The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-01-20

acts ana resolutions submitting amend
 ments shall not be delivered to tho governor
 3. That the act submitting tho Iamendment contained legislative mat ter not germane to the amendment. 4. That the language of the amend ment is so vague and indefinite il Icannot be enforced.
 THE STATES CASE
 Judge Mayfield and MT. White con tended that the legislature had the right to delegate to the governor the power to fix the date of the election arguing that this duty was purely ministerial and that courts had al- ways recognized the right of the leg islature to delegate ministerial duties to the governor or any other author | ity. They cited instances where the Legislature had delegated the power of calling elections to the governor when the constitution said the legislature 1 should make provisions for special elections. Attorneys for the opposi- | tion admitted that purely ministerial duties could be delegated but that in this instance the legislature sought to delegate duty involving discretion when the constitution says in plain words the amendment and all other amendments shall be voted on at an | election on a date to be appointed by 1 the legislature.
 | The state admitted that the act sub hitting the amendment went to the governor, but that the legislature re- tained jurisdiction and that, although the governor proposed an amendment to the constitutional amendment as submitted by the legislature the gov- ernor's amendment in reality became the legislatures amendment when it tnd h.v f4 the members. The opposition argued that the moment the governor pro posed an amendment he changed the entire meaning of the legislatures s amendment, that his proposal became new amendment and that it should nave been read in each house on three separate days before being voted on The governors amendment provided that expenditures should be made only with the approval of the governor
 MEANING CHANGED
 Opposition's counsel admitted that the governors amendment was a good one. but suggested to the court that this fact itself demonstrated that the entire meaning was changed by the governor
 How can we know that the voters of Alabama would have approved the amendment as it was proposed by the legislature?'' asked attorneys opposing the state. Would the voters have adopted the amendment if it had not contained provision limiting expen. ditures by requiring the approval of the governor?' ssfFNa
 In support of the third ground for tf.a attack, the opposition insisted that the legislature including other mat Ter la the act which was not .rermane to the subject and that the submission or the amendment should have been in ciuued In one act and other mat ters relative to highway improvement work sheuld have been placed in an- other. The state insisted that this would not invalidate the amendment and cited the fact that legislatures for all time have submitted amendments In the manner of the one under attack
 The last point put forward by the opposition was that the amendment could not be understood being so vague and indefinite as to make it's en- forcement impossible. One provision was cited which indicated that an au- tomobile license tax was to be levied upon some other tax instead of being levied on motor vehicles The state aid not touch this point in it's oral argument. though it's briefs insisted that the intent of the legislature was to impose license tax upon motor vehicles and that this inIention ha . been so rccognized by officials gen- eraliy since the amendment was sub mitted.
 ENTIRE COURT PRESENT
 throughout the arguments, members of the supreme court piled the at tofneyS With questions in an effort to