The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-01-04
PEOPLES FORUM
Facts As to Courthouse

ing the ereCt1On Ol hC" SoohN' courthouse, and as to whether or not the courthouse should be re- moved from the present site; whether or not there should be a joint county and city building; what should be the form and con- struction of the new building, and as to whether or not there should be a vote of the people on these propositions.
 Section Al of our constitution proyides: "No courthouse or county site shall be removed ex- cept by majority at an election held for such purpose"
 Our supreme court has held m construing this section of the con- stitution, as I understand 1t, In effect, that when city or town has been selected as the county seat, the boundaries of such city or town, as they then exist, be- come the boundary of the county seat, and that this is true of the courthouse site; that the phrase "courthouse site" does not mean the precise lot upon which the building is located; that it was intended that the courthouse. should not be removed from the town or city without 8 vote of the people as provided in this section: that it was not intended that a courthouse site within a city or town could not be changed or moved to another site within the city by the proper authorities.
 The legislature has made pro- vision by a general law for the removal of a courthouse by a vote of the people, only in cases where it is sought to remove 1t from one city, town or village to another. So, we see, there is no legal meth cd provided for a vote on the question of removal of the court house in the present case. Neither Is there any provision of law for a vote on the other propositions mentioned.
 Whether or not there should be a joint county and city adminis- tration building seems to me question of law and policy which ought, of right, to be determined by the board of revenue and its at torneys. We, of course, want to see everything done which will rebound to the glory and good of this county and city, and which will be for the convenience of its citizens; but I am sure we are not willing even for these pur- poses to sacrifice any of the set tied policies or principles upon which our government is founded to obtain them. The duties and functions of the county and city governments are separate and dis tinct, and are not any more re- lated or identical than are. the duties and functions of the coun- ties and state, or of the state and the federal government. And believe that as a matter of public policy we ought to keep these govt ernments separate and distinct in fact as we'll as in theory. Not only confusion, but danger, begins when we commence, directly or indirectly, a merger of them.
 The construction of the court house, 1t seems to me, should nec- cessarily be left to the designated agents of the county: any other procedure or method appears po- tently impractical. The people could not agree on the construc- tion of a courthouse. For in- stance, I would not put the jail on top of the courthouse as it is said will be done. JAils are noisy places, and this would interfere with the public business carried on in juxtaposition thereto. There is constant passing in and &ut of jail, and there would be too much time lost going up and down elevators. Others want the jail on top to prevent the escape of prisoners. This idea was originally matched before the advent of air ships and airplanes, and is now out of date.
 From my point of view. I think the board of revenue ought to be highly commended for purchasing the site they have obtained. It is only three blocks from the old site, has a permanent large open space, the park. on the west side, and is not surrounded by street cars, a school and other noise makers, or by churches and other buildings as is the case with the old site. Practically all agree that the old building is now entirely inadequate for the purpose for which it was built, aud I believe that the large majority of our citi- zens will be pleased if the board of revenue proceeds with all due haste to erect the new building. am aware that all have here said is not in accordance with your expressed views. but hoping what have said may throw some light on the questions involved. RICHARD L. WILLIAMS.
 Birmingham, Alav Jan. l, 1924. The Age-Herald has not ques- tioned the legal authority of the board of revenue tO act in thu