971

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

______________________

TWENTY-NINTH DAY
____________

                                                                 MONTGOMERY, ALA.,

                                                                                                                             Tuesday, June 25, 1901.

     The Convention met pursuant to adjournment, was called to order by the President, and the proceedings were opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Elliott, as follows:

     We thank Thee for the continued manifestation of Thy love; we thank Thee that Thy good hand has been over us during another night; that we are permitted to begin this day's work, enjoying a reasonable portion of health and strength. Our hearts swell with emotions of gratitude when we remember Thy goodness and kindness to us. When we take a retrospect of the past we can see many things that pall for an expression of gratitude from our hearts. And now, Oh Lord, as we begin this day's work we invoke the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Grant our Father to bless this Convention. Bless every home represented here today. We pray that Thou wilt surround them with the very best of circumstances. Preserve the lives of those who are left behind. And now, Father, we pray Thee that everything that is done today may be for Thy glory and for the good of this State. These blessings we ask for Jesus' sake, Amen.

     Upon a call of the roll 131 delegates responded.


972

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

LEAVES OF ABSENCE.

     For Mr. NeSmith for today and tomorrow; Mr. Renfro for today; Mr. Cofer for yesterday and today; Mr. O'Neal (Lauderdale) for this morning's session; Mr. Maxwell for yesterday and today; Mr. Greer (Ferry) for today.

     The report of the Committee on Journal was read, stating that the Journal for the twenty-eighth day of the Convention was correct, and upon motion the report of the Committee was adopted.

     MR. WHITE--I wish to call attention to an error in the stenographic report of yesterday. I was made to say 'are you not contending vigorously against the theory of sound republican government." I said "are you not contending against the well accepted doctrine of the Republican Party."

     THE PRESIDENT--The stenographer will make the correction.

     MR. GRAHAM (Talladega)--I desire to make an inquiry. Is there or not a special order for this morning for this hour, on a pending question?

     THE PRESIDENT--The special order will not be taken up until it is reached in the regular order of business. The regular order now will be the call of the roll for the introduction of ordinances.

     MR. DENT--I desire to have a correction made in the stenographic report of yesterday. I am put down as asking Mr. Samford "if we do not adopt the amendment, is it not perfectly proper for the Legislature to do this at any session?" I did not ask that question, and my recollection is that the gentleman from Lauderdale, Mr. Ashcraft, made the inquiry. I desire the correction made.

     THE PRESIDENT--The stenographer will make the correction.

     MR. BLACKWELL--I desire to have corrected a statement, "the result is whether it is desired or not, a mighty machine is built up by the appointment of the Governor to these terms." Instead of that it should be "during his term." Further down it says "ninety-one per cent of those appointed by the Governor, and I said ninety-nine per cent.

     THE PRESIDENT--The Secretary will call the roll of delegates for the introduction of ordinances, etc.

     MR. BULGER--I desire to offer a resolution.

     Resolution No. 187 by Mr. Bulger:


973

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     Resolved, That the articles to be adopted by the Convention as a part of the constitution shall be taken up and considered by the Convention in the order in which they are reported by the committee to which they have been referred.

     Referred to Committee on Rules.

     MR. BROOKS--My name was called and I did not have time to answer, the clerk ran over so rapidly. I desire to yield my call to the gentleman from Lowndes.

     Ordinance No. 398 by Mr. Rogers (Lowndes.)

     Be it ordained by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled:

     That Section 17 of Article XIV be amended as follows: The Legislature by general law shall have the right to charter savings banks with a capital stock of not less than (100,000) one hundred thousand dollars paid in cash. Officers of such institutions shall give bond to three trustees who shall be stockholders, but not officers. Said trustees shall have power to examine the affairs of the bank as often as they deem necessary, but not less than (3) three times a year.

     Each stockholder shall be liable to creditors of the banks to an amount not exceeding three times, the par value of the stock held.

     Referred to Committee on Banks and Banking.

     MR. CARMICHAEL (Coffee)--I offer a resolution by request of the Committee on Printing, in regard to printing the journal. .

     Resolution 188, by Mr. Carmichael (Coffee.)

     Be it resolved, That the Secretary of State is hereby authorized and instructed to contract for the printing and binding of 1,000 copies of the journal of the Convention;

     Be it further resolved, That the printing and binding shall be done in the same manner and under the same law as that of the House and Senate Journal, and that the printing and binding shall be paid out of the State appropriation for printing and binding.

     Referred to Committee on Schedule of Printing and Incident Expenses.

     MR. COBB--I move a suspension of the rules, and the adoption of the resolution I send to the Clerk.

     The resolution was read as follows:


974

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     Resolution 189, by Mr. Cobb:

     All errors in the stenographic report will be privately called to the attention of the reporter who is directed to make necessary corrections.

     Referred to Committee on Rules.

     Upon a vote being taken, the convention refused to suspend the rules.

     Resolution 190, by Mr. Jones (Wilcox.)

     Resolved, That it is the sense of this convention, that no amendment should be proposed by any delegate to an article of the Constitution, as reported by Committee, when such amendment could be enacted into a law by the General Assembly of Alabama.

     Referred to Committee on Rules.

     Ordinance 399 by Mr. Kyle (by request.)

     To provide for the formation or creation of private corporations in the State of Alabama.

     First--Be it ordained by the people of Alabama, in Convention assembled, That after the ratification of this Constitution, no private corporation shall be organized or created in the State of Alabama, except in manner and form prescribed in the following sections, from 1 to 4 inclusive.

     Section 1. Any person desiring to form a corporation shall file with the Secretary of State a petition setting out (a) name and location of proposed corporation, amount of proposed capital stock, number of shares of common and preferred stock, and value and character of same, amount to be issued, and amount to be reserved in treasury and proposed issue of bonds (b) name of corporators and their residence, (c) effects of corporations and franchise desired.

     Sec. 2. Upon the filing of the petition and its approval by the Governor and Secretary of State, the Secretary of State shall issue to two or more of those interested, a commission to receive subscriptions to capital stock of proposed corporation, and when one-half of the capital stock is subscribed and a board of directors and officers of the corporations have been elected, a charter shall issue, signed by the Governor and Secretary of State and the corporation thus formed shall have all corporate rights, named in the petition, not in conflict with the laws in this State and the United States, but no right to take or condemn private property, without first making just compensation therefor, according to law, shall be conferred by any such charter.


975

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     Sec. 3. Before the issue of charter to any corporation organized as provided in preceding sections, there shall be paid as fees for organization, the following amounts for the use of the State: In no case, less than $25 ; on all corporations with capital stock of $10,000, and not more than $100,000, $100; on all above $100,000 and not to exceed $500,000, $500; on all above $500,000 and not to exceed $1,000,000, $1,000; and an additional fee of $750 for every million or fractional part of million added to the first million of capital stock.

     Sec. 4. The General Assembly of the State shall have authority to impose on all corporations organized an annual license tax not to exceed three-fourths of the tax charged as charter tax.

     Referred to Committee on Corporations.

     Ordinance No. 400 by Mr. Thompson.

     To provide for a tax on collateral inheritances.

     Be it ordained by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That all estate, real, personal and mixed, money, public and private securities for money of every kind, passing from any person who may die, seized and possessed thereof, being in this State, or any part of such estate, or estates, money or securities, or interest therein, transferred by the interstate laws of this State or by will, deed, grant, bargain, gift or sales, made or intended to take effect in possession after the death of the grantor, devisor or donor, to any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, in trust or otherwise other than to or for the use of the father, mother, husband, wife, children, or lineal descendants of the grantor, devisor, donor or intestate, shall be subject to a tax of two and a half per centum on every $100 of the clear value of such estate, money or securities. And the tax so collected shall be applied to the common schools.

     Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall enact such laws as may be necessary to put into effect the provisions of the foregoing section.

     Referred to Committee on Taxation.

     Upon the call of the standing committees no business was forthcoming.

     MR. SAMFORD--I rise to a point of inquiry.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman will state the question of inquiry.

     MR. SAMFORD--I would like to know what would now be the regular order.

     THE PRESIDENT--The regular order will be the next, order of business, which would be the report of special committees.


976

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

There are none, and the next order would be unfinished business.

     MR. SAMFORD--That would be the business we were engaged in on yesterday afternoon?

     THE PRESIDENT--The business we were on was a special order, to come up under the head of special orders.

     MR. SAMFORD--Are special orders considered. The business we have in hand is laid aside until--

     THE PRESIDENT--The consideration of the special order.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--The special order, Mr. President, was immediately after the reading of the journal. A matter of reconsideration.

     THE PRESIDENT--In the opinion of the Chair this matter that was pending, the consideration of the report of the Committee on Taxation, would come up immediately after the special committees.

     MR. SAMFORD--Then that would be in order now.

     THE PRESIDENT--It seems to the Chair that it would be.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--Mr. President, by a vote of the House on yesterday, the motion to reconsider the proposed additional section to the article reported by the Committee on Executive Department was made a special order for today, immediately after the approval of the journal, and I submit that this is in order after the regular call for the reports of committees.

     THE PRESIDENT--If the gentleman desires to enter the motion the Chair will entertain it at this time.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--I did make it on yesterday, but I now desire to move to reconsider the vote by which the proposed section 31, offered by the gentleman from Dallas was defeated.

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--I move to lay that motion on the table.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--I had not yielded the floor.

     THE PRESIDENT--The Chair will rule for the benefit of the gentleman from Pike, in the opinion of the Chair the special order referred to by the gentleman from Montgomery would have precedence of the consideration of the matter now pending on the report of the Committee on Taxation.

     MR. SOLLIE--Does the Chair think it would have precedence when it was not called in order? If he had intended to insist upon that, it occurs to me that he should have called it to


977

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

the attention of the House when that order of business was reached, and try permitting it to go over, and other business to intervene between it and now, he waives the right to insist upon it.

     THE PRESIDENT--The Chair does not think it amounts to a waiver. It is made a special order and the Chair should call it up without a motion.

     Mr. Jackson sought recognition.

     THE PRESIDENT--For what purpose does the gentleman rise?

     MR. JACKSON--I would respectfully state to the Chair that the delegates back here where I am, cannot even find out what is before the House.

     THE PRESIDENT--Delegates will please be in order. The Chair did not hear any disturbance of which the gentleman complains.

     MR. JACKSON--I desire to state that the talking back here in the cloak room, unless the door is closed, does disturb the delegates back here. Perhaps it is not realized by the delegates who are nearer the Chair that we are disturbed, but it is a fact sir, that gentlemen talking back here in the cloak room does disturb the delegates sitting here around me.

     THE PRESIDENT--The Chair will direct the doorkeeper to call the attention of the gentlemen in the cloak room that they are disturbing the delegates to such an extent that they are unable to hear the proceedings of the Convention.

     The Gentleman from Montgomery.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--Mr. President, I regret very much that by a mistake of my own, as to the result of the vote on yesterday, I inadvertently made a vote which defeated the section I favored I shall not trespass upon the patience of my friends--

     MR. HARRISON--I desire to interrupt my friend, the chairman of the Committee, to ask that the section be read. It is not printed in the report.

     MR. JONES--I will read it to the gentleman in the course of my remarks.

     MR. HARRISON--That will answer.

     MR. JONES--The section which was defeated, Mr. President, was that offered by the delegate from Dallas, and reads as follows:

     Amend by adding as Section 31: In case any Sheriff or his deputy or any member of his posse be killed or permanently disabled


978

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

by discharging his duty in defending a prisoner in his charge, the General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance of those who are dependent upon the person killed or disabled.

     The gentleman from Dallas told me on yesterday, I do not see him in his seat this morning, that he had drawn this hastily, and that the committee could offer a substitute if his views were carried out. At the proper time that substitute will be offered, but now on the motion to reconsider, I do not think it proper to go into a mere matter of phraseology.

     I submit that after our decision on the other section of this article, if we vote down this proposed section that we put the State of Alabama fifty years backward in the march of civilization. We have said that prisoners should be defended and that there was a standard of honor in this State, that should make its protection worth something, to men whom it made helpless, when it took them into custody to try them for offenses against the laws. Now we only ask to add an effective help to the arm of the Sheriff. If we refuse to do it, it goes out to the world from this hall that we are simply playing with words; that we do not mean what we say.

     I trust no member of this convention will ever be put in the unfortunate attitude, where, in a matter in which he has not a particle of feeling, he must confront his neighbors and his best friends, and it may be to kill them, because the law of the land demands that he should rally to the protection of the Sheriff. It is one of the most disagreeable duties that ever falls to the lot of man. It is one from which every man instinctively shrinks. At the risk of being charged with being egotistical--whether a man is egotistical or not he seldom knows--I want to illustrate my point by an incident that portrays more powerfully than any words of mine, what a drawback to the Sheriff and posse is the thought that if a man is killed in the discharge of his duty, and he is a poor man, that he may be buried at the expense of the county, and his family becomes dependent upon the charity of neighbors. I remember on one occasion being charged with a duty of this sort, and a handsome blue-eyed fellow, one of the manliest looking specimens I ever saw, faltered in his duty. In private I asked him why he did that. His manhood, his honor, and his name would have been eternally disgraced, if any eye but mine had seen him, when in a dark alley he skulked his duty. He said to me, I know it was wrong. I did not mind being hurt. I did not mind being killed, if I had to be killed; but I had an old widowed mother and two sisters, and I did not know what would become of them if I was hurt there. Their faces came before me as I was ordered on this duty, and it was dark and my courage failed me. That is the cause--not that I was unwilling to suffer wounds, and may be death, but I was unwilling to serve


979

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

the State that would send me out to death, and then not even pay my funeral expenses if I was killed.

     Now if we put this duty, and we put it rightfully, on the Sheriff, we have laid a moral command on him. We have fixed a high standard for him. Then for God's sake, let us show that we are in earnest--that while the moral power of Alabama is behind the Sheriff, when he stands confronting a mob--that it is not an individual, not a mere Sheriff, but the State of Alabama, in all its majesty and power. I do not suppose there is a man here who has not in his veins the blood of some soldier, and there is not a civilized government on earth that does not think it is proper and wise, when a man dies and gives his life for it, to pay some attention to the wants of those whom he leaves behind him. I am not going to make a speech now. I am not going to trespass further on the patience of this House. I shall not say one word more than that this, that since this question has been brought up and afterwards laid upon the table it presents a great moral issue.

     MR. BULGER--May I ask the gentleman a question?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--I will answer in a minute. I will answer the gentleman now.

     MR. BULGER--Would you mind reading the substitute that you propose to offer for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Dallas, provided this question is reconsidered?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--Yes, I will read it with great pleasure; but I thought it was not entirely in order to be discussing the substitute before the House had reconsidered. It would read this way: It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to make adequate provision for the dependent family of any Sheriff, deputy or member of any posse, who may be killed, or permanently injured, while defending from mob violence any prisoner in jail, or in the custody of the law.

     Now, when I was interrupted, Mr. President, I was about to say that the action of this House is upon a question of great moral significance. If you vote this amendment down, after it has been offered, the world will rightly understand that Alabama hardly means what it says when it directs that prisoners be defended at all hazards, and I was about to add one word, in lines which are familiar to most of us,

     "Whether on scaffold high,

     Or on the battle's van,

     The fittest place where man can die

     Is where he dies for man."


980

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     I do not want that sentiment voted down. I do not want the State to say that it will fail to reward such men.

     MR. MARTIN (Calhoun)--It has seemed to this convention in its wisdom that the government under such circumstances can institute impeachment proceedings against a sheriff of the State of Alabama. Whether this is a wise or unwise provision is not a question for discussion now. It is a part of your proposed fundamental law. The amendment now proposed says that if a sheriff of the State of Alabama lays down his life in defending; a prisoner, in defending those in the custody of the law, that the State of Alabama will provide for those that look to him for support and protection. I most heartily favor this amendment. It is eminently just, it is eminently right. If the great State of Alabama says to one of her faithful officers, place yourself in front of that prisoner, defend his life as you would defend your own, defend his person as you would defend your own--with the same breath that great State should declare if you go down to death in that undertaking, in vindicating my law, I will see to it that your wife and your children do not suffer, I will provide for them. I say again, it is eminently proper. It is wrong to mob a man, mob-law won't do. A man is arrested, the great law that lays its hands upon him says, you are in my custody, and a hair of your head shall not be hurt until you have a fair trial, an impartial trial by a jury of the land. You put shackles upon his hands and upon his legs, and you place him in the custody of the law, and under the control of your officer, then gentlemen, if a band of men what you call a mob forms to release him from that officer, to take him when he is helpless, try him without court and without jury, without law and without evidence and punish him without delay and without mercy. It is wrong, and every time it is done it is proclaimed to the world that there is a power in this land greater than the law itself. Now Mr. President, it has been my fortune to know a great many sheriffs of the State of Alabama. I have known them long, I have known them well, I have known them from the blue mountains of Clay and Cleburne to the waters of the Tennessee. I declare today that a braver or a more self-sacrificing, more earnest band of officers exist not in this land than the sheriffs of the State of Alabama. They are nearly all men of families, they are poor men with few exceptions. They are dependent for their own support and the support of their families upon their labor, upon the sweat of their brows. They do not belong to that class of citizens who accumulate money and build up fortunes, open-handed and generous they have a large circle of friends and great influence in their respective counties. Now gentlemen, if these men ever at times seem to falter in the presence of an infuriated and determined mob, it is not from cowardice, it is not from personal fear of death, it is not from dread of physical suffering or pain, but That same noble, generous, warm-heart


981

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

that gives the great influence in their neighborhood and in their counties asserts itself in the presence of that snob and instinctively the thought arises in their minds: "if my life is lost here, who will provide for my wife and my children?" That thought, gentlemen of the convention, unnerves the arm, undermines the firm resolve, and is calculated to cause him to adopt more readily the argument "my resistance will accomplish nothing anyway." But let the State of Alabama come to him and say in its great Constitution, we command you to defend that prisoner and vindicate the majesty of the law, and if you die we will provide for your family. Say that, and gentlemen the next man that is taken from the custody of the law and put to death by mob violence in all probability will be followed by two funerals, one will be that of the unfortunate and may be miserable victim, the other will be that of a brave sheriff who died in the discharge of his duty. I say it will stimulate the officers to the discharge of duty, and it will strike terror to the bosom and to the heart of the mob. Proclaim it, let us pass it, and when you say to the world that you demand the life of your sheriff in the vindication of the law, side by side with it let there be the proud declaration that the great State of Alabama will stand by his wife and his orphaned children, when he is gone.

