The Birmingham age-herald., 1922-05-28
PROHTEER|NG LAW CRIPPLED BY COURT
 DECISION, IS BELIEF
Supreme Court Holding May Give Rise to Further De- mand for Revised Con-
 stitution This Year
By FRED H. GoRAILEY Montgomery Bureau. The Age-Heraid,

Montgomery, May 27.-(Special.)-- The decision of the supreme court Thursday holding section of the anti-profiteering law of 1919 uncon- stitutional and invalid Is expected to bring forward another effort during the year for constitutional con- ventton. Since the decision came down there has been general talk In Montgomery that Alabama's consu- tuition has almost become an inslru- ment of oppression. rather than an instrument of protection.
 Convention in 1000
 It is recalled that when the mem bere of the constitutional convention were in session in Montgomery In 1900 there was well defined work 10 be done. There was. need for the protection of the ballot boxes. There was a general call for the limitation of activities rather than the expan- sion of activities. The result was that tho constitution from the beginning to the end established limitations beyond which the legislature, the executive departments, the people themselves. were not permitted to go.
 Eyes Are Opened
 The decision this week has brought more forcefully than any since lsO1 to the minds of the people the raoi- cal limitations which the instrument established. Even the legislature IS not permitted under this instrument to enact a measure which VIII pro- hibit impositions and extortions upon the people by tradesmen. Unui new constitution Is adopted or the present one Is amended, 1t will not be within the power of the legisla- ture to restrict profits however bur densome and extortionate these profits may be. A merchant may purchase Q commodity at a certain price and extort from the consumer 800 per cent or any other per cent Of profit but the 1awmaking body or Alabama cannot raise its voice in protest or cause to be enacted measure which will make such ex- xortions illegal.
 Vital Part Removed
 Section of the anti -profiteering law is invalid and since this section ts the vital section of the entire law has become non-enforceable.A Section 2 was no more than definition or uroffteering It says: "Profiteering within the meaning of this act shall be held to mean the selling or offer ing for sale of any article or com modity of food. clothing. fuel of other necessity of life with the intent or obtaining fraudulent or grossly excessive price over it's true or in trinsic worth, and in the ascertain ment of whether such price Is Fraudulent or grossly excessive re- gard may be had to the cost price of said article or commodity to the person selling or offering the same, or evidence may be given of the cost price on the market of articles, com modities or necessities of like kind or character"
 4Profiteerfng~ Undefined
 Since section is no longer part of the anti -profiteering law there IS no definition of "profiteerings and as long as there is no definition of profiteering there can be no convic- ton, and there can be no definition which will be broad enough until the constitution is amended or an- other constitutiop is adopted.
 Dissenting Votes
 Members of the supreme court were not unanimous in their decision. Justices Thomas c. Mcclellan and William H. Thomas dissented from the opinion of the majority and Jus tice Thomas prepared dissenting opinion which was concurred in by Justice Mcclellan.
 Justice Somervi11e prepared the opinion for the majority and it was concurred in by& Justices Miller, Gardner and Sayre. Chief Justice Anderson concurred in the conclusion only and not in the opinion.
 The anti-profiteering law of 1919 was enacted at a time when profit eering was general. according to all legations at the time. The bill was an issue in the legislature for many days and during the closing of the regular session an agreement was reached in conference whereby the profiteerins act was rewritten to meet objections and was accepted by the Senate and House
 Orfxfnal Bill Passed
 Governor Thomas E. Kilby urged xhe legislature to enact the measure. contending that 1t was necessary for the protection of the people from un- reasonable. excessive and extortion- ate profits. In the passage of the anti-profiteering act members of the ieefsiature were almost of one mind. The compromise measure in the House received 67 votes, while only three were cast against 1t. Twenty one members of the Senate voted for the bin and only one member voted against it.