The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-10-31

Although the letters printed below were not originally intended for puhli- cation. 1t is believed that the qras- tions asked and answered are of gem eral Interest to the public in this cam. paign, and for this reason The Adver- tiser publishes them:
 Letter Of MT. Rabb to Mir. Knox.
 Pine Apple. Ala, October 1s. 1909. Hon. John B. Knox. Anniston. Ala:
 Dear Sir--I have read your strong letter in The, Advertiser of the 18th inst. There is one point in 1t that Is not clear to me. and will appreciate very much If you will explain it. Wtll the proposed amendment repeal Section of the State Constitution? Can any part of the constitution be repealed by an amendment without reference to the section or article that 1t Is intended to repeal? Can the State Constitution or q statutory law be valid if In conflict with the United Statos. .Constitution? If 60. of what value is the Federal Con- stitution? These are some of the Ques- tions raised by the 'Amenders." am eitissn seeking information. and I hope tt will not trespass on your time too much for you to give me q clear an- swer to the several questions.
 Thanking you in advance. am.
 Yours very truly.
 -@ & 5sf O. M. HabOs
 Letter from Mir. Knox to Mir. Rabb
 Anniston. Ala. October 25. 1909. Mr. O. M. Rabb. Pine Apple. Ala:
 Dear Sir--Your letter of october 1s received. In reply thereto. beg to sayi
 Amenament, If Adopted win Not Re-
 zeal Any Provision of Present
 Constitution, Unless h Con-
 safct Herewith.
 In reply to your first question. which is, will the proposed amendment re- peal Section of the State Constitu- tion?" I answer that the adoption of the proposed constitutional amendment will not. in my opinion. repeal Section of the present constitution Tor the reason that there is no necessary con- ifct between Section 5 of the present constitution and either section of the proposed amendment.
 Section 5 of the present Constitution reads as follows: That the people shall be- secure in their persons. houses. pa- pers and possession from unreasonab ble seizure or searches, and that no war rants shall issue to search any place or to seize any person or thing without probable cause. supported by oath or af1irmation."
 Now. Section of the proposed con. stitutional amendment reads as fol- lows: Nothing in the Constitution of Alabama shall be construed to prevent the Legislature. under the police pow er from designating places where such liquor may not be stored or kept"
 In my letter to Mir. !. Lee Long. Chairman, which you have done me the honor to commend for it's strength and clearness. I endeav0red to point out that those of us who oppose the amend ment do not object to the right of search, even Of the home of the citi- zen, when a crime has been committed and when the criminal ts seeking to shield himself from pursuit by conceal ing the fruits Of his crime in his home. Our objection to this Section 3 of tho proposed amendment is that 1t author izsa the Legislature to make that . crime which is not now a crime: that ts to say, if Section 8 of the proposed annsndment be adopted 1t will enable the present Legislature and any future Legislature to prescribe by law that any citizen who keeps as much as a quart of liquor or as much as two ounces of liquor in his home, without regard to the purpose for which he keeps' 1t. is criminal and may be prosecuted as such and his home may be searched and the liquor seized.
 Under the Constitution as 1t now ex- fists. a search of the home for the purpose of seizing such liquor would be an unreasonable search, within the meaning of Section of the present Constitution. and no court which had any regard for the rights or liberty of the citizen would issue Q search warrant for such 6 purpose. But if