The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-12-17


 tionally, with or without the consent of the citizens, or even against their pro- test. In all of these respects the state is supreme, and It's legislative body, con- forming it's action to the state consti- tuition, may do as 1t will. unrestrained by any provision of the constitution of the United States Although the inhabitants and property owners may, by such changes, suffer inconveniences, and tiseir property may be lessened In value by the burden of increased taxation or for any other reason, they have no right, by con tract or otherwise, in the altered or con tinued existence of the corporation or its powers, and there is nothing in the fed eral constitution which protects them from these injurious consequences. The power is in the state, and those who legislate for the state are alone respon- sible for any unjust or oppressive ex- ercise of it.
 Offensive to Section 1o6.
 In the next place we are asked to con- slider whether the act be not offensive to section 106 of the constitution. The jour nal of the house of representatives shows as proof of notice an affidavit of one James J. Smith. who deposes and says that he was the publisher of the Birming- ham Ledger a newspaper published in the city of Birmingham, Jefferson county, Ala. and that the notice, copy of which was attached, was inserted, published, and appeared regularly in the said Bir- mingham Ledger once week for four consecutive weeks, without cost to the state of Alabama. This was subscribed and sworn to on the 2Sth day of July. 1909. The attached copy of the notice was in the following words and figures: Notice is hereby given that at the next special session of the legislature of Ala bama, which will convene in the city of Montgomery on the 27th day of July, 1909. a bill will be introduced for passage, the substance of which will be''-here followed the bill in extenso. This bill was introduced into the house on July %, 1909. It is contended that the journal does not show publication once a week for four consecutive weeks, but only the conclu- sion of affiant that such publication had. been made. In support of this contention state ex rel Frederick vs. Brodie, 14S Ala, SS1, is cited. In that case the affi- davit stated that notice stating the sub stance of the foregoing bill. and the in- tention to apply for tho enactment of such into law, was duly published in the Ensey Herald, at least once a week for four consecutive weeks, prior to the day hereof" This was said to fall short of legal proof of the publication of the sub- stance of the bill as showing nothing more than the conclusion of the witness
 
 stance of the bill. Nothing was said as to the notice being defective in other re- spects, though in the respect now ma terial 1t was Identical with the notice here in question Such also was the case in Childers VIZ. Shepherd, 142 Ala, 8S5, in which the notice was held to comply with the constitutional requirements. The ar gument now is that the affidavit shows nothing moro than the conclusion of the witness that publication made had been begun four entire weeks before the intro duction of the bill. The affidavit was ac- cepted by the legislature as sufficient, and some imperative reason must be made to appear why we should hold otherwise We do not question the de- die, supra. In that case 1t was obvious that statement that the substance of the bill had been published conveyed no intimation as to what had been pub- lished. Here, however, the statement as to the length of time during which the publication had been made Followed me language of the constitution. It was in a sense, to be sure, the statement of con- clusion, as every statement must be-. Hut 1t was not an offensive conclusion. Witnesses are permitted to state many conclusions where they may involve nec- essarily certain facts. Such conclusions are fndulged as statements of collective facts. But witnesses are never permitted to state the contents of parer writing, nor to state that one paper is substan- tial copy of another. If publication begun ot least four weeks in advance of the tn- Production of a bill Is the only publica- tior which complies with the language of the constitution requiring publication for four consecutive weeks. the meaning Of the language of the affidavit must be that publication was begun at least four weeks before the bill et issue was intro duced. The legislature, in the discharga of its sworn duty. so interpreted the al. ndayit. that interpretation was not strained. forced, or unnatural. and we viii not say that there was breach of constitutional duty in so accepting 1t.
 Spread He Protest.
 member of the house caused to be spread upon the journal of the house his l protest against the passage of the bill, ] what other reasons he had for protesting are immateriai to this inquiry; but he in- corporated into his protsst an affidavit made by the secretary and business man. arer of the Birmingham Ledger to the the effect that the frxt publication of 1 the bill in that paper had been made on i the 22d day before its introduction into l the house. But we cannot look to tha 1 protest in order to convict the house of l wrong doing, nor to impeach It's action in ! passing the bill in any respect Section i, $ of the constitution provides that Any member of either house shall have liberty to dissent from or protest against any act or resolution which he may think lnjuri- ous to the public or to an4individual. and have the reason for his dissent entered sn the 5ouxnal." But 1t was nsver intend-