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--I differ with the gentleman who have spoken on this question, who favor putting a premium on the discharge of official duty. I have not known of any instance in the State of Alabama where any man has been coerced into a race for sheriff. I have known of no force that the people have employed to bring out a candidate for that particular office. The office is open to any aspiring citizen of the State. The man who aspires to that office knows its solemn duties, he takes that mantle upon his own shoulder when he does it, he does it as any other citizen assumes the duty of any other office. I am opposed to setting apart a salary for the sheriff to discharge his duty and then to say if you do it we will give you this--

     MR. WHITE--May I ask the gentleman a question?

     THE PRESIDENT--Will the gentleman permit himself to be interrupted?

     MR. HEFLIN--Certainly.

     MR. WHITE--When a man is summoned on a posse to go with a sheriff as I understand, the benefits are extended to him as well as to the sheriff. What is your answer to that?

     MR. HEFLIN--I think Mr. President, in a case like that it is the duty of any citizen of Alabama to go out and lose his life if need be to uphold the law and to save the life of a fellow citizen. Why, Mr. President, we say to the sheriff you shall have so much in fees, so much money will come to you in the office of


982

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

sheriff, now here is a man that the mob seeks, he is in your custody, you hold this office of your own accord, it was a matter of choice with you, you get pay for your services, we say to you back yourself against that jail door, and if you get shot down we are going to give your wife and children so much allowance a year. If you say that, why not say to the solicitor when he is prosecuting the son of a prominent man and stands between the State of Alabama and the jury, and is undertaking fearlessly to discharge his duty, and say to him that if the brother or father of this man shoots you in the back while making your speech to the jury, we will set aside an allowance--

     MR. WHITE--Tell me how many solicitors have been shot in the back under circumstances of that sort?

     MR. HEFLIN--I have not heard of any, I will say to the gentleman from Jefferson.

     MR. BURNS--Will the gentleman allow me to ask a question?

     MR. HEFLIN--I will ask the gentleman how many sheriffs he has known of being killed defending a prisoner from mobs?

     MR. WHITE--We have never yet required them to do it until now, we have never required them to give up their lives or office in the discharge of their duty.

     MR. BURNS--I would like to ask the gentleman if he ever knew of a solicitor being shot in the back for his speech in the court house?

     MR. HEFLIN--No sir but I have heard criticisms upon solicitors about discharging their duty. You might just as well go to the circuit court to the judge and say to him when prominent families are before the court that the Circuit judge can charge the jury fearlessly and if anybody attacks you, we will pay for the attacks made.

     MR. BURNS--Did you ever hear of a mob attacking a judge?

     MR. HEFLIN--I will state to my friend that I never heard of that either, Mr. President, but I am supposing cases, I am undertaking to answer the arguments of the gentleman, which I do not consider much argument. I have never heard, Mr. President, of anything of this sort being done. Why say to the sheriff here is an office that is open, here is a salary attached to it, you are a citizen of this country, you can aspire to that office, as you can to the office of probate judge, you take your choice. Here is a man who has committed an outrageous crime, he is in your custody back yourself against that jail door and let the howling mob destroy you, and if you are killed in the discharge of your duty, the General Assembly of Alabama will set aside a pension for your


983

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 1901

offspring for the years to come. For what? For doing your duty. Mr. President, it is right for the sheriff to stand there and defend the prisoner, and a manly man will do it. It is nothing short of his duty, it is right without a premium, and right is right and God is God. There is no use for this Convention to set apart here a pension for the discharge of duty on these lines, and it will not set well upon the Constitution of the sovereign citizens of Alabama. If you are going to do that say to the solicitor we are going to reward you, here is Bill Jones's son over here a prominent man who killed a boy the other day. When you come to prosecute him and discharge your duty take off your gloves and handle him fearlessly before the jury, his brothers are blood-thirsty fellows, if they shoot you down in the discharge of your duty while making your speech the General Assembly will provide for your offspring, and we will set apart an amount to see that they are well taken care of. Now we will go to one of these little negroes stuck back in the jail. Why it will put the price of negroes above that before the war, it makes the negro more precious in the stand point of dollars and dimes than he was away back yonder in the good old days of slavery.

     MR. BURNS--May I ask the gentleman a question?

     MR. HEFLIN--Certainly.

     MR. BURNS--Do you realize that there is a difference between a brother of a fellow who commits a crime, and a mob. This article refers to a mob.

     MR. HEFLIN--I will suggest to my friend the fellow's brother might be in the mob, or in the courthouse, I don't know where he might be. It has been suggested to me there are no new duties imposed upon, the sheriff--none. The duties of the sheriff today under this provision are as they have been in the days that are gone. I want to say in behalf of the men Who fill the office of sheriff in Alabama, they do not need any premium to make them discharge their duty. They are men--specimens as a rule of noble, chivalric manhood, you don't have to hold out dollars and dimes to have them discharge their duty when they are standing facing the howling mob, they do not need the clank of dollars and dimes to nerve them to do their duty, they don't need it, they don't ask it. I have heard no clamor for that. I am opposed to reconsideration, I am opposed to telling the General Assembly to set apart from time to time pensions for Sheriffs and their posses in the discharge of their duty.

     MR. BURNS--Have we ever required the Solicitors to give up their lives?

     MR. HEFLIN--No.

     MR. BURNS--We have as to the Sheriffs.


984

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. SOLLIE--It comes about that in the latter part of this article I am in opposition to the committee in well nigh all its contentions. Again I opposed the reconsideration, the purpose of it being that expressed by the chairman of the committee. I was opposed to the provisions of that Section. I thought it unwise at that time and so expressed myself to the Convention. I think the amendment contemplated to follow this suspension of the rules well illustrates the unwisdom of the original section. It is like a proposition in geometry, you lay down a false principle in mathematics and put it to working as you would turn a crank and it grinds out false and erroneous results always or if you lay down a proposition in logic with either of the premises false or fallacious wherever you seek to dray a conclusion from it that conclusion is always wrong. My contention before the Convention was that it was wrong, for this Convention to get out of the sphere of constitution making and get after the Sheriffs of Alabama with stringent and far-reaching laws such as appear in that section. Now let us see what follows that law. We have a provision proposed before the Convention which when the moral of it is applied certainly smacks of paternalism. Let us see what is involved in all this. First, the Sheriff's family are to be provided for, and then the posse's families are to be provided for. The Chairman of the Committee gave as an instance illustrating why those families ought to be provided for, the instance of a certain policeman and his mother and sister.

     MR. JONES--Was a member of the State troops.

     MR. SOLLIE--I misunderstood the gentleman. The mother and sister of this trooper rose up between him and his duty. Therefore it is contended that the maintenance of the mother and sister should be provided for by the State that they may stand aside from his pathway. The gentleman is unfortunate in his illustration. It shows how far the word family may go. We have a law requiring a man to support those collateral members of his kin that are immediately near to him; we have certain criminal punishments and penalties following a failure to support them. The family of the Sheriff is expressed in broad language and the family may be prolific, he may be one of fifteen children, and he may have fifteen, and perhaps has a father and mother, and here is turned loose almost a brigade of persons for the State of Alabama to support. Perhaps he has called in a posse of 100 persons, and twenty of them may ire wounded, and they each bring in as many other persons for the State of Alabama to support, all included in the language of this amendment. Mr. President, there is no provision that the families of policemen who die in the discharge of their duties shall be looked after; and they outnumber by far the Sheriffs of Alabama. If it is fair to protect the sheriffs it is fair to protect policemen and it cannot change the question


985

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

of moral right involved in the proposition that in one case you put the Sheriffs into a straight jacket and in the other--

     MR. BURNS--Is there any ordinance saying anything about policemen?

     MR. SOLLIE--There is not, and I was coming to that very proposition and attempting to explain it. The law says that the Sheriff must discharge his duty; he does it, and dies, and his family are to be protected. The law requires that the policeman shall do so, that the marshals shall do so, and the same moral obligations rests upon each and every one of them that rests upon the Sheriff.

     MR. SPEARS (St. Clair)--Allow me to ask you a question.

     MR. SOLLIE--Certainly.

     MR. SPEARS--Do you believe it is right for the government to pension a volunteer soldier who has been disabled in battle defending his country?

     MR. SOLLIE--I cannot see that that is so germane to the question, Mr. President. (Laughter.) And yet I do not object to their being pensioned.

     MR. SPEAR--I would like to ask the gentleman another question. Will the gentleman permit me to ask another question?

     MR. SOLLIE--Certainly.

     MR. SPEARS--Do you believe it is right for the government to pension the wife and children of a volunteer soldier who has laid down his life in defense of his country?

     MR. SOLLIE--I see no objection to that, Mr. President.

     MR. SPEARS--Well then, another question?

     MR. SOLLIE--All you wish to ask.

     MR. SPEARS--Can you tell what difference there is in principle in the practice of pensioning a soldier and the practice of pensioning a Sheriff under the Constitution that we are about to frame?

     MR. SOLLIE--Yes, sir, it will give me great pleasure to give my reasons for opposing the proposition not withstanding I recognize the justness of pensioning soldiers and the wives of soldiers. Mr. President, we have our militia, there devolves upon them certain duties. There are a large number of them, we never know when they are going to be called into active duty, they come in along with the class with policemen and the other persons called upon to discharge executive duties, which makes them forfeit their lives in the discharge of duty.


986

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. JONES--Will you permit me to ask a question?

     MR. SOLLIE--I would be glad to answer one question at a time.

     MR. JONES--I did not know anybody was asking you one now.

     MR. SOLLIE--Mr. Spears asked me about five questions and I was answering them. If along a different line you may put it in, and I will answer them all together.

     MR. JONES--Never mind.

     MR. SOLLIE--I was proceeding to answer the several successive questions of the gentleman. The soldiers come in the list of persons who have to discharge these duties that are dangerous and that may lead to loss of life. Policemen may have to do it, citizens all over the State may have to do it. Now this constitutional provision proposes to single out froth the total number the sheriffs of the State and while the counties remain as they are, only sixty-six in number, and the accidental posses who may be summoned and leave all the others unprovided for in the Constitution. We are here to make a Constitution, not to legislate. There are shown up already in our proceedings two propositions from which I dissent and which, in my judgment are open to grave and serious criticism.

     One is that there seems to be an inordinate desire at this point and at that among the members of this Convention to cause the Convention to reach its hands down into the pockets of the people of Alabama and make disbursements or direct disbursement. According to my observation the Legislature of Alabama is sufficiently prone to squander money and--

     MR. ROGERS (Sumter)--Will the gentleman permit me to interrupt him?

     MR. SOLLIE--Certainly.

     MR. ROGERS--I would like to suggest to you this thought: Can't the legislature if it desires to do so, already under the present law, pension the Sheriff if they want to?

     MR. SOLLIE--Of course.

     MR. ROGERS--And why the necessity for putting a Constitutional provision?

     MR. SOLLIE--Exactly, sir. You have my idea precisely. Mr. President, members are prone to find this and that pretext as an excuse for reaching their hands into the State Treasury and disbursing the money which should be kept there to defray the legitimate expenses of State.


987

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     Then the other tendency is to get away from the object of making a Constitution and to go into legislating for this and that individual and for this individual enterprise and for that individual enterprise until if these ideas shall obtain in all their length and breadth of proportion our Constitution will be greater than the statute laws compiled by Napoleon, greater than the statutes of Alabama, until a man who wants to read our Constitution must devote months to it. I say these two tendencies in this Convention to load down the Constitution with appropriations and with legislation constitute a grave and serious error which will call in question before the critical eye of the world, the common sense of this Convention. It will subject us to the gravest criticisms, before the enlightened world. Why should the Alabama Constitutional Convention, made up of lawyers and bankers and men supposed to be wise and intelligent, subject itself to criticism of this character.

     If we are going to pension the Sheriffs and their posses and going to pension them in the Constitution, let us pension all men who may probably go into a like situation and who stand in the same category. Would not that be fair and just. Let us pension policemen who lose their lives, let us pension the soldiers who lose their lives, and not adopt the policy that the legislature may do the pensioning, but that we, the Constitutional Convention of Alabama, all powerful will usurp the legislative functions and go on and pass the laws or put peremptory mandates in the Constitution that the legislature shall pass them. I say that is a false policy. If it is well that the Sheriffs should be pensioned, let the legislature pension them. I repeat that whenever an appeal of this kind has been made, the legislatures have been ready enough to respond to it. We need not fear anything on that score.

     Now, I do not know that I care to pursue this question further. I have about covered the grounds of my objections, and I respectfully submit to the Convention that we may well leave this matter to the legislature without saying anything about it in the Constitution.

     The suggestion of life insurance for sheriffs is made by some gentlemen of the Convention, but I don't know how pertinent that is.

     MR. BURNS--I move that it be laid upon the table.

     MR. MORRISETTE--I move the previous question.

     MR. SOLLIE--I rise to a point of order, that a motion to table--

     THE PRESIDENT--Does the gentleman withdraw the demand for the previous question?


988

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     The Convention expressed dissent.

     The previous question ordered.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--Mr. President I send up to the clerk's a substitute which at the proper time I wish to offer. I regret exceedingly that there seems to be so much impatience upon the part of some of our friends, to hear discussion on a great matter upon which Alabama may be well misunderstood by the civilized world if, after this proposition has been made we shall vote it down or put it upon the table. It has been asked, cannot the legislature do this? Yes, it could, but the language of the substitute which will be offered presently, and the language of the original resolution was mandatory. Why, the gentleman says, that it smacks of paternalism. Good God, Mr. President, was it ever before heard that when a State protects a man who dies in its service, that it is reaching up in the realms of paternalism?

     What is it when you tax the people to educate the poor children of the State? In a sense it is paternalism, but thank God the people of Alabama have quit being scared at names, and if that is "paternalism," they are for it. What is it when you tax people to buy libraries? Why is it that the State enters into manifold functions that it did not in former days? It is because as ages advance and conditions multiply governments do what in former days and times it did not do, and what they then called paternalism. Some of our friends, who opposed this amendment, try to load it down with the argument that because we did not provide for all cases, therefore we should provide for none. What is the Sheriff? The highest constitutional officer in the county. We have laid upon him a command. He is the subject of peculiar attacks, attacks of mob violence when he is defending a prisoner. No other constitutional officer in the State is charged to the same extent with that same high duty, and none, therefore, so prominent a target for attack as the Sheriff. Is it any answer to say, I won't vote to protect this man, because you do not vote to protect everybody else? I submit not, Mr. President. But it is said he is a volunteer, that he runs for office.

     MR. BURNETT--Will you allow me to ask a question.

     MR. JONES--I will when I get through, I will answer any question on earth, but I don't care to be interrupted now.

     They say he is a volunteer, and he has only discharged his duty. That proposition pushed to its logical sequence is that neither the State nor anyone else ought to reward a man simply for discharging his duty, no matter what that duty is. Is that the practice of civilization? Is it the feeling in our hearts. Haven't you seen regiment after regiment march out in defense of their country, cheered by the women, with tears streaming down their faces, followed by the prayers of the good. Haven't


989

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

you seen them when they came back--those who survived--honored, taken up by their fellow citizens, given places of prominence, and what for? Because they had discharged their duty well and faithfully. My friend on my right asked the gentleman on my left what was the difference in principle between pensioning a volunteer soldier and pensioning a volunteer sheriff, and he made the best answer that he could, that it did not seem to him applicable. It was applicable, it couldn't be answered. Now, Mr. President, what is the practical trouble about this proposition--how many sheriffs do gentlemen expect to be killed when they talk about this magnificent pension roll. We hope there may not be any, but the moment it becomes known that the jail is a sanctuary you will not find it attacked, and no sheriffs will be killed. The State troops, on many occasions, have confronted a mob, and mobs never fired on them, because they knew they would be killed. They never will attack the jail when they know that to go there means death. The moment that the law of Alabama makes a jail a sanctuary for a man who is there to receive justice--whether it be death or liberty--you will find that while mobs in the hue and cry may swing up a victim before he is in the hands of the officers of the law, that they will never touch a jail. So there will be no great pension bill. What is the objection to providing for the family of the member of a posse? He has not been guilty of the offense of volunteering. Take the dependent upon his daily wages, give him a musket, and put him in the jail and have him struck down and killed defending a prisoner. Is it not right for the State to care for his family. The answer is an epithet, that it is paternalism, not that it is wrong for the State of Alabama to pay any attention to his family. Mr. President, there was a greater than any in this hall, greater than any being ever on earth, who declared the principle which justifies this enactment and it was when the Divine Master said "Bear ye one another's burdens." Mr. President, I am done.

     THE PRESIDENT--The question is on the motion to reconsider.

     The ayes and noes were called for and the call was sustained.

