The Birmingham age-herald., 1917-07-11
Supreme Court Hands Down Decision Ending Bitter
 Fight in Jefferson
WEIGH AND RAY TO
 LOSE THEIR PLACES
Payment of Salaries to Date, How ever, Is Ordered Made-Opinion of Judges Not Unanimous
 on Consolidation Law
By FRED H. GoRMLEY

yt l.. Black, solicitor of Jefferson county received blow from the supreme court Tuesday when it held that Joseph H' Tate, circuit solicitor. has the right 10 appoint the solicitors of Jefferson county to assist in the prosecution of criminals and that Solicitor Black, although des- ignated as chief prosecuting officer until his term expires in 1919, should not ap- point any other assistants until the serV- ices of those named by Solicitor Tate had been utilized
 ENDS BITTER FIGHT
 This ends a bitter contest which has been carried on since the court consoloa- tion bill became effective in January and nnts out of office Solicitor Blacks as sistants. w. S. welch and Ben F. Ray. Tn the future Solicitor Tate's appointees, James c. Davis, John P. Mccoy and Wal lace McAdory, will be recognized. Solici- tor Black has declined to give them any thing to do, contending that he and not Solicitor Tate had authority to name the assistants.
 Four members of the supreme court Chief Justice Anderson and Associate Justices Mcclellan. Gardner and Thomas, agreed that Solicitor Tate should appoint the assistants, while two associate Jus tices, Sornerville and Sayre, sought to declare the laws under which Solicitor Black Is operating unconstitutional, thus putting Solicitor Tate In full control and power in Jefferson county. Justices Som erville and Sayre contended that the act violated section 45 Of the constitution, but the majority could not agree to this contention Associate Justice Mayfield did not sit in the cases.
 MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS
 The questions concerning the power of Solicitor Tate came up in mandamus pro- ceedings brought by w. s. Welch and Ben F. Ray solicitors under MT. Black, seeking to force Treasurer M. V. Henry to pay their salary warrants. The su- preme court in the majority opinion or dered the salaries paid. after explaining that in the future Solicitor Tate's as- sistants must be used before other as- sistants are employed.
 Referring to the appointment of assist ants, the majority opinion said: The leg islature has expressly provided circuit solicitor to be paid by the state and ex- pressly authorized him to appoint three assistants to be paid in the greater part by the state and 1t was contemplated that these officials should be utilized to the fullest extent before the temporary chief prosecuting officer of the county would deem it necessary to resort to assistance at the expense of the solicitors fund. The legislature evidently did not intend to furnish theee expressly designated and well paid officials to remain idle or be- come pensioners upon the state upon a capricous abuse of the authority and discretion of the county solicitor. who was made the chief prosecuting officer of the circuit until 1919. -
 why the legislature should have made the county solicitor and not the circuit solicitor the chief prosecuting officer of the circuit and why the circuit solicitor and not the county solicitor was given the authority to name the assistants we are not concerned but this court is con- cerned with a reasonable ana common sense interpretation and enforcement of the law"
 OPINION IN FULL
 The opinion of the majority of the su- preme court in the solicitor cases from Jefferson county follows:
 "The majority, composed of Ander- son, chief justice Mcclellan, Gard ner and Thomas, justices. concur in the conclusion of Justice Somerville as to what constitutes the solicitors fund of Jefferson county, but do not agree that Section Il or the act Of 1900 or the amendment thereof by the act of 1915 Qocal acts 1915, D. 23) is violative of Section 45 of the consti- tuition. We think that said section, before and after amendment. was ger- mane and cognate to the general sub- ject title of the act of 1886-S7, estab- fishing the criminal court of Jefferson county. Nor do we think that the same is repugnant to so much of said Sec tion 45 of the constitution as forbids the extension. amendment or revision of law by reference to the title only as the acts are complete in themselves --State ex rel Terry vs. Lanier 72 So Rep. 320; state ys. Rogers, 107 Ala. 444. The case of Ferguson vs. court of county commissioners, 65 Sou. 1923, was rested upon Tuscaloosa Bridge company vs. Olmstead Al Ala. g, wherein it was held. that under what is now Section 45 of our constitution law could not be amended or revised