The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-08-10
THE ISSUE IN ALABAMA


 THE ISSUE IN ALABAMA
 The admission of Senator Bonner, in a>letter written by him addressed to and published last week in the Birmingham Evening News and the Montgomery Ad- vertiser, that he accepted legal employ nent from the Alabama Power Company while serving as member of the Ala bama senates makes timely and emphatic one of the issues that the people of Ala bama should determine when next choos- ing their representation to the legisla- ture. It is imperative that this issue be decided while SO many policies of out standing importance to the whole state are being formulated.
 The issue is:.
 In choosing men to make the laws and / guard the public welfare, shall the peo
 pie of Alabama vote for men admittedly
 in the employ of any interest seeking
 favors from the legislature, or for men
 who do not pledge themselves not to ac-
 cept retainers while serving as the peo-
 ples representatives in the legislature?
 Or shall the people of Alabama vote only
 for men known to be without private
 alliance with any selfish interest seek
 ing special legislative favors and com
 mitted solely to the public service?
 It is apparent at once to every thinking person that man entrusted with concerns of the people should not, while occupy ing position of public trust and obliga- ton, be the beneficiary of financial favors from those seeking for their own private purposes to influence legislation in their behalf and obstructive of the public welfare. The public interest can- not be safely entrusted to those whose allegiance is in part pledged to the ex- ponents of privilege. In spite of all in- tentions to the contrary, when the test comes, as come it always does, the con- alterations affecting the private purpose will always prove the more influential in determining the vote of the paid legisla- tive servant of the private interest.
 In Alabama this is not an academic nor a remote question. Those who have watch ed the course of events at Montgomery during the sessions of the legislature know that many estimable gentlemen, of undisputed intellectual attainments and capacity, have become members of that body while retaining business relations with certain interests which are con- cerned in a certain legislative program. It was indubitably so in the last legisla- ture, when many important measures were disposed of in accordance with the plans of privilege and not in accordance with the legislative duty and obligation.
 An outstanding illustration of this. sit uation was the defeat of the "burden-of- proof" bill, which provided that the rail- roads before initiating rate should show to the satisfaction of the Public Service Commission the cause or neces- sity for such rate. Although primarily in the public interest, this legislative measure was not made into law because of the activity of men in the legislature, occupying strategic positions and con- nected with the railroads. It is out just to the lower house to say that when the majority realized the covert nature of the opposition to this bill 1t aroused it- self to the emergency, and was defeated in it's purpose only because of the sud den, unexpected and mysterious adjourn ment of the senate on the final legisla- tive day before the house action was completed. s
 Further evidence of similar influence was revealed in the near defeat of the port-enabling act which was to make ef- fective the will of the people as reflected in a constitutional amendment. The lieu tenant governor, as president of the sem ate, had appointed on this committee a majority unfavorable to the seaport de- velopment, and the situation was discov- cred and detected barely. in time to res cue the seaport project from defeat. What was this but the defiance of the will of the people on the part of those who had some covert purpose to serve? This is the situation and this is the is sue which the people of Alabama are called upon to face and to decide. Shall the people rule through the efforts of lawmakers faithful to themselves, or shall the people give over the legislative authority to those committed to private programs. There can be no dual loyalty, for, as the Scripture declares: "No man can serve two masters: For either, he will hate the one and love the other; or he will hold to the one and despise the other" Shall the people permit them selves thus to be despised by those whom they elect and pay to serve them?