     The result of the roll call was as follows:

AYES

Almon,

Browne,

deGraffenreid,

Ashcraft,

Bulger,

Duke,

Banks,

Burnett,

Fletcher,

Barefield,

Burns,

Foshee,

Bartlett,

Byars,

Foster,

Beavers,

Case,

Freeman,

Beddow,

Carmichael, of Coffee,

Gilmore,

Blackwell,

Cornwall,

Graham, of Montgomery,

Brooks,

Cunningham,

Graham, of Talladega,


990

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Grant,

Martin,

Sanford,

Grayson,

Maxwell,

Searcy,

Haley,

Miller, of Marengo,

Selheimer,

Hinson,

Morrisette,

Sloan,

Hood,

Mulkey,

Smith, Mac A.,

Howell,

Murphree,

Sorrell,

Jackson,

Norman,

Spears,

Jenkins,

Norwood,

Tayloe,

Jones, of Bibb,

O'Neill (Jefferson),

Thompson,

Jones, of Montgomery,

O'Rear,

Watts,

Jones, of Wilcox,

Palmer,

Weakley,

Kirkland,

Parker, of Cullman,

Weatherly,

Knight,

Pettus,

White,

Kyle,

Porter,

Whiteside,

Leigh,

Proctor,

Willet,

MacDonald,

Reese,

Williams, of Marengo,

McMillan (Baldwin),

Reynolds, of Chilton,

Wilson, of Washington,

McMillan, of Wilcox,

Rogers, of Lowndes,

Winn,

Malone,

 

 

Malone,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    TOTAL--82.

NOES

Messrs. President,

Handley,

Pearce,

Altman,

Harrison,

Phillips,

Bethune,

Heflin, of Chambers,

Pillans,

Boone,

Heflin, of Randolph,

Pitts,

Cardon,

Henderson,

Reynolds (Henry),

Carmichael, of Colbert,

Howze,

Robinson,

Carnathon,

Inge,

Rogers, of Sumter,

Chapman,

Jones, of Hale,

Samford,

Cobb,

Kirk,

Sanders,

Coleman, of Walker,

Locklin,

Smith, of Mobile,

Craig,

Lowe, of Lawrence,

Sollie,

Davis, of DeKalb,

Merrill,

Spragins,

Dent,

Miller, of Wilcox,

Stewart,

Espy,

Moody,

Waddell,

Ferguson,

Oates,

Walker,

Glover,

Opp,

Williams, of Barbour,

Greer, of Calhoun,

Parker, of Elmore,

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     TOTAL--50.

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING

Cofer,

King,

Renfro,

Coleman, of Greene,

Ledbetter,

Sentell,

Davis, of Etowah,

Lomax,

Smith, Morgan M.,

Eley,

Long, of Butler,

Studdard,

Eyster,

Long, of Walker,

Vaughan,

Fitts,

Lowe, of Jefferson,

Wilson, of Clarke,

Greer, of Perry,

NeSmith,

Williams, of Elmore

Hodges,

O'Neal, of Lauderdale,

 


991

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     So the motion to reconsider was carried.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--I move the adoption of the substitute and on that I call for the previous question.

     THE PRESIDENT--The delegate from Montgomery offers a substitute which the Secretary will read.

     The substitute was read as follows: It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to make adequate provisions for the dependent members of the family of any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or member of any posse who may be killed or permanently injured in defending any prisoner in the custody of the law.

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--I move to lay the substitute on the table.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--The previous question has been moved and the gentleman cannot cut that off by a motion to table.

     THE PRESIDENT -- The gentleman from Montgomery moved the previous question. Thereupon, the gentleman from Chambers moved to lay the substitute upon the table. Under our rules the motion to table would have precedence of the motion for the previous question.

     MR. JONES--I do not want to take up time, but I want to submit this to the Chair--

     MR. HEFLIN--I rise to a point of order.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman will state the point of order.

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--A motion to table is not debatable.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--I am not debating any motion to table, but I am conferring with the Chair as to whether he is right on the point of order. Our rule says when the previous question is ordered you must immediately take a vote on the main question and that cannot be cut off by a motion to table.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman is entirely correct in that, but the gentleman is informed that the previous question has not been ordered and that this motion to table is made and it is an incidental question.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--If the gentleman insists on that motion to table and not taking a vote on this proposition, I will demand the yeas and nays. I hope the friends of the measure will stand up for it--


992

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--I rise to a point of order. A motion to table is not debatable.

     MR. COBB--If this motion to table is voted down will the substitute of the gentleman from Montgomery be amendable. If the amendment of the delegate from Montgomery is laid on the table it cannot be amended unless it is taken from the table.

     MR. BULGER--If the motion to table is lost, will the pending question be previous question on the substitute of the gentleman from Montgomery?

     THE PRESIDENT--The Chair thinks it would.

      The call for the yeas and nays was sustained by the rising of a requisite number and the result of the roll call was as follows:

AYES

Messrs. President,

Greer, of Calhoun,

Parker (Elmore),

Altman,

Handley,

Pearce,

Bethune,

Harrison,

Phillips,

Boone

Heflin, of Chambers,

Pitts,

Cardon,

Heflin, of Randolph,

Reynolds, of Henry,

Carmichael, of Coffee,

Henderson,

Robinson,

Carnathan,

Howze,

Rogers (Sumter),

Chapman,

Inge,

Sanders,

Coleman, of Walker,

Jones, of Hale,

Smith (Mobile),

Craig,

Kirk,

Sollie,

Davis, of DeKalb,

Lowe, of Lawrence,

Spragins,

Dent,

Merrill ,

Vaughan,

Espy,

Miller (Wilcox),

Waddell,

Ferguson,

Moody,

Walker,

Foshee,

Oates,

Williams (Barbour),

Glover,

Opp,

Wilson (Clarke),

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    TOTAL--48.

NOES

Ashcraft,

Carmichael, of Colbert,

Grant,

Almon,

Case,

Grayson,

Banks,

Cobb,

Haley,

Barefield,

Cornwall,

Hinson,

Bartlett,

Cunningham,

Hood,

Beavers,

deGraffenreid,

Howell,

Beddow,

Duke,

Jackson,

Blackwell,

Eyster,

Jenkins

Brooks,

Fletcher,

Jones, of Bibb,

Bulger,

Foster,

Jones, of Montgomery,

Burnett,

Gilmore,

Jones, of Wilcox,

Burns,

Graham, of Montgomery,

Kirkland,

Byars,

Graham, of Talladega,

 Knight,


993

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Kyle,

O'Neill, of Jefferson,

Smith, Mac. A.,

Leigh,

O' Rear,

Sorrell,

Locklin,

Palmer,

Spears,

Long, of Walker,

Parker (Cullman),

Tayloe,

Macdonald,

Pettus,

Thompson,

McMillan, of Baldwin,

Pillans,

Watts,

McMillan (Wilcox),

Porter,

Weakley,

Malone,

Proctor,

Weatherly,

Martin,

Reese,

White,

Miller (Marengo),

Reynolds (Chilton),

Whiteside,

Morrisette,

Rogers (Lowndes),

Willet,

Mulkey,

Sanford,

Williams (Marengo),

Murphree,

Searcy,

Wilson (Washington),

Norman,

Selheimer,

Winn.

Norwood,

Sloan,

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       TOTAL--83.

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING

Browne,

Hodges,

Renfro,

Cofer,

King,

Samford,

Coleman, of Greene,

Ledbetter,

Sentell,

Davis, of Etowah,

Lomax,

Smith, Morgan M.

Eley,

Lowe, of Jefferson,

Stewart,

Fitts,

Maxwell,

Studdard,

Freeman,

NeSmith,

Williams (Elmore),

Greer, of Perry,

O'Neal (Lauderdale),

Long, of Butler.

     During the roll call.

     MR. COBB--I rise for information, in the nature of a parliamentary inquiry. I understand there are two propositions before the House, the proposition of the gentleman from Dallas and a substitution or amendment by the gentlemap from Montgomery. If we lay the substitute of the gentleman from Montgomedy on the table, the question comes on the proposition of the gentleman from Dallas?

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman from Macon is correct.

     MR. COBB--I may vote for the motion of the gentleman from Montgomery now, that is vote for the substitute now and still vote against it afterwards, that then the question comes afterwards of whether we will accept it?

     THE PRESIDENT--The question is on the motion to lay on the table the substitute.

     MR. COBB--But my question is suppose that is voted down, will the motion then be, shall the substitute be adopted?

     THE PRESIDENT--The question will be upon the demand for the previous question upon the adoption of the substitute.


994

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     The roll was continued, completed, and the result announced.

     So the House refused to table the substitute.

     MR. JONES--I move the adoption of the substitute and on that I call for the previous question.

     MR. SOLLIE--Will the gentleman withdraw for a moment?

     MR. JONES--No; I am sorry to say I cannot.

     A vote being taken, on a division, resulted 84 ayes and 22 noes. So the previous question was ordered.

     MR. CHAPMAN--I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman will state the inquiry.

     MR. CHAPMAN -- Does the action of the convention now place this in such a condition that no change or amendment can be made or proposed to the substitute?

     THE PRESIDENT--The previous question has been ordered.

     MR. CHAPMAN -- It seems to me that some of that language is very objectionable and I would like to amend if the gentleman would permit it.

     MR. JONES--I would like very much to do it, but we will never get through.

     MR. CHAPMAN--I think we ought not to get through it in too much haste. This is a very serious matter.

     MR. JONES--I rise to a point of order. I don't think the gentleman can argue against a vote already ordered except by unanimous consent.

     THE PRESIDENT--The point of order is well taken.

     MR. CHAPMAN -- I ask unanimous consent to offer an amendment.

     There was objection.

     MR. GREER (Calhoun)--Does the adoption of this substitute of the gentleman from Montgomery mean that in future years the pension list of Alabama will be proportionately as large as that of the National Government.

     The reading of the substitute was called for, and it was again read.

     MR. SPEARS--I want to ask the gentleman from Montgomery a question: If I understand the reading of the substitute it makes no provision for the Sheriff in case he is disabled; it only makes provision for the family.

     MR. JONES--The effect of the section, if adopted, is this:


995

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

That the dependent members of the family of any Sheriff or of any member of a posse who is killed may be provided for.

     MR. SPEARS--But suppose the Sheriff is disabled, he is not dead, but cannot work, he is helpless; you have no provision for him.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery) -- None on earth. It provides for the dependent members of the family.

     MR. BURNS--I want to say that I will withdraw my article in favor of the substitute.

     THE PRESIDENT--The question is on the substitute offered by the gentleman front Montgomery to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Dallas.

     MR. ROGERS (Sumter)--And on that I call for the ayes and noes.

     The call was not sustained, and a viva voce vote being taken, the substitute was adopted.

     THE PRESIDENT--The question is now upon the original section proposed by the gentleman from Dallas, as amended.

     MR. BURNS -- I withdraw my amendment in favor of the substitute.

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene) -- I have been trying since I reached the hall to get into the merits of the question, and I would like to have the section read as amended.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--I rise to a point of order. The gentleman from Dallas offered an original section to the article I moved a substitute for that which he accepted, and which the House has just passed, so that the substitute is not now before the House at all.

     THE PRESIDENT--In the opinion of the Chair a substtute is but a form of amendment, and when offered, is acted upon by the Convention as an amendment, and when adopted the question recurs upon the adoption of the section as amended. The Chair will overrule the point of order.

     MR. COBB--I offer an amendment.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman from Mason will send up his amendment.

     The section proposed by the delegate from Dallas, as amended by the substitute, was again read.

     MR. GRAHAM (Talladega)--I rise to a point of order. The section just read is the identical proposition that this Convention


996

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

adopted as a substitute, and my point of order is that it is too late to amend a proposition which has already been adopted, and the call for the previous question cuts off the other members from offering amendments.

     MR. COBB--The previous question does not apply to the proceedings. The Chair has ruled both propositions are before the Convention. Now, I propose to amend the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery.

     MR. deGRAFFENREID -- I rise to a point of order. The gentleman is out of order because the delegate from Greene has never yielded the floor.

     THE PRESIDENT--In the opinion of the Chair, the point is well taken. The gentleman from Greene was recognized and has never yielded the floor.

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)--I regret very much not having heard and gotten the benefit of the discussion on this question, and I have hardly had time to mature in my mind what is right and proper or how this section should be framed. As it is, it seems to me there is no remedy at law; the parties cannot enforce any claim by any suit at law. It is left entirely to the discretion of the Legislature. That is the way the reading of the section strikes me. No remedy is given except such as the Legislature in the exercise of good judgment will give. They fix the compensation. How the Legislature is to arrive at proper compensation except by taking testimony of witnesses, how it is to take the testimony of witnesses of course would depend altogether upon legislation hereafter to be provided by the Legislature. The whole thing is a matter of legislation. If it is the desire of the Convention to make compensation in the cases mentioned, it seems to me the organic law ought not to go further than to say that compensation shall be made, and let the Legislature fix its own rules. There is no necessity really for any such provision in the organic law unless you see proper to assert it. I would like to hear this proposition discussed a little further before we come to a vote.

     MR. COBB--I offer an amendment.

     MR. GRAHAM (Talladega)--It was probably an oversight. But I rose to a point of order that the identical proposition has just been voted upon by the Convention, and there was no ruling upon the point of order. The point of order I make is this: As stated by the chairman of the committee, there was an original proposition. It was withdrawn by the mover by the unanimous consent of the Convention. Then the chairman of the committee offered this as a substitute. There was nothing before the Convention, but the substitute, and this Convention adopted the substitute. Therefore, there is nothing to amend until you reconsider


997

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

the vote by which this substitute was adopted. I ask for a ruling upon that point of order.

     THE PRESIDENT--The Chair will state that the gentleman is mistaken in saying that the gentleman from Dallas asked unanimous consent to accept the substitute, and that it was accepted by unanimous consent. The original section as offered by the gentleman from Dallas was pending, and while it would have been perfectly competent for the gentleman from Dallas, had he obtained unanimous consent, to accept the substitute, and the question would have then been as if the substitute had been the original proposition. But that was not the course pursued. The question was submitted on the adoption of the substitute for the section as proposed by the Gentleman from Dallas and as the Chair understands all the parliamentary authorities hold that a substitute is simply a different form of amendment, and when adopted it is adopted as an amendment and the question recurs on the section as amended. The scope of the amendment, the fact that it strikes out all or a small part or all but the enacting clause, or all but one syllable, it seems to the Chair does not change the principle. It is an amendment notwithstanding, and the question would recur upon the section as amended.

     MR. GRAHAM (Talladega) --Suppose it strikes out everything, then what?

     THE PRESIDENT--It seems to the Chair that the principle would be the same.

     MR. GRAHAM (Talladega)--Did not the gentleman from Dallas ask to withdraw his original proposition and accept the substitute?

     THE PRESIDENT--In the confusion incident to the consideration of the question the gentleman from Dallas walked up near to the gentleman from Montgomery and made some statement and a point of order was made against his right to debate and the Chair stated nothing at all to the Convention.

     MR. JONES--I beg to remind the Chair that in the opening remarks of the Chairman of the committee, he stated that on yesterday his friend from Dallas in the hurry of preparation had not gotten the exact language that he wanted, and he authorized me to say he preferred the substitute I had drawn up. I stated that in my opening argument and the gentleman from Dallas will confirm it.

     MR. PRESIDENT--If the gentleman made that statement, and the Chair has no doubt that he did, the Chair will overrule the point of order of the delegate from Talladega.

     MR. COBB--To show that the gentleman from Montgomery was not understood, as he states it, I have been voting upon the


998

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

idea that both propositions were before this Convention. I am opposed to the whole of it, but I prefer the proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery to the proposition of the gentleman from Dallas. Now as to my amendment.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman will suspend until the amendment is read.

     MR. CUNNINGHAM--I rise to a point of order.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman will state the point.

     MR. CUNNINGHAM -- The Chair holds that the original proposition offered by the gentleman from Dallas is an amendment to the report of the Executive Committee. He further holds that the substitute offered by the Chairman of the committee is an amendment to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Dallas. I therefore make the point of order that further amendment is out of order.

     THE PRESIDENT--That point of order would have been well taken had it been proposed before the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery was adopted. But after the adoption of the amendment the Chair understands the section is still open to further amendment. If an amendment is adopted to a section, that does not cut off further amendment.

     MR. BURNS--I rise to a question of inquiry. Did or did not the distinguished Chairman of that committee move the adoption of the section as amended and call for the previous question?

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman did not.

     The amendment of the delegate from Macon was read as follows: Strike out the words "it shall be the duty" and insert "it shall be in the power of the General Assembly."

     MR. COBB--The proposition offered by the gentleman from Montgomery is in my opinion misleading. It has been asserted, perhaps by himself, that his proposition left it entirely with the Legislature to create this pension or not and yet in reading his amendment it is mandatory on the Legislature. They cannot neglect to perform that which in the Constitution is denominated a duty upon them. Therefore, if it is desired by the Convention to leave this question of establishing a civil pension list to the Legislature, my amendment should be adopted.

     MR. HINSON--What would be the effect of your amendment?

     MR. COBB--To leave the whole question to the Legislature.

     MR. HINSON--Would it really have any effect?

     MR. COBB--It would leave it to the Legislature.


999

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     MR. HINSON--Has not the Legislature already that power?

     MR. COBB--I think so, and I am going to make that argument against the whole proposition. The gentleman anticipates me. I was attempting to reinforce the strong argument made by the gentleman from Greene that this is a matter wholly unsuited to go into the Constitution as a part of the organic law. The whole question is in the power of the Legislature to deal with, and I object here and now as I have objected before, to putting in this organic law, matters which are now and will remain entirely within the powers and purview of the Legislature of the State.

