The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-10-06
Letters to The Editor
Shall Rights and Principles be Tram
 oaea Under Foots

ant Issues. which are inseparapie from
 our form of government but wnicn
 are of . character which tney saoola change in their Constitution-en ai-
 teration of their organic law-the peace and good order of society peihe
 best subserved by having the nxea
 principles of government so that all persons may understand them. The Constitution as adopted py tne convention of 1919, remained tne Sanic law of the State until 1851, Wltn
 but three changes, the first in 1880.
 the second in IS46, the third in 1850.
 The Constitution of 1861 remained un-
 tfl 1865, then another Constftution was adopted. which continued until lsbe.
 when another was adopted, which con-
 tinued until 1875. This last Constitu- tfon was never amended. although sev-
 ana it ssmained uneItersd usti isei The cause of the changes in 1881. lS6o. 1888 and 1875 Is well known tp all men,
 to be due to the Civil War and carpet
 Dag rule,-conditions which will never
 The present Constitution was adopt
 ed In 1901, and this Legislature In 1907, submitted three propositions so
 amend it. two of which were rejected Not satisfied with the action of the people in rejecting these two amend
 ments, the Governor included them Tn
 his call for the extra session, which
 although 1t declined to re-submit them.
 did submit the prohibition amendment
 upon which the people are tol'ass on
 November 29th.
 | If the purpose of our Constitution,
 both State and Federal, and the funda-
 mental principles upon which our rep
 resentative form of government are founded, have been correctly under
 stood by all the great jurfsts, states
 men and students of political economy, | the Constitution of the United States
 Is grant of power, and the general l government has only such powers as ! aaw. c1rr n Q
 necessary and proper to carry out the | power expressly granted.
 On the other hand, the constitutions
 of the several States are limitations on | the power of the several legislatures, and in passing upon their acts. the
 question Is not whether the Constitu-
 ton grants them the power to pass the i law, but whether 1t prohibits them | Hull power to pass any law that the people, by their declarations embraced | In the Constitution have not forbid 1 them to pass.
 Have the people forbidden the Leg i islature to pass laws prohibiting the
 sale of other disposition of liquors2
 No. The Supreme Court of Alabama
 has upheld the acts of this Legislature prohibiting the sale or disposition of
 intoxicating liquors throughout the entire State of Alabama, so we have prohibition as effectually as we could possibly have 1t under the provisions of the first section of the proposed amendment, and nothing can be gained of this country. and especially the peo- ple of Alabama, have in the past re- garded and properly so, their Consti- tuition as the charter of their liberties, as Is Magma Charter. wrung by our forefathers from King John at Run
 nymede, the foundation of the liberty of the English speaking race from that day to this. Are the people of Alabama dN n NIRa atant tArf oh ra nt taE of a Constitution, and say that it shall no longer serve the purpose for which 1t was intended, @ declaration of fun- damental principles. limiting the pow and protecting every man in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hap piness. to an instrument. which says not to the legislative body. you must the State, you must not construe the fundamental and inalienable rights se- cured by this instrument to all the peo- pie as applying in any manner to tn- toxicating liquors. or the use and hay ing In possession of such liquors
 The Legislature may say that no
 place is sacred as against legislative
 enactment directed against liquor, and ! for this purpose we declare that the 1 maxim of the common law. Every mans house is biss castle,''' shall mo
 Legislature may authorize the invasion of the home when it sees ht
 Long ago, Lord Chatham, speaking
 of the sacredness of the home Of an
 man in. his cottage may bid defiance
 to all the forces of the crown; it may be frail, it's roof may shake. the wind
 may blow through 1t, the snow may enter, but the King may not enter, and all his forces dare not cross the
 threshold of the ruined tenement.
 Such Is the protection afforded the
 subjects of the King of England. Such ha nf establishing constitutional government among us Regulation of details, the prescribing of rules, for the conduct of mankind. so as to preserve the rights of the masses against the action of
 the individual were left to the legis-
 lative discretion. subject to onstitu- tlonal safeguards; but now we are ask ed to tear away these safeguards, to put these legislative or police regula- tions into our organic law, to say to our courts that although heretofore
 you have interpreted the Constitution as protecting a man in his home and property, you must do so no longer If he Is accused of any violation of the liquor law. The sanctity of the home
 al guarantee. The home Is subject to your will, and you may authorize its entry and search for liquor.
 But the advocates of this amendment say that they dc not intend to invade the home, and have not done so. We can only judge of their intention by their actions. Let us examine their acts, and then draw our conclusions 1 They were in absolute control of this Legislature, and passed certain acts
 known as the Carmichael and Fuller bills. Let us examine these acts and l If they show a fair and deliberate de- | termination not to destroy the ancient
 and fixed principles of a free govern
 ment of free people. then let us ac-
 cept their statement of their inten-
 tions, but if on the other hand they show determination to disregard those
 fixed principles by which the rights of the people have heretofore been se-
 cured. then should we not fear the l fusing to grant them fun :her power | or confirm and write into our organic | law a ratification of those acts? Is a l trial by jury mere regulation or Is
 it fixed principle of free people?
 Are you ready to take from a man a | right to be heard before a jury of his
 countrymen? If so, then you approve l of those provisions of the Fuller bill,
 which provide not for the criminal con | viction of a man, but for the destruc- | by a proceeding in equity. to abate a | nuisance. Nor Is it only contraband 1 liQuor that is to be destroyed but all
 movable property upon the premises. Those favoring this amendment say 1 that the equitable remedy by injunc- well established doctrine. and so 1t is, | but old doctrines may be put to new | uses foreign from the purpose for which | they were intended. and such certainly l Is this use of the. equitable remedy by l injunction to abate nuisance, as ap- | piled by these laws.
 Again these laws say that one in | possession of liquor, nt any place save | his home, is prima facie guilty of
 selling It or keeping it for the purpose ct 4,r