoption or 1 the rejection of the amendment does not affect the statutes on the subject of pro- hibition But in their effort to conceal the real purpose and to give some color to their pretensions, the amenders indulge l In prophecy as to what may happen if l their proposal Is rejected. They attempt to obscure the real issue. and the admis- sions they make expose the attempt to deceive the people. According to the amenders we not only are free from sa- 1 looms, but I've now have prohibition, cured by law, so far as statutory pro- vision can secure it. And not only does this condition prevail according to them. but 1t Is backed by the people, for, say they, Prohibition Is not an experiment, the will of the people Is in its favor, be- yond question" Whether prohibition Is an experiment or not depends on whether one Is referring to the statutes or to their enforcement Of course, we have the statutes-the Carmichael bill, the Fuller bill and all the bills-but if enforcement of prohibition stautes was not in it's ex- perimental stage, why was it deemed necessary that the statewide" prohibi- ton statutes (the original Carmichael bilD should be strengthened by further en- actments in the more recent extra ses- son?' Either the statutes or the en- forcement of them had not been com pleted The experiment, to an extent. at l least, had failed.
 And surely no one can yet say that these further enactments in the more re- cent extra session" have been tried very long, Hence, the declaration of the | amenders that prohibition Is not an ex- pertinent in Alabama is open to question. But with freedom from saloons and with "prohibition secured by law, so far as statutory provision can secure It, and with "the will of the people in Its favor, beyond question:" as they declare we do not think they made good their statement of the real issue. If the saloon alone Is the issue, why was a second section add ed to the proposed amendment to the constitution? The first section said every thing that could be said that can be di- rected toward the saloon, and said every thing that any other state which has con stitutional prohibition-and there are only four or five of them-has said. The amenders did not tell us, in their declara- ton, what was meant by the second sec ton. Nothing in the constitution of Ala bama shall be construed to prevent the legislature, under the police power, from
 designating places where such liquor
 may not be kept" It is signih-
 cant that this section Is part Of the
 amendment, and is included in the general
 programme. It is far-reaching, and, when
 nut into the constitution, will certainly
 qualify some right which Is there now
 to protect the people. Otherwise, 1t would
 not be proposed
 The defenders of the constitution, point
 ing to that great clause in our bill or
 rights-which has been in our constitution
 since Alabama became a state, and was
 early inserted into the federal constitu-
 ton. and will be found in the constitutions
 of all the states-namey, that clause
 which secures the people in their persons
 and homes from unreasonable searches and seizures say that they fear this new
 provision, because legislature may des-
 ignate the home as a place where such
 liouors' (and they include alcoholic and ) malt liquors and other intoxicating bev-
 erages) may not be kept" and when a , legislature, spurred on by these leaders . who have been demanding so much leg
 islation to satisfy their capacious nav for more laws, shall designate the dwell ings and homes of the people as places where "such liquors may not be kept, searches and seizures will follow.
 The issue has not been correctly stated
 by the amenders. They bec1oud the issue Having now prohibition secured by law "so far as statutory provision can secure
 it, can it be doubted that if this amend
 ment be adopted they will then go to the
 limit and legislate further, crossing tht
 line at which our present consttulor checks and holds them at bay? It is 5 not only an amendment, but it changes . the present organic law and the people are called upon to yield something of thu f rights which they have sacredly guarded , during all our constitutional history. If . as the amenders fear, legislatures here after elected may yield to the importuni
 ties of the saloon people, is not there
 danger that legislature may yield to thu
 demands of these amenders and, going thu - fuil length, lay the ground work fo l. searches and seizures in the homes? a A strong reason for the insistence of tn, a amenders is found in the declaration tha . their leaders are tired of guarding tn political changes. Here 1t is: "At pres
 ent the only bar to the return of the sa
 loon Is the ceaseess watch and guardin : of the prohibitionists over the polItica !, changes In the government But 1t 1 neither creditabIe to the state nor just t it's citizens to expect the public interest
 to be guarded by private effort and at in Aividual expense." This Is the first tim