     Mr. President, it fatigues me to hear men get upon the floor, as they have done from time to time, and talk about the Legislature doing nothing and that it will do nothing, you cannot get them to do anything, that they are subjected to this influence and that influence. I would like to ask what right have we to arrogate to ourselves superior virtue. We are the representatives of the people and nothing more. The Legislature is composed of representatives of the people and nothing more. If half that has been said upon this floor with regard to the Legislature be true, we had better despair of representative government in the State of Alabama. The Legislature comes from the people. The legislators are supposed to represent the wishes of the people. They represent the power of the people, and if, from time to time, as has been asserted here, Legislatures assemble who are subjected to bribery and to influences in the nature of a bribery, and who do nothing in the interests of the people, then what becomes of our boasted institution of representative government?

     Mr. President, I do not propose to make any argument in extenso in regard to this proposition more than that. I would like if time were not pressing, to answer some of the questions that have been propounded upon this floor. Delegates have asked the question, what is the difference between pensioning the soldier who gave his life for his country and pensioning a Sheriff who gave his life for his country, and my friend in an ex cathedra style asks who has said anything about policemen, when something was said about pensioning them. The fact that nothing is said about policemen is all the worse for his proposition. The policemen of the city of Montgomery are in more danger every night that passes than any Sheriff of Alabama was ever in from any organized mob.

     MR. BURNS--Has any ordinance been framed for this Constitution that policemen should lay down their lives in discharge of their duty?

     MR. COBB--No sir; no ordinance is required to make a policeman lay down his life in the discharge of his duty, and no


1000

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

ordinance is required to make a Sheriff lay down his life, if need be, in the discharge of his duty. He takes the office cum onere. So does the policeman, and if in the discharge of duty he must sacrifice his life, it is duty he is performing for which we are not called upon as a government to compensate him in the way of a pension.

     MR. BURNS -- Will the gentleman answer the question I propounded?

     MR. COBB--I have answered it.

     MR. CARNATHAN--I rise to a point of order. The gentleman is out of his seat, (indicating the delegate from Dallas.)

     MR. COBB--I rose from my seat and I walked here. I will answer any question that the gentleman asks.

     A policeman is a quasi State officer, just as much a subject for pension by the State as a Sheriff.

     Now in answer to the other question as to the soldier. The concensus of opinion of the United States has heretofore been and continues to be, that we should make a broad line of demarkation between a military pension and a civil pension list. The Government of the United States, as liberal as it has been in pensioning people, and you know how liberal it has been, and so do I--

     MR. WHITE--Will the gentleman from Macon allow me to ask him a question?

     MR. COBB--Certainly.

     MR. WHITE--Does the United States pension judges of its courts after they have lived seventy years and served twenty years?

     MR. COBB--They do not.

     SEVERAL DELEGATES--They do.

     MR. COBB--The United States Government provides that when a United States Judge has served a certain length of time and has reached a certain age, he may voluntarily retire under full pay. That is quite different from a pension.

     There is no pension civil list in the United States except perhaps in one instance. Congress has passed a law that if a President or an ex-President dies, his widow may receive so much money during her life. That I conceive to be in the nature of a civil pension, but it is very restricted, it stops there, with the widow of a President, or ex-President, and that is only because of the great dignity of this high office. Beyond that there is not a single provision in the laws of the United States for a civil pension list.


1001

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     In answer to my friend from Jefferson I would say to my certain knowledge and to the knowledge of my friend, Governor Oates, effort was made in the Congress of the United States to pension the family of Chief Justice Waite and it failed overwhelmingly. Is not that so?

     MR. OATES--It is.

     MR. COBB--And every effort that has been made in that body to begin the organization of a civil pension list has failed, and mainly for the reason that when you begin this civil pension list there is no end to it, there is no stoppage. You cannot say "thus far and no further," because the argument will come and it will be overwhelming, that if the family of this civil officer is pensioned, the family of that civil officer should be pensioned, and strong reasons will be urged. Therefore I repeat the Government of the United States has hitherto steered clear of the establishment of a civil pension list.

     Now as to the necessity. I want to ask my friends here who are so earnest upon these propositions, to tell me whether or not the sheriffs of the State of Alabama have hitherto failed to do their duty?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--Are you asking me?

     MR. COBB--Yes, you.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--Yes, in several instances. There was a case in Elmore County where the military were run around for four or five miles to keep them away from the mob. There have been lots of cases where the sheriffs have failed to do their duty, not through cowardice, but because they felt it was morally wrong to defend some worthless prisoner.

     MR. PARKER (Elmore) -- I want to ask the gentleman from Montgomery a question.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman froth Macon has the floor.

     MR. PARKER (Elmore)--I will ask the delegate from Macan the question and the gentleman from Montgomery can answer it.

     THE PRESIDENT--Does the gentleman from Macon yield to the question?

     MR. COBB--Oh, yes.

     MR. PARKER (Elmore)--Was it not the fault of the military, and were they not led around purposely by the Sheriff and didn't they fail to do their duty on that occasion?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--I don't understand how.


1002

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. COBB--Whether the military were not misled by the Sheriff running around?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--If the Sheriff, when the life of his prisoner was at stake, deluded the strong arm of the law and led the military on the wrong trail, what was that but the fault of the Sheriff?

     MR. COBB--This is not my fight. The question I want to ask the gentleman from Montgomery is this. Do you know of a single instance in the State of Alabama where a Sheriff stood up to his duty that he was ever interferred with by a mob?

     MR. JONES -- I do not believe I do, except in a case the other day in Huntsville where the Sheriff stood with his pistol and the mob would not face him, but smoked him out with chemicals; and one other Sheriff in Jefferson County was assaulted by an armed mob and he killed and wounded about forty and no mob has ever been around that jail since.

     MR. COBB--Therefore when the Sheriff does his duty, the mob retires.

     MR. WALKER -- And I desire to state that the Sheriff of Madison County is not an applicant for a pension.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--And I desire to state that the Sheriff of that county is not dead, and it is not a question of what ought to be done for his widow or dependent children if he had been killed.

     THE PRESIDENT--Does the delegate from Macon consent to be interrupted?

     MR. COBB--I do.

     There were no further questions.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman will proceed.

     MR. COBB--I never talk without I think I have something to say, others may not agree with me, but at all events, I want to get through with this business. There is a sentiment prevailing in the State of Alabama and in every other State in the American nation and in all civilized governments that the walls of a jail should be, as against illegal entrance from without, as strong as adamant although made of gossimer, and that sentiment has a deterrent effect upon any mob that ever assembled. Whenever the Sheriff does his duty, the history of this State is to the effect that the mob after making some show, retires. They will not face the music and hence, I repeat, as against mob violence, the Sheriff is in less danger than a policeman in Montgomery every night.


1003

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     MR. WHITE--Will the gentleman permit a question?

     MR. COBB--Yes.

     MR. WHITE--If the mob retires, will we have to pay any pension?

     MR. COBB--No, sir; and if he does his duty they will retire without having before his eyes the question of a pension or not. I have heard, and you have heard, Mr. President, and all of us of the killing of Sheriffs by desperate men whom they were attempting to arrest. That occurs frequently. Are you going to pension a Sheriff because a desperado he is attempting to arrest kills him?

     MR. HINSON--I would like to ask the gentleman a question.

     THE PRESIDENT--Does the gentleman yield for the interrogatory?

     MR. COBB--I hate not to do it--oh, go on.

     MR. HINSON--Does the sheriff get any financial benefit from arresting the man?

     MR. COBB--Yes.

     MR. HINSON--Does he when he is defending the prisoner?

     MR. COBB--Certainly, the same.

     MR. HINSON--How?

     MR. COBB--I will show you if you give me time.

     MR. BURNS--Will the gentleman let me ask a question?

     MR. COBB--One at a time gentleman. The Sheriff of the county gets no special benefit from arresting prisoners. He gets $2.50 and he gets about the same amount or more for keeping his prisoner in the jail, and where is the difference when it comes to pay? The Sheriff receives pay which the law considers adequate taking into consideration all the risks of his work.

     But to come back to the question, the main question is the establishment in the State of Alabama, for the first time in its history, of a civil pension list.

     MR. BAREFIELD--I move to lay the amendment of the gentleman from Macon on the table.

     MR. COBB--I have not yielded the floor.

     MR. FOSTER--I make the point of order that he has spoken thirty minutes.

     THE PRESIDENT--The Chair understood that the delegate from Macon had yielded the floor and recognized the gentleman


1004

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

from Monroe and he moves to lay the amendment of the delegate from Macon on the table.

     MR. JONES--I hope that the gentleman will not insist on that. While the gentleman from Macon is on the other side, he has taken up about two-thirds of his time answering questions which have been propounded to him.

     MR. OATES--I did not understand the Chair to recognize the gentleman from Monroe for any such purpose.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman from Monroe moved--

     MR. OATES--I did not understand the Chair recognized him for the purpose of making that motion.

     THE PRESIDENT--The Chair did not recognize him for any special purpose, and the Chair did not know he was going to make that motion. Does the gentleman consent to withdraw the motion?

     MR. BAREFIELD--No sir. We have taken up enough time already, Mr. President, and I move to lay the amendment of the gentleman from Macon on the table.

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--We demand the ayes and noes on that proposition.

     THE PRESIDENT--The question is, is the call sustained?

     The requisite number rising, the call was sustained.

     MR. JACKSON--There has been so much discussion, we would like to hear the amendment read again.

     The amendment was read as follows: Strike out the words "it shall be the duty" and insert "it shall be in the power of the General Assembly."

     THE PRESIDENT--The question is on the motion made by the gentleman from Monroe to lay the amendment of the gentleman from Macon upon the table. Those in favor of tabling the amendment will say aye, and those opposed no, as their names are called.

AYES

Ashcraft,

Byars,

Foster,

Banks,

Carmichael, of Coffee,

Gilmore,

Barefield,

Case,

Graham, of Montgomery,

Beddow,

Cunningham,

Graham, of Talladega,

Blackwell,

deGraffenreid,

Grayson,

Brooks,

Duke,

Hinson,

Burnett,

Eyster,

Hood,

Burns,

Fitts,

Howell,


1005

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Jackson,

Morrisette,

Smith, Mac. A.,

Jenkins,

Mulkey,

Sorrell,

Jones, of Montgomery,

Norman,

Spears,

Jones, of Wilcox,

Norwood,

Thompson,

Knight,

O'Rear,

Watts,

Kyle,

Palmer,

Weakley,

Leigh,

Parker (Cullman),

White,

Macdonald,

Pettus,

Whiteside,

McMillan (Baldwin),

Porter,

Willet,

McMillan (Wilcox),

Reynolds (Chilton),

Williams (Marengo),

Malone,

Rogers (Lowndes),

Wilson (Washington),

Martin,

Selheimer,

Winn.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  TOTAL 60.

NOES

Messrs. President,

Glover,

O'Neill (Jefferson),

Altman,

Grant,

Opp,

Bartlett,

Greer, of Calhoun,

Parker (Elmore),

Beavers,

Haley,

Pearce,

Bethune,

Handley,

Phillips,

Boone,

Harrison,

Pillans,

Browne,

Heflin, of Chambers,

Pitts,

Bulger,

Heflin, of Randolph,

Proctor,

Cardon,

Henderson,

Reynolds (Henry),

Carmichael, of Colbert,

Howze,

Robinson,

Carnathon,

Inge,

Rogers (Sumter),

Chapman,

Jones, of Bibb,

Samford,

Cobb,

Jones, of Hale,

Sanders,

Cofer

Kirk,

Sanford,

Coleman, of Greene,

Kirkland,

Searcy,

Coleman, of Walker,

Locklin,

Smith (Mobile),

Cornwall,

Long (Walker),

Sollie,

Craig,

Merrill,

Spragins,

Davis, of DeKalb,

Miller (Marengo),

Vaughan,

Dent,

Miller (Wilcox),

Waddell,

Espy,

Moody,

Walker,

Ferguson,

Murphree,

Weatherly,

Fletcher,

Oates,

Williams (Barbour),

Foshee,

O'Neal (Lauderdale),

Wilson (Clarke),

Freeman,

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   TOTAL--73.

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING

Almon,

Long (Butler),

Sentell,

Davis, of Etowah,

Lowe (Jefferson),

Sloan,

Eley,

Lowe (Lawrence),

Smith, Morgan M.,

Greer, of Perry,

Maxwell,

Stewart,

Hodges,

NeSmith,

Studdard,

King,

Reese,

Tayloe,

Ledbetter,

Renfro,

Williams (Elmore),

Lomax,

 

 


1006

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. WEATHERLY-- Now I move to lay the original section, the substitute and the amendment, on the table.

     MR. JONES--On that I ask the aye and no vote.

     The call for the ayes and noes was sustained.

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)-- I desire to submit a few remarks to the main question.

     THE PRESIDENT-- The gentleman from Jefferson moves to lay upon the table, which would not be debatable. The motion is to lay the original section, as amended, and the proposed amendment upon the table. As many as favor the motion to table will vote aye, and those opposed will vote no, as their names are called.

     During roll call, Mr. Jackson asked unanimous consent to explain his vote, to which objection was made.

AYES

Messrs. President,

Greer, of Calhoun,

Parker (Elmore),

Altman,

Haley,

Pearce,

Bethune,

Handley,

Phillips,

Boone,

Harrison,

Pillans,

Bulger,

Heflin, of Randolph,

Pitts,

Cardon,

Heflin, of Chambers,

Reynolds (Henry),

Carmichael, of Colbert,

Henderson,

Robinson,

Carnathan,

Howze,

Rogers (Sumter),

Chapman,

Inge,

Samford,

Cobb,

Jones, of Bibb,

Sanders,

Cofer,

Jones, of Hale,

Searcy,

Coleman, of Greene,

Kirk,

Smith (Mobile),

Coleman, of Walker,

Kirkland,

Sollie,

Craig,

Locklin,

Spragins,

Davis, of DeKalb,

Long (Walker),

 

Vaughan,

 

 

Dent,

Merrill,

Waddell,

Duke,

Miller (Wilcox),

Walker,

Espy,

Moody,

Weatherly,

Ferguson,

Oates,

Williams (Barbour),

Fletcher,

O'Neal (Lauderdale),

Wilson (Clarke),

Glover,

Opp,

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   TOTAL--62.

NOES

Almon,

Brooks,

Cunningham,

Ashcraft,

Browne,

deGraffenreid,

Banks,

Burnett,

Eyster,

Barefield,

Burns,

Fitts,

Bartlett,

Byars,

Foshee,

Beavers,

Carmichael, of Coffee,

Foster,

Beddow,

Case,

Freeman,

Blackwell,

Cornwall,

Gilmore,


1007

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Graham, of Montgomery,

Malone,

Sanford,

Graham, of Talladega,

Martin,

Selheimer,

Grant,

Miller (Marengo),

Sloan,

Grayson,

Morrisette,

Smith, Mac. A.,

Hinson,

Mulkey,

Sorrell,

Hood,

Murphree,

Spears,

Howell,

Norman,

Thompson,

Jackson,

Norwood,

Watts,

Jenkins,

O’Neill (Jefferson),

Weakley,

Jones, of Montgomery,

O'Rear,

White,

Jones, of Wilcox,

Palmer,

Whiteside,

Knight,

Parker (Cullman),

Willet,

Kyle,

Pettus,

Williams (Marengo),

Leigh,

Porter,

Wilson (Washington),

Macdonald,

Proctor,

Winn,

McMillan (Baldwin),

Reynolds (Chilton),

 

McMillan (Wilcox),

Rogers (Lowndes),

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      TOTAL--73.

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING

Davis, of Etowah,

Long (Butler),

Sentell,

Eley,

Lowe (Jefferson),

Smith, Morgan M.,

Greer, of Perry,

Lowe (Lawrence),

Stewart,

Hodges,

Maxwell,

Studdard,

King,

NeSmith,

Tayloe,

Ledbetter,

Reese,

Williams (Elmore),

Lomax,

Renfro,

 

     MR. SOLLIE--I have an amendment.

     MR. deGRAFFENREID--I rise to a point of order. The gentleman cannot introduce an amendment to the amendment.

     THE PRESIDENT -- The Chair recognized the gentleman from Montgomery.

     MR. OATES--Mr. President, I have observed closely, the temper and disposition of the delegates in this Convention every day since it has been in session, and I never saw in all of my experience a body of men who thought for themselves more completely than this. No man is a leader here. All think for themselves, and there is an amount of independence which characterized their voting which is highly commendable, for in nearly every deliberative body, a good number have their file leaders and follow them. They acquire that habit. If they do not have it at first, as soon as they become acquainted with each other, it results.

     Now, I am persuaded that this case is somewhat exceptional. On Saturday my colleague and esteemed friend, the Chairman of the Committee on Executive Department, made a remarkably able


1008

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

and feeling speech in favor of the thirtieth section in regard to the duties of sheriffs to resist mobs and to protect prisoners, I felt considerably moved by that speech myself. I believe that I know my friend well, and there is no man more honest or sympathetic, or more enthusiastic. Wherever he believes his duty leads him, than that gentleman. I know full well, too, the opposition which he felt during his administration of the office of Chief Executive and has ever since, to mobs, and the outrageous slaughter of prisoners, taken from the custody of the sheriff or his posse, and I sympathize with that sentiment. It is a great evil in Alabama, which ought to be put down, and sheriffs, their deputies and their posses, ought to be encouraged to manfully resist such lawless procedure.

