The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-05-30
DRAINAGE LAW
 RULED INVALID
 BY HIGH COURT
Levy Of Taxes By Any Subdivision Of State
 Prohibited
(state Capital ,Bureau)

N0eotC OuphtNA 'LeAADdug
 MONTGOMERY, Ala, May B. Alabama's drainage law IS invalid be- cause it confers authority upon dis tricts to issue bonds and charge owners of property drained their proportionate share of the principal and interest on the bonds when the constitution pro- hibits the levy of taxation by an subdi- vision of the state except municipaii- ties.
 This decision was handed down by the supreme court Thursday afternoon The law was enacted in 1915, the in- tention being to provide a method where by the states swamps and 0verflowed lands could be drained and turned into productive acreage. J. M. Moore, state commissioner of agriculture, is author of the bill, having introduced it while a member of the legislature from Fayette county.
 Appealed From Fayette
 The case in which the decision was rendered was that of J. H. Collins, judge of probate of Fayette county ; J. T. Maddox, judge of probate of Lamar county, versus J. S. Hollis, ap- pealed from the Fayette circuit court The case originated when Holis pc titioned the two probate judges to ap- point drainage commissioner to fill n vacancy for draining district No. 2, Fayette and Lamar counties, project involving reclamation of some 4,OOO acres of land. The probate judges re fused to make the appointment on the ground that the drainage act was un- constitutional Holis then carried the case into circuit court, which decided 1t in favor of the constitutionality of the law. The two probate judges appealed to the supreme court, which in its de- cision Thursday reversed and remanded the decision of the lower court and held the drainagle law to be invalid.
 Justice Miller wrote the opinion of the>-supreme court in the case, which was concurred in by Chief Justices John c. Anderson and Sayre, Somerville and Thomas. Justice Gardner dissented from the majority opinion, while Jus tice Bouldin did no. sit in the case.
 In it's opinion in the case, the su- preme court stated: Tt may be that the state has authority under the po- lice power to drain ponds and swamps for the public health and general wei fare of the community-that question is not presented and we do not decide it; but the taxing power of the state cannot under the constitution be dele gated to the corporations permitted to he organized under this original act of 1915, page 176, or the act amending it, general acts 1924, page 514, to secure money to dig canals to drain swamps for the public health and public welfare. :"
 A Dangerous" Power
 The court stated furthed: ''Tie right to tax property is necessary but it is q strong and dangerous power The organic law, the constitution, intrusted and reposed this dangerous right and strong power with the sovereign, the state, and declared that it shall not be delegated, except to municipal corpora tions. Any act clearly contrary to the constitution must be condemned by the courts. This duty is mandatory on this court in this cause, with imperative force for the protection of property for the owner against taxation delegated by the legislature without authority to a non-munieipal corporation. 'SThe drainigs act approved March 3, 1915 (general acts 0w 1915, page 1O7D and article 40 of the act amending it, ap- proved October 1, 1923 (general acts 1923, page 514) are unconstitutional and voidn