The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-05-10
|oceedings Instituted to lest Right of Excise Com |missioners of Montgom-
 cry to Hold Office
FATE IS UPHELD AT EVERY POINT
 BY SUPREME COURT
dared Two Bills Might Be Enacted Without Impairing Constitution ality of Either One or the
 Other-Constitutional
 Objections

[ontgomery, May 9.-lSpecial. 1.-The
 reme court of Alabama today rem
 ed a decision upholding the valid
 of the Parks and Smith local option
 s, enacted by the legislature of
 1.
 rel. W. B. Crumpton. vs. Arthur H.
 ntgomery, ct all appealed from the
 htgomery circuit court. The pro-
 dings were instituted to test the
 Int of Montgomery. Halls and Banks
 hold office as excise commissioners
 Montgomery county.
 State Upheld at Every Point
 he opinion was written by Judga
 pmas c. Mcclellan and Is a clear ex-
 ition of the various phases of tho
 e. The court upholds the state at
 Fry point, declaring that two bills
 y be enacted without impairing the Astitutionality of either one or the
 CT; that neither the Parks bill nor
 Smith bill delegates to the people
 islative power and that section IT
 the constitution is not violated by
 creation of an office for the pur-
 @ of measuring commodities.
 Recording to the court the two ques
 ns raised by the appellant are:
 l. Are there such offices in legal
 stence as those to the exercise of
 ich the respondents assert claim?
 g. If such offices legally exist are
 SC respondents the validly chosen
 umbents thereof?p
 The first few paragraphs of Judge
 Clellan's opinion are of an explan-
 ry nature. setting out various ques- ns involved in the petitioners prayer
 u the established rule ot the court In sssng upon the constitutional va lty o9 legislative enactments.
 n passing upon the validity of the iith bill the court declared that when E legislature of 1911 assembled the Xblic will was understood to be that state should adopt local option.
 From common knowledge we know, clares the court, 'as all do that, rough the selection by the electorate of chief executive to take office in Janu- 1911, tlIe public will was understood
 be that the state should adopt the poll
 Of local option,' should depart from policy of statewide prohibition. The Hey of the state therefore obtaining l not contemplate or permit the exemp- n, at any time or under any circum- lnces, of any political subdivision of state from the operation, of the state de prohibition of the traffic, nor, of urse, did the policy comprehend as. a ief factor, any regulation of the traf- With the elder policy then prevailing i d the policy of local option treatment ! d regulation of the traffic foreshad- ed. at least in degree, the legislature Itered upon the task of changing the |Ete's statutory policy so as to vest in |e electorate of the county as unit the tion of having the traffic restored there- and, if to be restored, to prescribe e method for the control of the manu- eture and disposition of intoxicants, Parks and Smith Bills 3The court then takes up the titles of the Arks and Smith bills, showing that the Eislature separated into two enactments Ie conditional restoration and regulation the traffic.
 f'Both of these enactments," declared Ie court, proposed treatment of one gen fal subject, viz: the manufacture and |le of intoxicants, though in legislative pigment the effectuaton of this intent las thought the better to be conserved by |uploying for the expression thereof, two hs sctments
 |"Thc basic line between the two acts ss choice by the electorate in the first hd regulation of the new order, which bon the contingency provided should be |Btalled. in the second"
 In passing upon the necessity of the two tts the court has this to say: Passed B these acts were, at the same session, Feating, as they purport to do, one gen Fal subject of legislative policy. related, E they are to each other, as cause to ef- ect. referring as did the former to that follow, it is hardly necessary to say bat these acts must be considered and pnstiued as in pari material"
 Constitutional Objections The court next takes up the constitu- |onal objections to the two bills. the first If which was that the Parks bill was inn |erfect as an act of legislation. and quoted he seventeenth section of the bill pro- |iding that the act shall not become ef ective until there has been provided hv hw regulations and restrictions for the onduct of dispensaries and tine issuance |f license to private dealers.
 In answering this objection the corr, Eeld that the office and effect of tbis lection WAS to suspeHu the going into iteration of the Parks bill until clearly tipulated contingency should happen. lection 17 did nothing save to suspend. o postpone, the operation of that act until he hand that made it made the rules for he control of the consequences"
 In urging, the invalidity of the Parks md Smith bill on the ground that they delegate to the people legislative power. he court answers this objection by de- laring that we would prefer. out of def .rerce to counsel, to find in this con- ention something more than a mere play ,pon words, but we are unable to do ,o.. The court goes at length into the ,uestion of whether or not legislative lower is delegated to the people, and .eclares that 1t is difficult 10 discover non what reason. inviting distinction, lis comforting of choice upon the cleo crate could be held to i,e unauthorized. :" All the other objections are then am .wered by the court. having 10 do with he contention that the Parks bill was l. acted upon an unknown contingency. Id that the Parks bill contains three |lhjects. Each and every objection is re- 'uted by the court
 Various phases of the Smith bill are
 -->----~~--~-->-~
 tcoxTINuED ON PAGE I41