The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-10-29
Attorney General Gives His Opinion on Proposed Cot
 ton Relief Measure
WOULD VITIATE
 CONSTITUTION
Answers Letter From Governor on Subject Claiming Legislation Cutting Down Acreage Would
 Be Invalid

Montgomery, October 2s.-(Special.) De claring that the supreme court of the United States has often held that ito de- prive one of the use of property is a vio- lation of the provision of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution" Attorney General Robert c. Brickell, In answer to a letter from the governor, has held that in his opinion the legislature of Alabama cannot prohibit the production of cot ton in 1915, or reduce the cotton produc- ton for the ensuing year"
 T cannot believe that either the prohi- bition of the production of cotton or the limiting of the number of acres cultivated could be accomplished without violation of the fourteenth amendment to the con- stitution of the United States" said Mr. Brickell, ''as the result of such an act would be to deprive persons of the use of his property without due process of law"
 Tax Not Available
 The Attorney General further expressed the opinion that the legislature could not place tax upon cotton alone, or enact statute which provided that lien should not be created upon a growing crop of cotton, which statute did not place such tax upon all other farm products" Attorney General Brickell wrote the gov erpor in response to a request from the chief executive for a ruling as to the right of the legislature to limit the pro- duction Of cotton.
 The governors letter to Mir Brickell and the reply of the Attorney General are as follows:
 October 22. 1914 To the Attorney General, Montgomery, Ala.
 Dear Sir: have been urged to call the legislature into extraordinary session, With the hope that they might adopt some plan to relieve the present distressed ccndition, caused by the European war.
 Among the plans suggested is that th, state Of Alabama should, by legislation, prohibit the production of cotton In 1915 or reduce the cotton production for the ensuing year at least 50 per cent, either by a tax on the cotton produced, or by making 1t illegal to accept cotton as se- curity for an advance or by limiting the number of acres cultivated
 l desire. therefore, your opinion as to whether the state can legally enact such legislation, either totally prohibiting the production of cotton in 1915 or reducing its production, by one of the means sug- gested. without violating some provision Of the state or federal constitution.
 If you are of the opinion that this re- auction of acreage and production or pro- hibition of cotton planting can be secured by any of the plans that have been sug- gested, you are requested to submit a brief, embracing the authority upon which you base your opinion. ns well as tentative draft of the proposed legisla- ton.
 As the situation Is urgent I beg that you will give this matter your immediate attention. Very truly yours, EMMETT O'NEAL, Governor. Brickells Letter October 27. 1914. Hon. Emmet O'Neal Governor, Capitol: Dear Sir-Your letter requesting me to advise you as to whether the state could by legislation "prohibit' the production or cotton in 1915 reduce the cotton pro- duction for the ensuing year at least 50 per cent either by a tax the cotton produced or by making it illegal to accept cotton as security for an advance, or by limiting the number of acres cultivated" received.
 l cannot believe that either the prohi- bition of the production of cotton or the limiting of the number of acres culti- vated could be accomplished without a
 
 teenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, the result of such an act would be to deprive a person of the use of his property without due pro- cess of law.
 The supreme court of the United States has often held that to deprive one of the use of property is a violation of this provision of the fourteenth amendment In my opinion the legislature could con. additionally provide for a tax upon all farm products and could also repeal all laws now existing providing liens upon growing crops. and expressly provide that no lien could be created upon any growing crop, but I doubt extremely whether either tax upon cotton alone or statute which provided that a lien should rot be created upon a growing crop of cotton, which statute did not place such tax upon all other farm products. or provide against liens upon other grow ing crops. would be sustained as a valid cle ssfication.
 However, upon this question of classi- iication there Is such wide range. for diversity ot opinion that am unable to say such classification would not be sustained by the courts. Yours very truly.
 ATTORNEY GENERAL.