The Birmingham age-herald., 1917-07-11
GERMANS TOO CONFIDENT

by reference only to It's title and wherein it was pointed out that the purpose of said constitutional provf- sion was that the legislature may not be misled or mistaken as to the en- actment and also that the governor may be better informed as to what he Is called upon to approve or to veto, and that others may also be assisted as against any misapprehension. The acts under review in the above author ities attempted amendment of law by reference to title only and by ad- dition of other sections thereto, noth- ing appearing in the amendment to in- dicate the law sought to be amended and hence these cases came directly within the prohibitory clause of said Section 45 of the constitution. Such Is not the situation here presented as much of the act sought to be amend ed Is set out and indeed the substance thereof appears in the amendatory art and the Tuscaloosa Bridge company and Ferguson cases. supra, cannot ce extended SO as to embrace the act here under review.
 ACT OF 1915
 "WhiIe we hold that the act of 1915, page 23, is still in force and that the county solicitor Is clothed with certain authority there given and as to which he has a discretion and that this power was preserved until 1919 by the gem eral solicitors act subsequently, en- acted we must not be understood as holding that other parts of the gem eral solicitors law may be ignored ny the county solicitor in the exercise o1 the powers given him under said gen eral law or the local law of 1915, so as to clothe him with the authority to disregard the prosecuting officers ex- pressly provided for the adm1nistra- tion of the criminal laws of the Tenth circuit, which is composed entirely or Jefferson county. In other words, the legislature has expressly provided circuit solicitor to be paid by the state and expressly authorized him to ap- point three assistants to be paid ln the greater part by the state, and 1t was contemplated that these officials should be utilized to the fullest extent before the temporary chief prosecuttns officer of the county would deem -l necessarv to resort to assistance at the expense of the solicitors fund. The legislature evidently did not intend 10 furnish these expressly designated ana well-paid officials to remain Idle or become pensioners upon the state upon capricious abuse or 'tne authority and discretion of thc county solicitor. who was maoe lne chief
 until 191s It was manifest that ne was expected to see that they did work and not prevent them from do- ing so and until the force expressly provided is proven inadequate 10 properly administer the criminal ia"s of the circuit no occasion should arise for the employment of assistants p3 the chief prosecuting officer
 MOTIVE OF LAW
 .rWhy the legislature should have
 mada the county solicitor and not the circuit solicitor the chief prosecuting officer of the circuit or why the CIT cult solicitor and not the county so- licitor was given the authority to name the assistants we are not con
 cerned; but this court Is concerned with a reasonable and common sense instrumentation and enforcement of .he law. It is we'll settled law that when the duty to be. performed IS ouoiclai or involves the exercise of discretion on the part of tribunal or officer, mandamus will lie to set Judgment or discretion in motion. put Will not direct the manner of its exercise, The writ cannot be used for the correo- tion of errors. If however, Judgment or discretion is abused and exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner, mandan1us will lie to compel proper exercise thereof.'-19 Am. and Eng. Ency., pp 737-39; state ex rel Mo bile vs board of revenue. lSo Ala. 4s4: White vs. Decatur. 11s Ala. 476. Whether or not these observations are ! essential to a decision of the present controversy matters not as they are at least appropriate to prevent mts- conception of the scope and extent Of what we have decided In holding that the randamus should have been awarded under the facts and issues here involved.
 "In granting the petitioners relief we assume that the discretion given
 the county solicitor to employ assist ants has not been capriciously abused, nothing to the contrary appearing from the record. We therefore hold that the | trial court correctly awarded the writ l of mandamus in the Welch case and erroneously refused the same in the | Ray case.
 | Anderson. chief justice; Mcclellan. Gardner and Thomas. justices, concur