     I was heartily in favor of the proposition coming from the Committee of which my friend is the distinguished Chairman, and voted cheerfully for it. The language which I will call to the attention of delegates is as follows:

     "Whenever any prisoner is taken from the jail or from the custody of the sheriff or his deputy, and put to death, or suffers grievous bodily harm, owing to the neglect, connivance, cowardice or other grave fault of the sheriff, such sheriff may be impeached under Section 2 of Article VII of the Constitution; and the Governor when satisfied, after hearing the sheriff, that he should be impeached, may suspend him from office for such time as he may think proper, until the impeachment proceedings are fully disposed of."

     Now, sir, when my friend was dwelling upon that, he overdrew the matter to this Convention, and drew a more vivid picture than the situation justified, because of his extraordinary earnestness. A man of high courage, erects an equally high standard for every sheriff in the land, and it was but natural in him, full of courage, to erect such a standard. On the other hand, when he thinks of that sheriff being killed, to turn in sympathy to his bereaved family is but natural, for another characteristic of the distinguished gentleman, with all of his high courage, is that his heart is as tender as that of a woman. But, sir, we are dealing with solid propositions, to be embraced in the fundamental law of Alabama, which may stand, and I hope will stand, for fifty years to come.

     Is there anything in this which requires the sheriff or his deputy, or any member of his posse, to uselessly sacrifice his life? What is the language where he gives up his prisoner, "owing to the neglect, connivance, or cowardice, or other grave fault of the sheriff." Suppose he is not guilty of either of these. Now, any sheriff who would be guilty of either one of these derilictions ought to be dealt with by the Governor, and a just Governor would, in the discharge of his duty, when he looked into it order


1009

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

his impeachment, if he found there was good reason to believe that such officer were guilty of such deriliction. If not, suppose that he found that the sheriff, while he withstood the mob, and defended the jail, and said, "stand back, do not come," and did all that he could. Suppose that he did like the jailer or sheriff alluded to by my friend, with pistol in each hand, confronted the mob, saying, "I will kill any man who advances," and some of them should steal in behind him, and catch him by the arm, and in that predicament disarm him, what Governor would order his impeachment? None.

     MR. DENT -- I see the time of adjournment will soon be reached and I move that the rules be suspended and the Convention remain in session until the gentleman from Montgomery concludes his remarks.

     Upon a vote being taken the rules were suspended.

     MR. OATES--Mr. President, I thank the Convention. I will not detain them long.

     Now, what must a sheriff do in order to bring about his death? No mob wants to kill the sheriff. They are after the prisoner in his custody, and they will not undertake to kill the sheriff unless they are remarkably desperate, and it becomes absolutely necessary to consummate their design. Why, sir, I was informed but a day or two ago, by a high official in this County, that not a great while ago the present sheriff of Montgomery County had in his custody, with one or two assistants, some prisoner that the mob desired to deal with and put to death, and they came upon him to take the prisoner away, and he informed them, or sent the messenger back, saying "they better not undertake to do it. I will fire on them, I am bound to protect my prisoner and I am going to do it." They sent back to him and said these men are your friends, you would not fire on your friends, would you? His prompt reply was, "I have no friends who will undertake to wrest from me a prisoner, they had better not try to do it," and they retired. They knew he was a man of his word and that he would have fired on them. Such firmness as that in a sheriff in the discharge of his duty is about all that is needed.

     Why, sir, I recollect well a case in the County of Dale. It was a very noted case, and an appeal from the conviction of the prisoners came to the Supreme Court three times. Three negroes had murdered a white woman, a widow. They were arrested and incarcerated in the jail, and a mob was organized of a hundred men, well armed, who went to the jail and demanded the prisoner. The sheriff, with but three or four men to assist him, hearing of their coming, armed his men with double-barred shot guns, and they stood in front of the door, and the sheriff told them, "You are numerous, but if you undertake to break this door


1010

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

we will kill as many of you as we can. I will order you fired upon, and my assistants will do it." They backed out, the whole hundred, and retired. Well the negroes were tried time and again; the Supreme Court gave them new trials upon technicalities and finally they were executed.

     Now, sir, a sheriff has only to be firm. Not connive at things of that sort, and not be guilty of any fault, but stand firmly by his duty, taking sufficient precaution in summoning courageous men to assist him, and he will not be killed, and his prisoner will not be killed, but too many, anxious to be on what they consider the popular side, and in the popular indignity towards the prisoner and desire to sacrifice him, the Sheriff conceives that to be the popular side, and having personally no sympathy whatever with the prisoner, but only a duty to perform, he does not perform it, but winks at being overcome and the keys are wrested from him, and the jail opened, or the prisoner wrested from him if not in jail. That is the sort of deriliction in the Sheriff that is aimed at in this provision, and if he is guilty of it, and is not in the performance of his duty, he ought to be impeached. He is an officer of the law. He sought the office and swore to perform its duties. That is no unreasonable requirement of him.

     As such is the fact, I ask delegates to consider what they are doing. Are you going to incorporate into the fundamental law, to remain probably for fifty years, that the families of any Sheriff or deputy, or any of his posse, who get killed in persisting a mob, are to be compensated by the Legislature? Gentleman it reminds me of a law that was passed in 1868, by what was known as the Carpet-bag Legislature. We had some Ku Klux about then, and it was said they killed several people, but I never believed it. I never had any respect for them, because I regarded them as utterly inefficient for not killing some people they allowed to escape. That Legislature enacted a law that wherever any one was killed mysteriously, where they did not know who did it, that the county should be liable to the widow of the slain. She could sue the county and recover large damages so as to make the people very vigilant in ferreting out such violations of the law. Well, sir, that excited contempt for the authorities who enacted it of all our best people, and as soon as they got an opportunity it was wiped out.

     Now, sir, I do not intend to characterize this pending proposition by any such language as that. It is well intended by my eloquent and learned friend from Montgomery. It is well intended by the gentlemen who have voted for it. It is in a spirit, they believe, of true kindness, to be extended to the bereaved of any officer who is killed, but do you not know, gentlemen, has not experience taught you, that if such be the law, every time that anything can be attributed to such a cause, where there is any tendency


1011

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

tending to show that a man has lost his life in that way, the play will be made before the Legislature as to how much money will be appropriated?

     Now, gentlemen, if any man should lose his life in that manner, no one would sympathize with his family more than I would, but to incorporate such a provision into the fundamental law is a departure from anything we have ever had in it. It is dangerous. You cannot tell, nor can I, what is coming in the future. I will ask you this question, will it add anything to the performance of their duties on the part of sheriffs? Will it, or not? I presume that none of them would seek death in order that their families might be rewarded by the Legislature. I would not suppose they would be that reckless. Will they not perform their duties just as well without any such provision? And is there anything extraordinary in the requirement of them which has been adopted by this Convention? Nothing in the world. It is simply a requirement, in plain language, that the sheriffs and their officers, shall do their duty in respect to prisoners in their custody. Then why this extraordinary proposition? Is it wholly unnecessary. It is dangerous to put it in the fundamental law, where it cannot be changed except by a vote of the whole State. We had better leave that out, and leave in the provision already adopted to govern sheriffs in the performance of their duties. There is nothing in it that will stimulate sheriffs to recklessly sacrifice their lives. He simply must do his duty, and when he does that, no Governor is going, to impeach him. If the mob overpowers him, breaks the jail, takes out his prisoner and puts him to death, it will not be his fault. The question primarily to be considered by the Governor, who must initiate the action towards his impeachment, is, did you strive to do your duty, and the Governor can receive evidence to determine that proposition. If he did not, what ought the Governor to do? He ought certainly to order his impeachment, and then try it before our highest court, and if guiltless he would be acquitted. So there is nothing in any aspect of the case to require a man unnecessarily to sacrifice lives. He is not in the attitude of the soldier. My friend has eloquently said that it was the duty of the soldier to put on the garb and stand at his post and die there in obedience to orders. I have no doubt but my friend is gallant enough to execute such an order, but a soldier is a man who is under the orders of his superiors all the time, and the excellence of a soldier is the obedience to orders. The Sheriff is the man who orders. He is the Captain. He is the man to exercise the discretionary power.

     Gentlemen, it is unnecessary for me to add to what my friend and former comrade in the Congress of the United States, the delegate from Macon, has well said. The question has often been presented in the Congress of the United States, a body that is the most liberal of any in the world in granting pensions to soldiers


1012

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

and to their widows and children, but as he truly stated, it has never gone a single step in the direction of a civil list, though the power that has been brought to bear to influence members thus to act has been very great. The single exception is the provision for the widow of President Garfield, who was slain, and I will state my recollection is, though I may be wrong in it, I do not think that is a general law, applicable to the widows of the Presidents. That was an exceptional case, as you will know, and I believe that is what influenced Congress to pass that act.

     Gentlemen, it is always, in private life and in public affairs, disagreeable to me to differ with my friend over there, because the personal relations between us are so remarkably kind, and I hope ever will be, but here is a solemn duty we all have. I see it quite differently from what my friend does, and differently from those gentlemen who I think in the first place were largely influenced by his remarkable speech uttered on Saturday afternoon about the duties of sheriffs, comparing them to soldiers who in the estimation of my friend are very much like the French Marshall, who, when surrounded with enemies and they demanded his surrender, said a French Marshall dies but never surrenders. That is too high a standard to erect for the sheriffs of the counties of this State. Direct what is his duty, and if he is overpowered, that is all that is required of him, nothing more.

     Now, Mr. President, again returning my thanks to the Convention for their patience in hearing what I had to say, I will conclude my remarks by asking gentlemen to think well over this matter: whether they have voted one way or the other. There is too much independence, too much intelligence, too much high character among the delegates on this floor to consider or refuse to consider a proposition on account of pride of opinion. Consider it, gentlemen, and see that you are not making a mistake, before you act in regard to it.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--I would like to make a privileged motion. We adjourn until 3. I move that we adjourn until 3:15, so that we can get the two hours. We are now late.

     THE PRESIDENT -- The gentleman from Montgomery moves to suspend the rules and fix the time of meeting this evening at 3:15.

     MR. BAREFIELD--I move to amend by making it 4.

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--I want to amend the motion of the gentleman from Montgomery so that we may remain in session until 6.

     There were expressions of dissent.

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--I withdraw my motion.


1013

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     THIS PRESIDENT--Does the gentleman accept the amendment?

     MR. JONES--No, sir.

     Upon a vote being taken the motion was lost.

     After announcement of Committee meetings, the leaves of absence granted Mr. Cofer and Mr. O'Neal (Lauderdale) for today were withdrawn by their request.

     Thereupon the Convention adjourned until 3 p.m.

_______

AFTERNOON SESSION

     The Convention was called to order by the President, and the roll being called showed the presence of 105 delegates.

     Leave of absence was granted Mr. Beaver for the afternoon.

     Mr. Coleman of Greene and Mr. Jones of Montgomery both endeavored to obtain recognition from the Chair. The Chair recognized the gentleman from Montgomery, who yielded to the gentleman from Greene.

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)--Mr. President and delegates to the Convention. A delegate very frequently feels embarrassed in rising to express his opinion upon any subject when there is manifest impatience to hear him, and especially is this more so with me when I have not perfect confidence in my own judgment and conclusions. Nevertheless, upon a question so grave, as the one now before us for consideration, I feel I would not do my duty unless I urged the objections I have to the adoption not only of the amended resolution, but of any resolution or ordinance upon this subject. We have had Constitutions in this State, six or eight, or perhaps seven, I don't remember exactly the number.

     MR. GRAHAM (Talladega)--I do not want to interrupt the gentleman, but we cannot hear him at all.

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)--I don't know that the delegates will miss a great deal.

     I know of no similar provision in the Constitution of any other State. Certainly nothing similar has been introduced into the organic law of the State of Alabama, and we have lived and done fairly well under most adverse conditions that a State was ever subjected to. The section preceding this which provides for the impeachment of a Sheriff, arms the Executive with all the power he wants. This adds nothing to the Executive power. It is a legislative provision entirely for the benefit of the Sheriff and is out of place in my opinion under the head of the Executive Department.


1014

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     But independent of that, the reading of the original section and the reading of the amendment as adopted, and which is now the section before this Convention, seems to me to be wanting in definiteness and position. It says "adequate" provision shall be made for the family of a Sheriff who may be killed in defending a prisoner. If I should take a poll of all the delegates here and ask each one what is meant by "adequate" what would be the answers? There would probably be as many answers as those given separately. But a law has to be defined and fixed. And I notice there is no limit whatever put upon the amount to be paid. We know that in assessing damages frequently for the loss of a man just compensation, which I think would be a better term, juries range from two to forty thousand dollars. There is nothing in this provision whatever that puts any limit upon the power of the Legislature to make such appropriations as it sees proper to come up to the standard of adequacy. I fear that the delegates sometime have their judgments moved by the appeals made and the citing of certain extreme instances, some of those alluded to by the delegate from Montgomery. There is nothing better established in law than extreme cases make shipwreck of great principles of law and justice. Whenever you are moved by an appeal because of the hardship of a particular case from providing for the general good, it is not wise legislation, much less should it be in the organic law of a State. And what necessity is there for it? The Legislature is fully competent to devise ways and means and to make appropriations as they arise if it is necessary, and I do believe the delegates to this Convention will bear with me that we are losing sight of the organic law, a law which is to control legislation, a law which is to confer privileges and place limitations upon the powers which they exert and not the granting of legislation itself.

     Now I ask the delegates to consider what is to be effected by putting into the organic law a provision that the Legislature shall make adequate provision for the families of those who are killed in defense of a prisoner. The words are "in defense," whether justified or not, and then comes the question of adequacy, undefined as it is, ranging from one price to another perhaps, according to the families and according to the efficiency of the Sheriff.

     MR. BOONE--Don't you think that word "adequate" would cover as much as the man was fairly making? Say he was making $100 a month, that he was making and providing that much money per month to his family, would not that make at least $100 a month?

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)--I don't think "adequate" would, but I would think "just compensation" would. "Adequate" is I believe proper return for the purpose intended. That is the general


1015

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

signification of the word adequacy as I remember. Compensation is to reimburse for the loss sustained. That is about the way the two words run. But delegates in framing laws should know exactly what words they are using because when the courts come to construe them or the Legislature comes to apply the law, each one will have his own opinion as to what was intended by "just compensation" or "adequate provision" unless defined by law and whether that relates to one member of the family or the entire family, is wholly indefinite.

     But it is legislation. It is forgetting the purpose for which this Convention assembled and traveling into the domain of purely legislative matters. That is the most serious objection to it, and that is an objection, it seems to me, that ought to be raised to every resolution or ordinance introduced here which ought not to be in the organic law, for under our system the Legislature has all power except where it is limited by the Constitution itself.

     Many instances have been stated of heroic venture by the officers of the State. If it will serve any purpose I can give one from my own county, perhaps unparalleled in the State of Alabama. There was a prisoner committed to the Sheriff of Greene County and placed in jail. Just about daylight a body of men appeared apparently with a prisoner and told the jailer they had a prisoner to be placed in jail and thus induced him to open the doors. When they entered their wants and desires were manifest. They took the prisoner which the jailer already had in jail, who was charged with a heinous offense, and started away with him to take him to the scene of his crime, and hang him. The jailer notified the Sheriff and by sun-up the Sheriff was on horseback with three or four of his men. The party was overtaken at daybreak near Eutaw and there they halted. The Sheriff demanded of them the prisoner. They declined to surrender him. He ordered his men to present arms, and they did so. He notified the crowd if they did not give him the prisoner he would fire into the body, large as it was. He told them he was the Sheriff and represented the State of Alabama. And although they were brave men, they would not resist the State of Alabama, and they surrendered the negro and he brought him back and put him in jail again. That is a real instance.

     There is very little danger if the Sheriff is at all brave and prudent. Representing the State of Alabama, he is vested with all the power that it is possible to invest a man with. No man dare resist him and no man dare refuse to obey when he summons him as a posse. Now it might be if that man had been killed the State of Alabama ought to have taken care of his family. But it shows there is not much danger where a man is prudent and brave and is acting in the name of the State and asserting the authority of the State.


1016

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     But independent of all that, this is pure legislation and not properly connected with the Executive Department of the State. You have armed the Executive officers of the State with all the power you desire. The Sheriff must act up to his duty or he may be impeached or removed and that is sufficient for the executive power to see that the laws are carried out.

     I speak with a proper sense of my own inability, but with a deep sense that we are doing wrong to load this Constitution with legislative enactments and I oppose every movement of that kind.

     MR. DENT--I sympathize very much with the purpose or those who are favoring this ordinance but there is one view of it which they present which I have not heard combatted by those who are opposing it and that is this: It seems to be taken for granted that new duties and responsibilities have been placed upon the Sheriff. Now I do not understand the provisions that have been adopted. It would certainly lie the duty of the Sheriff under the present Constitution to do all in his power to protect the life and person of a prisoner in his charge.

     A DELEGATE--No.

     MR. DENT--I think it is and for that reason it seems to me there is no new duty. He is Sheriff and that is his obligation when he enters upon the duties of that office. It seems to me the only difference is that we have provided a new court for his impeachment and trial. As I understand the provisions of the old Constitution a Sheriff could be tried before a Circuit or City Court. This Constitution, if adopted, provides that he can be tried by the Supreme Court of the State. Sheriffs under the old Constitution were liable to impeachment for wilful neglect of duty, corruption in office, habitual drunkenness, incompetency or any offense involving; moral turpitude. It seems to me that that covers the matter. The next question which has been added under the present Constitution, and while I do not object to it, I think it probably emphasizes the duty of the Sheriff, does not seem to me to place any new duty or any new responsibility upon him and if that is the case, I cannot see why there should be an exception made in his favor, that we should grant his family or himself this remuneration for a faithful and earnest discharge of the duties which it seems to me rests upon him now. That is all I desire to say, and that is the reason I oppose this amendment.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--I am well aware that this debate had consumed a great deal of time and that members are anxious to vote upon it. Nothing but a sense of duty to the Committee, which accepted the proposition offered by the gentleman from Dallas, and the belief in my mind that whatever might have been the case if this proposition had not been introduced, it would


1017

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

now be exceedingly unfortunate to reject it, compels me to obtrude myself once more upon the House upon this question.

     As I listened to the words of my friend from Montgomery, a man of whose friendship I have always been proud, I thought to myself how different would be his acts from what he preaches if a prisoner were in his charge. I know full well that the man who struggled on the Roundtop, and who was at Snodgrass Hill and who left one arm in Virginia, if he had a prisoner in his charge, would lose the other before any man should take him until they disabled him.

     Now, I did not take to myself that part of my friend's argument which tried to persuade members of this House that my earnestness may mislead their judgments, and in consequence of my earnestness--and that was all there was in what I said--that in consequence of my earnestness some of them might be moved against their letter judgments. I realize that whatever success there was in the proposition to have the Sheriff impeached before the Supreme Court, was not because I advocated it, but because the people of Alabama found in the current history ample justification for it and that public opinion had crystalized on that subject long before we came here.

     When we analyze the differences in this debate, we find one sentiment set off against another. No gentleman on this floor has said in the abstract that it was not just, that it was not right when a man died in the service of the State for the State to take some thought of those he left behind him. Upon that, as an abstract proposition of justice, no man has gainsaid the proposition of the Committee. But my friend from Macon and my friend from Montgomery and other gentlemen, have attached great importance to the fact that, as they say, for the first time in Alabama, we set the precedent of a civil service pension, that it is all right to have a pension for man who dies in uniform in the military service, but the precedent of civil pension is all wrong, leads to harm and is unheard of. My friend from Macon is usually very accurate in his illustrations, but the illustration he makes of a civil service pension is not all parallel to the case we have in hand. What is a civil service pension that has been voted down time and again on Congress? It is not a pension to the family of a man who dies in the discharge of duty, but it is to continue for life on a salary at the expense of the people, who still live after they have discharged their duties for a certain length of time. The two cases are not at all parallel.

     Now, it is charged here with emphasis by my friend from Greene that we have been living ninety years under Constitutions that had no such provision as this, that this is legislative and, therefore, ought not to be in the Constitution. Why, Mr. President,


1018

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

our Constitutions are filled with what everyone of us knows are legislative provisions.

     MR. FERGUSON--May I interrupt the gentleman?

     MR. JONES--Yes, sir.

     MR. FERGUSON--I want to ask if this ordinance is not in conflict with Section 37 of Article I. of the present Constitution?

     MR. JONES--I don't know what Section the gentleman refers to. Read it.

     The Section referred to was read as follows by the Clerk:

     "That the sole object and only legitimate end of Government, is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and when the Government assumes other functions, it is usurpation and oppression."

     MR. JONES--Before I proceed to answer that, I would ask the gentleman to point out wherein he thinks there is a conflict.

     MR. FERGUSON--Is that the pursuit of life, liberty or the protection of property, putting the granting of pensions into the organic authority? Since the gentleman hands it back to me, I say it is in direct conflict with that Section.

     MR. JONES--I asked my friend wherein in his opinion there was any conflict that I might answer. There is not a thing in that provision in conflict with this provision, it will be as binding as the other, and when the Committee comes to arrange this matter, if there is a conflict, they will bring the matter to the attention of the House. But this proposed Article is for the protection of life, for the protection of property, to promote happiness and to provide a mode and means by which that can be attained and to that end there is a large and broad discretion in the Legislative Department.

     Now, as I was proceeding to say, Mr. President, there are in every Constitution, a thousand things, more or less, that are pure matters of legislation; but when the framers of a Constitution think a policy is of permanent importance, they put it in the Constitution. Now, for instance, in Section 4 of Article IV, we have this: "It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass such laws as may be necessary and proper to decide differences by arbitrators, to be appointed by the parties who may choose that mode of adjustment." Anybody knows the Legislature could do that without that constitutional power if they wanted to. It was a pure matter of legislation, and yet the framers of the Constitution attach so much importance to that as a permanent policy that they put it in the Constitution. Then they go on and provide here that they shall pass laws against bribery! Anybody knows


1019

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

that the General Assembly has power to do that without authorization.

     MR. COLEMAN--Do you assert as a proposition of law that without law declaring the effect of arbitration, parties could resort to the judicial tribunals to have these rights adjudicated? Is it not by reason of that alone that it is upheld?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--I understand the Supreme Court in some cases decided that but in my opinion very erroneously.

     MR. COLEMAN--Oh, yes.

     MR. JONES--Well, the Court thought so for they took it back. I appeal to my friend from Greene if it was necessary to put this in the Constitution to authorize the General Assembly to pass such a law as is referred to in this: "The offense of corrupt solicitation of members of the General Assembly, or of public officers of this State, or of any municipal division thereof, and any occupation or practice of solicitation of such members, or officer, to influence their official actions, shall be defined by law, and shall be punished by fine and imprisonment." There is not a lawyer within the sound of my voice who don't know that the General Assembly had the power to do that. And so there are hundreds of things in the Constitution that the Legislature had the power to do without such Constitutional provisions.

     It may be an objection to any proposition that it is a pure matter of legislation, but if it embodies a principle that is permanent, one that is uppermost in the minds of the people, and that they want to declare a permanent policy, they always put it in the Constitution, and they never put into the Constitution things that are transient or transitory and as to which policies may change from tune to time.

     Then the question is, is this a wise thin; to put into the Constitution? What are the objections to it? Is it as to phraseology? We will come to that later on and if gentlemen who agree with the principle but differ as to phraseology will suggest the amendments we shall be very happy to accept their letter wisdom. But I take it, the bulk of the objections to this clause is the principle it embodies.

     MR. OATES--If this is legislative, is it not the proper office of the Legislature to consider it when they find it their duty to legislate on that subject?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--Unquestionably, because the highest legislation, the Constitution, says they shall do it, otherwise you leave it to their discretion whether they will or will not.

     The Committee used the word "shall" deliberately, with the intent to give a command; for the people to say to their servants


1020

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

in the Legislature you shall do so and so." There can't be any mistake about that.

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--Under this provision the next Legislature would have to consider this matter.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--They would if they observed their oaths.

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--If they do consider it and pass a law in obedience to this command in the Constitution, and the people decide that they wanted to repeal that law, can they do it without amending the Constitution, or having a new Constitution?

     MR. JONES--Yes, because the Legislature could from time to time pass such laws, complying with the spirit of the Constitution, as they saw fit; and if a particular law was passed and was not entirely proper, they could remedy the evil by changing it.

     It is said that this is something new. What are we here for, except to profit by the experience of those who have gone before us? I do not suppose when in the Constitution of 1875, for the first time, the legislative power was limited in the matter of the rate of taxation, that the members of that Constitutional Convention would have considered it an argument against the proposition to restrict taxation, that it had never been done before. That is no argument, or at least a very feeble one. The question is, is there an evil? If so, is it one that this Constitution ought to take notice of, and if that is so, whether the proposition that is announced is wise and proper. Down in our hearts every one of us feels when a man is killed in the discharge of his duty, whether he be in uniform or in civilian's dress, when he is an officer of the State, that exact and equal justice requires that the State of Alabama should, to some extent, recompense those dependent on him, because of the loss of his life. The reason why the State heretofore has not gone into many of these questions is the number of them. I remember distinctly, and if I had not gotten the book I would have given the credit of its approval to my good friend Gov. Oates, where, for the first time, I know of in the history of civilized lands, a State, when a citizen had been imprisoned in the penitentiary and afterwards proved clearly to have been innocent of all crime said "it is the justice of Alabama, although it has never been done before, that you should be recompensed to some extent for the evils you have suffered in the carrying out of the general law," and Alabama paid a man $865. I refer to the act of 1893 for the relief of Lancaster.

     I remember another case, and I don't think he was then in a military position, that of Gen. Sam Davis. I don't think he was in the military service of the State at the time, but that grand old hero, in protecting the settlers in the borders, had a noted fight


1021

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

with the Indians, what is known in history as the Canoe fight. The people of Alabama said "such courage and devotion in that man ought to be rewarded," and in his declining days, when he was suffering poverty, they gave him a pension. It is one of the things in the history of Alabama to which I do not like to allude that Alabama afterwards repudiated that pension, and took it away from him.

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)--May I ask the gentleman a question right there?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--Certainly.

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)--Are those instances to be found in the Constitution of the State or in legislative actions?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--I found those two in legislative acts. I cannot see any objection, if the framers of the Constitution think a permanent policy should be pursued, to putting that permanent policy in the Constitution. That is what a Constitution is for, to put in permanent policies or principles, as distinguished from mere policies which shift with conditions and times.

     It is no objection that this section might be provided for by legislation. Two-thirds of the things in the Constitution could be done by the General Assembly, if the Constitution were silent as to them. The Legislature could fix the number of courts and the qualifications of the judges, and of the electors, and rights of property, and many other things with which the Constitution deals. They are put in the Constitution because the people consider them of paramount importance, and therefore they deem it wise to put them in the Constitution as guide boards for the Legislature.

     Because the Legislature might do a thing is no reason why it should not be put in the fundamental law if the people deem it proper to declare a permanent policy as to them.

     It is objected that the Legislature could not know exactly what to do. Purposely, it was not undertaken to define the exact modus by which the duty should be discharged. I can imagine a case arising where the Legislature would hear testimony. Here is John Smith who has been killed in the discharge of his duty. He had not a dollar on earth. He has two orphan children. The Legislature could give them $20 a month until they are grown. There might be another case. Here is a Sheriff who is rich. There was nobody dependent on him. He left a large estate. The Legislature might decline in that instance to make any compensation. They might pass a general law after the manner of the pension law of the United States and make provision by general law for these cases.


1022

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. COLEMAN (Green)--Do you say under that law the Legislature would have the power or authority to provide for twenty dollars or any other sum for the children of a poor sheriff and would not be bound to make some provision for the children of a rich one?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--It says "dependent."

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)--Will you add that in there?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery) -- Will you let the have the amendment. Here is the language : "It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to make adequate provision for dependent members of the family of any Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff or members of any posse who may be killed or permanently injured in defending any person in the custody of the law." Now, what is the trouble about that in the mind of my friend from Greene?

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)--I suppose the gentleman has had so many law suits arising out of those who are dependent on other persons and has had so much difficulty in ascertaining who are dependent that he should hardly ask the question. It is one of the most difficult questions with which we have to deal.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--And I was illustrating that the Legislature as a jury would find what they thought proper in each particular case.

     MR. PILLANS--Is it the theory of the committee that if this section is adopted, we are to have in each such case a judicial ascertainment by the Legislature of the conditions and quality of the Sheriff as to finances, and what he left, and passing upon it as to what amount of relief should be given or that there should be a general law?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--The committee left that to the wisdom of the Legislature. I can only answer the gentleman as to what I would do were I in the Legislature.

     MR. COLEMAN--Why not leave it all to the Legislature?

     MR. JONES--I am perfectly willing to leave it all to the Legislature if the gentleman will put "shall" in it. We will take anything they want, but I don't want the Convention to be in the attitude of saying "gentlemen we think it very well if you think it very well, to do something on this line." We want to go down on this proposition as it is, unless my friend will give better words to express our idea, and not put themselves in the attitude of telling the Legislature "we know if you choose to do it, you can do it, and we hope you will consider it." We want to give them a command to declare that it is the law of Alabama that they shall consider these things. If my friend from Greene would indicate what language he thinks would not be objectionable to him if we can, we will gladly accept it.


1023

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)--If anything is to be adopted I would prefer that it be recommitted to the gentleman to frame something. We cannot in the hurry of a moment frame proper words. I hope the whole thing will be voted down, and that it will be left to the Legislature where it belongs.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--How can the committee frame a satisfactory section if the gentlemen won't give us the benefit of their wisdom.

     MR. FERGUSON--I am not a practiced debater like my friend, the gentleman from Montgomery; but he failed to answer my question awhile ago and I desire now to put it in a more direct and concrete form. I want to ask him the direct question if he thinks the granting of pensions is a legitimate function of government in Alabama?

     MR. JONES--If you call the compensation which the States give to a man who suffers a burden which belongs to all the people and not to him alone, a pension, I say it most certainly is a legitimate function of government. It is not in violation of the present Constitution. I answer further that we are trying to make a Constitution, where that will not be contrary to the fundamental law even if it has been in the past. The sovereign people of Alabama have a right to say, and I hope they will say, to the Legislature, when these men--my officers--die in discharge of their duty "you must do something for their families--for those who are dependent upon them." Property is not more valuable than life. When all of a man's property is taken for the public good, the State compensates him for all the excess above his proportion. It does not require him to make the whole sacrifice. This section is only an application of the principle.

     Gentlemen say that becoming Sheriff is a voluntary act--that a man runs for that office for the money. If gentlemen don't want the principle to apply to the volunteer, why not let it apply to the members of the posse? He is not a volunteer. He is seeking neither profits nor honor. He is compelled to serve. There is not a man in this house who would hesitate five minutes to vote a reward in money payable at once, or payable in installments, to any soldier who did an heroic act for his people. Our people fight. They are warlike people. Is there not heroism outside of a uniform? There are many grand heroes, who never shouldered a musket or heart artillery's roar, and yet have performed deeds heroic as those of any soldier. If the gentlemen object to the principle that the State ought to compensate men who go down to death for its welfare, well and good. Put it on that ground but not on the quibble, that it is a civic matter. To say that heroism in civil life ought not to be rewarded while heroism in a military capacity ought to be rewarded, is begging the question.


1024

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. WILLIAMS (Barbour)--Is it in order to offer an amendment now?

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--No, not while I am speaking; but I will yield to the gentleman for that purpose if he will give me the floor when he gets through.

     The amendment of the delegate from Barbour was read as follows: Amend Section 31 by striking out the words "Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff."

     MR. deGRAFFENREID--I rise to a point of order. The amendment is out of order, as the matter under discussion is an amendment to an amendment.

     THE PRESIDENT--In the opinion of the Chair the point of order is well taken.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--I was about to say that this is a matter of great importance, as an adverse disposition of the question would be considered a refusal to give the moral power of the State to aid the Sheriff. If this Convention votes down every proposition looking to compensation to people who are slain in the discharge of their duty, it will have a bad effect not only upon the sheriffs, but upon the outside world. I do hope the friends of this proposition will not be led astray, because some gentlemen say "you do not take in policemen, or judges or solicitors." We are not dealing now with them, we are dealing with an exceptional case--with a great evil which we rely upon the Sheriff to suppress, and whose duties in connection with the evil make him peculiarly an object of danger and attack. For one I do not hesitate to express the opinion as to the case of policemen slain in discharge of duty. If I had the power to do it, I would provide that every city or town in the State should make compensation to an officer slain in the discharge of duty. However, we are not now legislating as to those matters. We are putting the command into the Constitution regarding certain constitutional officers, and it ought not to go out to the world, after having this provision before us, that we decline to give the moral aid of the State to our sheriffs, and thus put the Convention in the attitude of making a play of words and having a heroic provision in words in the Constitution, which were not intended for actual home consumption, but to be heard of abroad. That is reason why I insist now, no matter what the case, if this provision had never been put before the Convention, that it would be unwise to leave it without making some such provision as that suggested by the substitute. Personally, for the sake of harmony, although I do not think it should be done, I am willing to take out the Sheriff and confine it to his posse; but certainly the State of Alabama ought not to send forth the edict from this hall that it never intends no matter how the citizen in its service is stricken down, to aid his family when he dies in the discharge of public duty.


1025

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     MR. BOONE--This matter has been very thoroughly discussed, but I want to call the attention of the delegates to the Convention to the wording of that amendment to the word "adequate" in the provision.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--If the gentleman will suggest a better word we will take it.

     MR. BOONE--I will discuss the proposition. I am not in favor of it any way and I am arguing against the proposition.

     MR. JONES--Then I suggest to my friend it is not worth while to criticise language when he is against the principle.

     MR. BOONE--I oppose the principle and the way you put it. I oppose it in its entirety, in toto and every way you put it. But in as much as you are seeking to put it in the Constitution that way I think it is particularly objectionable the way it is. He says the sheriff or deputy or any member of the posse, etc., shall be entitled to adequate provision. It does seem to me that the word "adequate" if it means full and complete, should not only be to those men but to thost who are dependent upon them. Now suppose a man in a posse was a practicing physician or a lawyer in full practice, and he was killed. Would not the question fairly be and would not the Legislature have to construe it in the light of the words of the Constitution and would they not give compensation to the family of that man, taking into consideration his situation in life, his income, what period of life he had yet to live according to the tables of mortality and what is the loss to the family by reason of his death. Would it not mean that? It seems to me it would. So that it would at least be granting to that man such an amount of money or to the family such a sum per annum or in bulk as put out at interest would yield a sufficient amount to make them whole by reason of his death. Now, is this State in any such fix financially as to launch out upon that system of pensioning? The government of the United States, with all of its hundreds of millions don't say they will give to its pension list adequate amounts. Congress has carefully graded that to the different officers and men and gives them a fixed determined sum. But under this constitutional amendment we seek to leave it in the power of the legislature to do in each particular case whatever they may deem just and that they shall do it. Now, take a case after the manner of those cited by the gentleman from Montgomery. Here is a sheriff who seeks to do his duty, and a mob takes his prisoner, and in endeavoring to hold or to protect him that sheriff is shot down. This is a generous people and from the Gulf to the Tennessee line the plaudits of praise are shouted for that man. The legislature is in session and they say for a valuable thing like that he should tie given forty thousand dollars." It seems to me vicious and that it should not be put in the Constitution.


1026

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. JONES--Do you know what the legislature paid for that man who was killed in the service of the State?

     MR. BOONE--Would that estop the legislature, what they paid forty or fifty years ago. Is that a fair argument?

     MR. JONES--They said it was unconstitutional and that they could not pay him a cent but they got around it and they gave him, popular man as he was, in the nature of a fee to his firm $10,000 and the other members of the firm gave it to his family and if they hadn't done that the State would not have paid $3,000.

     MR. BOONE--The gentleman might as well argue because a jury in one case gave so much that that would be an estoppel upon another jury. We all know that nothing of that kind occurs. What one legislature has clone would not control another legislature.

     Another point suggested to me since I began to speak. Could the legislature cease to make these appropriations from the public treasury and put the dependents on a pension list if the people desire it? It must be plain to all that it could not be done save by amending the Constitution. I think the argument made by the distinguished gentleman from Greene is conclusive. I have nothing further to say.

     MR. WILLIAMS (Marengo)--I move the previous question on the original proposition, on the amendment and on the amendment to the amendment.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--On that we ask the ayes and noes.

     MR. SAMFORD--Not on the previous question.

     MR. JONES--Not on the previous question, but when the vote is taken on the amendment.

     The previous question was ordered, and the call for the ayes and noes sustained.

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--I rise to a point of paliamentary inquiry.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman will state the question of parliamentary inquiry.

     MR. HEFLIN--What was the motion of the gentleman from Marengo?

     THE PRESIDENT--The previous question upon all the amendments.

     MR. HEFLIN--To the substitute.


1027

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     MR. WILLIAMS (Marengo)--To the whole shooting-match, I don't know what you call it--the original question and all.

     THE PRESIDENT--The question before the Convention is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Macon to the original article offered by the gentleman from Dallas as amended by the substitute offered by the gentleman from Montgomery.

     MR. JONES--I would like to have that read before the Chair puts the question.

     THE PRESIDENT--The Chair had not completed the statement--

     MR. JONES--I beg pardon, I thought you were through.

     THE PRESIDENT--The substitute offered by the gentleman from Montgomery was adopted and became embodied in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Dallas, and now the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Macon, and those favoring the adoption of the amendment--

     MR. BROOKS--I rise to a parliamentary inquiry, my recollection is that the amendment offered as a substitute by the gentleman from Macon was adopted.

     THE PRESIDENT--It was not. Now, then, for fear some gentleman should not understand the question, the chair will restate it. The question is on the adoption of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Macon. The Secretary will read the amendment.

     The Secretary read as follows: Amendment by Mr. Cobb. Strike out the words "it shall be the duty" and insert, "it shall be in the power of the General Assembly."

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)--I rise to a question of inquiry.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman will state the question of inquiry.

     MR. COLEMAN--State to the Convention what will be the effect of the yea and nay vote now to be taken.

     THE PRESIDENT--If a majority vote aye, the effect will be to adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Macon. If a majority vote no, the effect will be to defeat that amendment. We first vote upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Macon (Mr. Cobb.)

     MR. OATES--I ask that the substitute which has been adopted, with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Macon be read so we can see how it will be if that amendment is carried.


1028

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

THE PRESIDENT--If the amendment offered by the gentleman from Macon be either adopted or rejected the question will recur upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Dallas as changed by the substitute offered by the gentleman from Montgomery.

MR. OATES--I don't think the Chair understands the point. If the amendment of the delegate from Macon be adopted, how will the proposition read?

THE PRESIDENT--The Secretary will read the substitute of the gentleman from Montgomery and then read it as it will read with the amendment of the gentleman from Macon incorporated in it.

The Secretary then read the substitute offered by the gentleman from Montgomery.

Sec. 31. It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to make adequate provision for dependent members of the family of any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or member of any posse, who may be killed or permanently injured in defending any prisoner in the custody of the law."

If amended would read: "It shall be in the power of the General Assembly to make adequate provision for dependent members of the family of any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or member of any posse who may be killed of permanently injured in defending any prisoner in the custody of the law."

THE PRESIDENT--The question is upon the adoption of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Macon, and those favoring the adoption of the amendment will say aye, and those opposed no, as their names are called.

The result of the roll call was as follows:

AYES.


Messrs. President,

Glover,

Moody,

Altman,

Grayson,

Murphree,

Bartlett,

Greer, of

Oates,

Bethune,

Calhoun,

O'Neal (Lauderdale),

Boone,

Haley,

Opp

Browne,

Handley 

Parker 

Bulger

Harrison 

Pearce(Elmore) 

Cardon,

Heflin, of

Phillips,

Carmichael, of

Chambers,

Pillans,

Colbert,

Heflin, of

Pitts,

Caranathan,

Randolph,

Proctor,

Chapman,

Henderson,

Reynolds (Chilton),

Cobb,

Howze,

Robinson,

Cofer,

Inge,

Samford,


1029

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Coleman, of

Jackson,

Searcy,

Greene,

Jones, of Bibb.

Smith (Mobile),

Coleman, of

Jones, of Hale,

Sollie,

Walker,

Kirk,

Spragins,

Craig,

Kirkland,

Stewart,

Davis, of

Long, of Walker,

Tayloe,

DeKalb,

Lowe, of Jefferson,

Vaughan,

Dent,

Lowe, of Lawrence,

Waddell,

Espy,

Merrill,

Walker,

Ferguson,

Miller (Marengo),

Weatherly,

Fletcher,

Miller (Wilcox),

Williams (Barbour),

     Total--68.

NOES.

Ashcraft,

Graham, of

Norwood,

Banks,

Talladega,

O'Neill, of

Barefield,

Grant,

Jefferson,

Beddow,

Hinson,

O'Rear,

Blackwell,

Hood,

Palmer,

Brooks,

Howell,

Parker (Cullman),

Burnett,

Jenkins,

Porter,

Burns,

Jones, of

Rogers (Lowndes),

Byars,

Montgomery ,

Sanford,

Carmichael, of

Jones, of

Selheimer,

Coffee,

Wilcox,

Sloan,

Cornwall,

Knight,

Smith, Mac. A.,

Cunningham,

Kyle,

Sorrell,

deGraffenreid,

Leigh,

Spears,

Duke,

Macdonald,

Thompson,

Fitts,

McMillan, of

Watts,

Foshee,

Baldwin,

Weakley,

Foster,

McMillan (Wilcox),

White,

Freeman,

Malone,

Whiteside,

Gilmore,

Martin,

Williams (Marengo),

Graham, of

Morrisette,

Wilson (Wash'gton),

Montgomery,

Norman,

Winn.

Total--59.

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING.

Almon,

Ledbetter,

Renfro,

Beavers,

Locklin,

Reynolds, of Henry,

Case,

Lomax,

Rogers (Sumter),

Davis, of Etowah,

Long, of Butler,

Sanders,

Eley,

Maxwell,

Sentell,

Eyster,

Mulkey,

Smith, Morgan M.

Greer, of Perry,

NeSmith,

Stoddard,

Hodges,

Pettus,

Willet,

King,

Reese,

Williams (Elmore),

Wilson (Clarke).

 

 

     Total--28.


1030

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     During roll call:

     MR. CASE--If I were to vote, I would vote no. I am paired with Mr. Rogers of Sumter; he would vote yea.

     MR. PETTUS--I am paired with Mr. Sanders of Limestone; if he were present he would vote aye and I would vote no.

     MR. LONG (Walker)--I have been absent for the last two days and I ask permission to introduce a short resolution; it is a very important one.

     Ordinance No. 401, by Mr. Long of Walker :

     Whereas, The platform adopted by the last Democratic State Convention on March 23d last, among other things pledged our faith "not to deprive any white man of the right to vote except for convention of an infamous crime," and also pledged "that Section 39 of Article IV of the present Constitution, with reference to the removal and location of the State Capitol shall remain unchanged."

     And, whereas, editorials have appeared in a leading Montgomery daily paper to the effect that the pledges made in the last Democratic platform should not be binding upon the delegates to this Convention.

     And, whereas, at a recent meeting of the State Press Association the representative of a leading Montgomery religious paper introduced and with the assistance of an editor of a Montgomery daily newspaper, had passed a resolution to the effect that the party platform was not and should not be binding upon the conscience or act of any delegate or member of the Constitutional Convention and further pledged the hearty support of the State press should the party platform be violated;

     And, whereas, if it is expedient or right to violate one section of the party platform, it is equally right or just to violate another;

     Therefore, be it ordained, by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, that the State Capital be and is hereby removed from Montgomery to Birmingham, Alabama.

     MR. LONG (Walker)--I ask that that ordinance be referred to the Committee on Consistency.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman asks that the ordinance will be referred to the Committee on Consistency, Order and Harmony and it is so referred.

     The question recurred upon the original article as amended.

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--I move indefinite postponement of Section 31.


1031

CONSTITUTIONAL, CONVENTION, 1901

     MR. WILLIAMS (Marengo)--I rise to a point of order, the previous question has been ordered.

     MR. HEFLIN--I move to lay it upon the table.

     MR. SOLLIE--I want to offer an amendment.

     THE PRESIDENT--The previous question has been ordered.

     MR. SOLLIE--But when amended, isn't it not a new proposition?

     THE PRESIDENT--The previous question has been ordered and the motion to lie on the table is not debatable.

     MR. HARRISON--I rise to a point of order. I desire to call the attention of the President to the precedent as laid down in rule 35 to lay on the table.

     THE PRESIDENT--Yes, and the Chair would call the gentleman's attention to rule 26, motion to adjourn has precedence even of a motion to table, but the rules declare that even a motion to adjourn shall not be in order after the previous question shall have been ordered. It is in order at any time except after the previous question has been ordered. In this case the previous question has been ordered and the question now is on the adoption of Section 31 as amended.

     MR. HEFLIN--I understood the gentleman from Marengo to call the previous question on the section and amendment to the section that has just been voted on.

     THE PRESIDENT--He calls for the previous question on the question now submitted, and the--

     MR. HEFLIN--Does the Chair hold that if some member moves the adoption of the Section as amended it would not be in order to lay the whole thing on the table?

     THE PRESIDENT--The previous question has been ordered on the section as proposed by the gentleman from Dallas, and on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Macon. The question is on the adoption of the section proposed by the gentleman from Dallas as amended.

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)--A yea, vote adopts it, and a nay vote defeats the section?

     THE PRESIDENT--yes.

     A vote being taken, the section as amended was defeated by a vote of 63 nays to 62 ayes, on a division.

     MR. SMITH (Mobile)--I desire to report on behalf of the Committee on Rules, a substitute for Resolution No. 166.


1032

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

The report was read as follows:

Resolution No. 166, by Mr. Harrison, reported with a substitute favorably from the Committee on Rules:

     Amend Resolution No. 166 by Mr. Harrison of Lee, so as to read as follows: "Resolved, That all speeches on amendments to ordinances reported by sanding committees be limited to five minutes each, whether made before car after the order for the previous question."

     The original resolution reads: `'Resolved, That all speeches on amendments to ordinances reported by standing committes be limited to five minutes each."

     MR. SMITH (Mobile)--I move the adoption of the substitute.

     MR. OATES--I think that the rule is wise in some respects, and that discussion ought to be limited, but a restriction to five minutes for all speeches, in consideration of the measures to be adopted, is too limited. Now, for instance, any one having charge of a measure, the chairman or any member of a committee, has a right under parliamentary procedure always to a greater length of time to explain the propositions to lie considered. That I do not think is to restrict the consideration of the sections; if it he, why then it is substantially the five-minute rule which prevails in committees of the whole in Congress; but even there, they are not absolutely restricted to five?minute speeches, except in this way: Five minutes is the limit which any member may speak upon an amendment he proposes, but if he has not finished his delivery within that time it is always in order for him to move a pro-forma amendment, as for instance striking out the last word of the section which gives him five minutes more. That is the five-minute rule proper. This seems to propose to confine all speeches to five minutes. Now, I am in favor of limiting speeches, I am in favor of shortening them, but there ought to be soiree exceptions. This seems to be too restrictive.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery) -- I desire to offer an amendment to the resolution.

     The amendment was read as follows:

     Amendment to the report of the Committee on Rules on Resolution No. 166: Provided the time expended in answering questions shall not be deducted from the member's time.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--Mr. President, I heartily concur in the remarks of the gentleman from Montgomery. I believe we ought to have short speeches, but we have got some great questions here, and certainly the chairman of a committee ought to be permitted to speak more than five minutes on an amendment. For instance, the amendment may go to the whole question of


1033

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

suffrage. I do not think it wise to tie ourselves up in that way, and do not think any man can make a speech at all if he is to be continually interrupted and his time taken up in answering questions.

     MR. SANFORD--Of all the assemblies that have met in Alabama in twenty-five years, or it may be will meet in the next twenty-five, this is the one in which the largest discussion ought to be allowed upon every important question that comes before it. Of all things, we do not wish to have the people gagged upon the questions that are of vast importance in establishing the organic law. We have been here they tell us thirty odd days, and we have accomplished but little. If we are to sit here sixty-five days, and accomplish not much more, perhaps the time may have been well spent, for next to doing good, doing nothing is the best thing that one can do, but of all things do not let the people be gagged upon this question of constitutional convention. Why is the gentleman from Lee so hurried now as to the number of speeches that shall be made, and the time which shall be expended in discussing important questions? What evil comes of letting the people understand all things connected with every proposition that comes up here? Where has been the evil up to this hour? Why should we be so hurried now with regard to time? Why only five minutes Any man that can speak and elucidate any question of importance in that time ought not to speak at all, for he has nothing to say.

     MR. OATES--Will my colleague from Montgomery allow a question?

     MR. SAMFORD--Certainly.

     MR. OATES--He stated very little had been accomplished. Did you ever see a body of men assembled who were better workers and worked more constantly than the delegates in this Convention?

     MR. SANFORD--I have never seen an assembly more industrious, more conscientious, and not much more intellectual, anywhere in this country. Nobody has been more conscientious than this body; not more industrious than this body, and because of the great number of ordinances and resolutions that have been introduced is why so few articles have been adopted because of the difficulty of reconciling the different views of the delegates, and because of the importance of the questions that have been submitted. When I said little had been accomplished, I had reference merely to the completion of particular articles, and not to the fact that this body has been exceedingly and energetically industrious in the performance of their duties. I hope, therefore, gentlemen, that you will not now undertake to silence the Convention. Many men have changed their views after able arguments, that held different opinions when the arguments began. I


1034

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

know it has been said by a great man that he has heard arguments that changed his opinion, but no argument ever changed his vote, but that is not true of this Convention. I have no doubt that the arguments made by some of these gentlemen upon the question which has just been decided, affected very materially the vote that has been given. It would have gone probably otherwise but for the discussion. I dare say you have arrived at a wise conclusion. We should not silence men upon questions which may not be discussed any more for twenty-five years. It is all important that they should be heard. I am in favor of limitations. I do not wish to speak for hours, or have men to speak to me for hours, upon immaterial issues, but upon questions of importance, let the discussion be free, full, learned, able, argumentative, everything that can convince the judgment of our people. I hope therefore, that the resolution of the Committee on Rules will be defeated.

     MR. WHITE--It does seem to me that there is no necessity to adopt this rule at this time. The five minute rule is sometimes adopted in legislative bodies that meet annually, or at shorter periods than a body of this kind meets.

     MR. PETTUS--I would like to sak the gentleman a question.

     MR. WHITE--Certainly.

     MR. PETTUS--Have you ever known the five minute rule to be adopted in a legislative body except in the last three or four days of the session?

     MR. WHITE--That is true, so far as I have heard, it is not done except at the close of the session.

     MR. ROBINSON--Will the gentleman permit a question?

     MR. WHITE--Yes, sir.

     MR. ROBINSON--If it takes two weeks to adopt one Article of the Constitution, how long will it take to finish the work?

     MR. WHITE--I will answer that. I think the gentleman from Chambers has talked about as much as any one else on that Article, and I leave it to him to say how long he will take on the others.

     MR. ROBINSON--I am willing to stop talking now.

     MR. WHITE--But there are a lot of us who have not talked any who don't want to stop.

     Now I want the members of the Convention to think for a moment. We have here the previous question, that will cut off debate whenever a majority of this Convention desire to stop it; we have the right to move to lay on the table, which will cut off debate whenever a majority of the Convention so decide. Any


1035

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

member of the Convention can bring into operation either one of these provisions, and we will not then tie our hands and not take up important measures which ought not to be discussed, and let them go undiscussed, and decide them wrong.

     Now the question that has just been before the House illustrates the point and illustrates it well. Here was a proposition that was carried this morning by about eighty to fifty votes, but after a full discussion of the question the result was absolutely reversed. We were either wrong this morning and are right now, or else we are right now and wrong then, (laughter), or we are wrong now and were right then.

     One of the gravest questions coming up is on the report of the Committee on Taxation. Questions of the gravest importance are coming up on the report of the Committee on Municipal Corporations, and I might mention almost every committee, and therefore, I think, Mr. President, and gentlemen of this Convention, that it would be exceedingly unwise and hasty to adopt this rule now.

     MR. OATES--I wish to say I have not observed any case where any gentleman has abused the privilege accorded to him under the rules, by making too long a speech. They have generally been brief and to the point. The abuse intended to be corrected by limiting speeches, is to save time where they have a great many things to pass on, and some men are long-winded and disposed to consume too much time in speech making. I entirely concur with the gentlemen who have preceded me in saying that according to my observations, the discussions have been useful here. In fact, in my own case, there are some questions I have heard discussed here upon which I confess I have learned some things I did not know, and every gentleman should know everything important connected with the making of a Constitution. Now until the fact develops, and I do not believe that it will, that gentlemen are disposed to consume too much time in making speeches, do I see the necessity of this rule, and without intending any disrespect to my friend from Lee, who introduced the resolution, or to the Committee who have reported it, and without intending to cut oft any remarks by any other gentleman if he desires to make any, I move that the report of the Commit- too be laid upon the table; not voted down, but be laid upon the table where it can be taken up by the Convention and adopted whenever necessity occurs.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman from Montgomery moves that the resolution reported by the Rules Committee be laid upon the table.

     MR. HARRISON--I ask the gentleman from Montgomery to indulge me for a moment to make a statement.

     MR. OATES--Certainly I will.


1036

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. HARRISON--Before we commenced the consideration of the first report, I made a motion then limiting debate on amendments to five minutes. I thought from the size of this Convention, and from the great amount of speaking talent it contained, that we would never be able to comply with the enabling act unless some such limit was adopted. My speaking friends were opposed to it. I did not press it, nor do I personally care to press it now, save in the discharge of what I conceive to be my duty as a delegate, not to spend the summer and winter here in Convention assembled.

     As has been well said by the gentleman from Chambers in his inquiry to the gentleman from Jefferson, if it has taken two or three weeks, I don't remember the exact time, to complete the consideration of the report of the Committee on Executive Department, pray tell me how long, under the same rules and circumstances, it will take us to complete action upon the reports of nineteen other committees?

     Now I call the attention of the delegates to the fact that this limitation goes simply to amendments. It does not limit the debate, or change the rule so far as the decision on any main question is concerned, for or against it, but it is only to dispose of these amendments, and only limits the speeches for or against an amendment; upon the adoption or rejection of an ordinance it does not affect the present rule at all.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--May I ask the gentleman a question. Would not an amendment very often bring up the main subject?

     MR. HARRISON--Well, it might incidentally.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery) -- Take the suffrage question for instance and the grandfather clause; if some member moves to strike it out, or to put it in, would he be limited to five minutes under that resolution?

     MR. HARRISON--If he moves to strike it out he would be limited to five minutes under this rule, and yet the whole clause, upon its adoption, those for or against it would not be limited, and it would bring a direct vote sooner upon the main proposition.

     I submit, Mr. President, if it is the wish of this Convention that we are not bound by the enabling act; if it is the wish of the Convention that we think it is a duty we owe the State of Alabama to stay here and listen to these eloquent addresses from which we may learn something for the next six months, it is all right--

     MR. OATES--Hasn't a great part of the time been consumed or has not the time been consumed chiefly in the Committee rooms preparing work to be brought in, and was it not perfectly natural


1037

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

that the first report made and taken up for consideration should provoke more debate than almost any other important measure that will be brought before us?

     MR. HARRISON--That is a matter of conjecture.

     But it is to be presumed, and we ought to hope, and I did hope, that gentlemen would become satisfied with speaking, but it seems to me that gentlemen speak about as much as they did two or three weeks ago, and that they do not seem to be satisfied.

     We may learn much, Mr. President. It is merely a business proposition that I desire to have the Convention to look upon the matter. We will no doubt learn something from the eloquent gentlemen here. We learned a great deal from them in debating on the Great Seal for the State. There was a great deal of the beauties of history set forth, and we have learned a great deal upon many questions, but to come down to a business proposition, do you intend to spend six months here? Unless you adopt this, or some other rule, which will reach it, but if you continue as you have been going on, amendment after amendment, as soon as one is passed something else is brought to us, if we adopt no limit, we will be unable to complete our duties within the time prescribed in the enabling act. Whether we are bound by the act or not, we are bound to the people of Alabama to get through with this work in a reasonable length of time--

     MR. COBB--Do you understand that we are limited to fifty days here?

     MR. HARRISON--I understand that we are limited at least to pay for fifty days.

     MR. COBB--Very well. Can't we pay our own way, and isn't it better to do that for six months and make a good Constitution, than to adjourn hastily and make a bad one?

     MR. HARRISON--I think, Mr. President, if we work a little harder and speak less, that we can get through in the time prescribed by the act.

     MR. WILSON (Washington)--Will it not be within the power of the Convention to suspend the rules and lengthen the time for speaking at any time when the occasion seems to demand it?

     MR. WHITE--It takes a two-thirds vote to do that.

     MR. HARRISON--But it is very unpleasant to do that, and I submit that to do it takes up time.

     MR. WHITE--And it takes a three-quarters vote--

     MR. LONG (Walker)--In the interest of harmony, won't you make an exception, and provide that this rule shall not apply to Montgomery County? (Laughter.)


1038

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. HARRISON--Mr. President, I appreciate what other gentlemen have said, and perhaps there is a necessity for the proviso offered by my distinguished friend from Montgomery, who desires not to include in the five minutes the time consumed in answering questions. This may possibly demonstrate the utility of his amendment. I am not wedded to any particular form. I rather think the Rules Committee has improved my resolution as originally introduced. I only desire as the mover to state tersely my reasons for it, but its propriety it seems to me is made more patent to the delegates of this Convention by their own observation than anything I can say, and I simply desire to state briefly why I introduced it, and why I support it, and why I trust the Convention will adopt it, or provide something better. For one I feel we should take some action to expedite business here, and do more work and less talk.

     MR. JONES--I do not believe there has been any member on this floor, with perhaps the exception of the Chairman of the committee having in charge the article which was recently under debate, who has spent more than he ought, or who has worried any member, or who has in any other way taken up any more of the public time than was necessary, perhaps with the exception of the numerous parliamentary points which have been made since we have sat here. I want to say this to my friend from Lee, that the Executive Committee was the first one that the Convention got an opportunity to get at. Naturally when they got through with them, their spurs are worn down, and a little dull, and they won't bother the other committees quite as much, and the idea that we are to make a limitation, because some gentleman gets a little restive about what the press say about us, and say that the delegates of the people of Alabama cannot speak but five minutes on an important question, it seems to me is unwise, and we are going to make a bad Constitution if we do it. Men are not going to speak when you do not want them to. You can make dissent; you can get them down, and I think we had better let this resolution take the course suggested by the gentleman from Montgomery. Half of our time has been taken up reading ordinances. I introduce a resolution, which was referred to the Rules Committee, some two or three weeks ago, in accordance with the practice here in the Legislature, and in accordance with the practice in Congress, to let members send resolutions up without calling the roll and asking to suspend the rules and all that, but the committee in its wisdom did not see fit to report it, and I do not quarrel with them, but the cause of half our trouble has been in reading of resolutions and ordinances, and the suspension of the rules and all that. We are not bound to finish in fifty days, but nobody wants to stay here that can help it. Nobody is making any money by being here, and I am afraid most of us are not making any reputation, but we have got a duty to perform, and I think we ought to perform it.


1039

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     MR. WILSON (Clarke)--Mr. President, I think if we are going to have debate at all, we ought to have longer than five minutes. I do not think any question can be intelligently spoken to in five minutes. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Lee does not help the matter. It is very probable that in nearly every case, the only time you will have an opportunity to change an article will be on the amendments, and when you propose an amendment, the policy of the article is going to be changed, because after this Convention has discussed an article, section by section, and has agreed upon it, it is not likely that this Convention is going to review the whole article just because some section does not please some of the delegates. The very point had occurred to me since this resolution was reported, which was made by the gentleman from Jefferson, Mr. White, that on yesterday, and also on this morning, this Convention was wrong on one proposition, the question of pensioning sheriff's families and after discussing it nearly all day they got right.

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--You got wrong this evening.

     MR. WILSON (Clarke)--We go right. I think, Mr. President, if we are going to have any speeches at all, they ought to be longer than five minutes, and I think when the amendment is proposed, is the very time a speech, if it is effective at all, it is going to do good, and as has been said by some other gentleman, I have not seen that the privilege to speak has been abused to any great extent in this Convention by any gentleman here.

     MR. SAMFORD--I set that the clock is within two minutes of adjournment. For the purpose of disposing of this matteer, I move that the rules be suspended and that we remain in session until we get through with this much any way.

     There were some expressions of dissent.

     THE PRESIDENT--Does the gentleman from Clarke yield to the gentleman from Pike to move to suspend the rules?

     MR. WILSON (Clarke)--Yes, sir.

     MR. SAMFORD--This thing is getting serious.

     Upon a vote being taken, a division was called for, and by a vote of sixty-seven ayes to thirty-four noes, the rules were declared suspended.

     MR. SAMFORD--I move that this Convention remain in session until the pending question is disposed of.

     MR. JONES--And to order that this article be engrossed and put on its third reading tomorrow so that we can get rid of it.

     MR. SAMFORD--I won't encumber it with that.


1040

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--We have got to do it, and no one will make any fight on it.

     MR. SAMFORD -- I move we remain in session until the pending question is disposed of.

     MR. WATTS--I understand the Chair to say that the vote was sixty-seven to thirty-four: Is that a two-thirds vote?

     That is the way the Secretary figured it. The Chair cannot take the time to make the calculations.

     MR. HEFLIN (Chambers)--I make the point of order that if those figures are correct, it is not a two-thirds vote.

     THE PRESIDENT--The Secretary made the figures.

     MR. WATTS--It takes seventy-four to make a two-thirds vote.

     MR. CUNNINGHAM--The point of order comes too late.

     MR. BROOKS--A point of order is never too late to correct an error of that kind. The figures stand for themselves.

     MR. deGRAFFFNREID--I call for a verification of the vote.

     MR. WILLIAMS--The Chair had announced the vote, and other business had been transacted before the point was raised.

     MR. deGRAFFENREID--We call for a verification of the vote.

     THE PRESIDENT--It seems to the Chair that the point of order comes too late.

     MR. BROOKS--Will the President indulge me a moment. We did not know what the decision of the Chair was until it was made--

     The President--The Chair made the decision, however, and entertained another motion, and the Convention had proceeded to other business, and it is, therefore, too late to go back and make a point of order on the original question.

     MR. SAMFORD--I make the motion that I made awhile ago, that the Convention remain in session until the pending question, which is the report of the Committee on Rules, is disposed of.

     MR. JONES--Won't the gentleman allow a formal order to engross this article in order that it may be put upon its third reading?

     MR. SAMFORD -- I have no objection to the order being made.

     THE PRESIDENT--Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent that it be done?


1041

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     MR. JONES (Montgomery)--Yes, I do. It is to get rid of the thing.

     THE PRESIDENT--The gentleman from Montgomery asks unanimous consent for the engrossment of the report of the Committee on Executive Department; is there objection? The Chair hears none and it is so ordered.

     MR. HOWELL--Allow me in connection with that order to move that the Chairman of the Committee on Executive Department see that the bill is correctly engrossed before it is read a third time and passed. We have no committees on enrolled and engrossed bills, and somebody ought to be authorized to see that it is correctly engrossed, because, with the various amendments it is very easy for the engrossing clerk to put them sometimes in the wrong place.

     MR. PITTS--I make the point of order there is already a motion pending before the House.

     MR. DUKE--I move to amend the motion of the gentleman from Pike. There are a good many committees to meet this evening at half past five, and I move to amend the motion by moving that this Convention remain in session until not later than half past five.

     Upon a vote being taken the amendment was lost. A division being called for, the original motion, by a vote of sixty-seven ayes and thirty-eight noes was carried.

     MR. WILSON (Clarke)--It is urged by some of the delegates in favor of this five minute rule, that the Convention could suspend the rule for any delegate if he desired the floor longer than that. That is one of the reasons I am opposed to it. It would take more time to suspend the rules, and to vote on suspending the rules to determine whether the delegate be allowed to go over the time, than to go on and get through, in this way. I believe, as has already been expressed, that in most of the articles which are to follow, unless it be the suffrage and education, there will not be much discussion as there has been upon this article. As was expressed by the gentleman, I believe from Chambers, Mr. Robinson, the animals were hungry when this article was brought in and they chawed on it longer in my judgment than they will hereafter.

     When the pending question is disposed of, I am going to offer an amendment which I think will not be in order now, to strike out, "five minutes" and make it "fifteen." I believe few gentlemen would care to speak longer than fifteen minutes, and for those who do care to speak longer than that the Convention could extend the time. I believe that will be a better adjustment of the question than the five-minute rule, or the present rule of 30 minutes.


1042

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

The limitation now is that no member shall speak but once on any question, and may not speak longer than 30 minutes and we might change that to not longer than fifteen, and not permit any delegate to speak but once on any question. With the previous question motion in order, which may cut off debate, and motion to table to cut off debate, it seems to me fifteen minutes would limit debate as short as it should be limited.

     MR. SMITH (Mobile)--The Rules Committee have brought in this resolution, after the question had been presented and suggestions made by a large number of delegates. This was done not once, but a number of times. The Rules Committee at first declined to bring in the report, or failed to act in the matter until it was presented quite a number of times, and it became convinced that there was a feeling in the Convention that something ought to be done to limit the debate, and enable the Convention to proceed with its work. The committee has now brought it in in conformity with what it believed to be the wish of the Convention. It has no special desire upon its part, as a committee, to limit the debate, and if it is the wish of the Convention that this resolution be not adopted, it will be satisfactory to the committee.

     Personally, however, it does not seem to isle that the argument that has been made against it is a sound one. One of the gentlemen says that these questions ought to be discussed fully, and I agree with the gentleman. He says that the broadest opportunity for discussion should lie given in this Convention on every question, and I fully agree with him, but I differ with him as to what an opportunity for the broadest discussion consists of. Another gentleman says if we desire to limit this debate, we can always do that by the previous question; that we have heretofore clone it, and done it effectively. I agree with this gentleman and yet I doubt the correctness of the conclusion.

     I think a full debate by every member of the Convention who desires to speak, is advisable, and advances the public welfare and the interests of the State. I think it is better that every man who wants to speak should have an opportunity to speak five minutes than that a coterie should have an opportunity to speak just as long as they choose to (applause) and until the Convention gets tired and shuts off the gentleman, as the gentleman from Jefferson has said.

     That is the way it seems to me it has been fully debated. A few gentlemen have talked until the balance have got tired and somebody has stopped the proceedings by the previous question, and shut off other gentlemen on the question who are not so brave in asserting their rights. I therefore believe that if we would try the five-minute rule a day or two, the majority of the Convention would find it agreeable.


1043

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     MR. BROOKS--Mr. President, I am not in the habit of making speeches frequently, and I do not think I make very long speeches so that personally I have not very much interest in this question, but it does seem to me that at this stage of our proceedings we ought not to limit ourselves lay a hard and fast rule, but that we ought to be guided by the circumstances and if an emergency happens, then we might change the rule for the time being, by going into a committee of the whole, and having five-minute speeches or something of that sort, but where we have only debated one article in the Constitution, and we have coming before us matters of the greatest importance, upon which very few risen can express themselves elaborately and properly and condensedly in five minutes. I think that a liberal opportunity ought to be given to discuss the great questions that will be pending before this Convention before long. Perhaps not to the extent that we have discussed the article on the executive Department, but certainly to give it such consideration as it deserves. Now for instance, here is the question of taxation, a very important matter; the question of suffrage, the bone of contention in this Convention, and then the very committee of which the gentleman from Lee is Chairman, the Committee on Corporations, I would like to hear from before the debate is limited to five minutes because I do not know what they may report, or what they may not report, and it may require more than five minutes to speak to bring before the Convention in an elaborated form such facts, figures aid arguments as are necessary to intelligently discuss such a question. Therefore, it seems to me that at this early stage of the proceedings we ought not to encumber ourselves with a hard and fast rule, which can only change from time to time by the proposition of suspending the rules, which at all times is an awkward method of procedure. I hope therefore that the resolution reported by the Committee at the present stage of our proceedings will not pass, and if I am in order and no other gentleman proposes to discuss the question, I move to lay it on the table.

     MR. COLEMAN--Mr. President--

     THE PRESIDENT--Does the gentleman withdraw the motion to table?

     MR. BROOKS--No sir, I have not withdrawn it.

     THE PRESIDENT--The motion of the gentleman from Mobile was to lay upon the table--

     MR. OATES--I will ask the delegate from Mobile to withdraw the motion temporarily.

     MR. BROOKS--I have had no request from any one to withdraw it.


1044

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. OATES--The delegate from Greene is the Chairman of the Suffrage Committee, and he ought to be heard.

     MR. BROOKS--If the gentleman from Greene desires to ask its withdrawal, I withdraw it, with the expectation it will be renewed immediately afterwards.

     MR. COLEMAN (Greene)--I have only a few words to say, Mr. President, upon this question, and I started to say that all speakers know how embarrassing it is to be limited to a fixed time; they hardly know how to express their ideas, or what to say. Now the argument has been made here, and the question asked often, if it has taken us all this time to adopt the first article, how long will it take us to adopt the remainder of the articles of this Constitution. I might retort by saying that if the gentlemen have read the report of the Committee on Banking they will see that Committee's report is exactly as it is in the old law, with the addition of a single exception, and the probability is that we will not consume a day upon that article. I can retort that if you consume only one day, or a half a day, in adopting the article on Banking, as a matter of course you would be a very short time on the balance of them. It depends altogether upon the questions involved, and, Mr. President, there are some questions which are going to arise before this Convention that no man can discuss within five minutes. It would be utterly impossible to do justice to many great subjects that are coming up before us, and the motion of the delegate from Montgomery that it lie upon the table, to be called up at any time, is exactly in point, it seems to me. It is under control of the delegates of the Convention to be called up and put in force at any moment when needed, and I therefore renew the motion, if it be in order.

     The motion that the resolution as reported by the Committee lie upon the table to be taken up by the Convention at pleasure was carried upon a division, by a vote of 78 ayes to 28 noes.

     And the Convention thereupon adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.