2206

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

FORTY ‑ SIXTH DAY

____________

MONTGOMERY, ALA.

Tuesday, July 16, 1901.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment, was called to order by the President, and opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. C. B. Daniel, as follows:

Almighty God, we come openly and boldly to a throne of mercy to find grace to help in time of need. We beseech Thee to bless this Convention in all their deliberations this day. According to our individual necessities let Thy grace come to us this day. We ask Thee to come into our heart and see our need exactly, and supply our want out of Thy grace, that we may not be hindrances to one another, but helps; that we may throw no cloud upon each others path, but all the possible sunshine and joy. Help us to "bear one anothers burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." In our prayers we would remember our loved ones at home, the sick, the weary shut up with pain, the poor, the desolate, the feeble, the infirm, the friendless. The Lord's blessings be upon this city, this State, the whole earth ‑ its nations and peoples and tongues and languages. We ask these blessings through the merits of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Upon the call of the roll 120 delegates responded to their names.

Leaves of absence were granted as follows: Mr. Ashcraft, today and until noon tomorrow; Mr. Mac A. Smith for today; Mr. Graham (Talladega) for today; indefinite leave for Mr. Beavers on account of sickness.

Mr. Cobb (Macon) here took the chair.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The secretary will call the roll of delegates for the introduction of ordinances, resolutions, etc.

MR. deGRAFFENREID ‑ I move that the call of the roll this morning for the introduction of ordinances be dispensed with, and that the rules be suspended for the purpose of making that motion.

MR. SAMFORD (Pike) ‑ Before that is put I ask unanimous consent to introduce a short resolution and have it referred.

The consent was given and the resolution was read as follows:

Resolution No. 246:


2207

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Resolved, That the General Assembly of this State is hereby instructed at its next session to reduce the tag tax on fertilizers to an amount not to exceed 10 cents per ton.

MR. SAMFORD (Pike) ‑ I ask that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Amending the Constitution and Miscellaneous Provisions.

And the resolution was so referred.

Upon a vote being taken the rules were suspended and the call of the roll of delegates dispensed with.

MR. KNOX ‑ Mr. President, I desire to make a report for the Committee on Rules.

The same was read as follows:

Resolution No. 247, by Committee on Rules:

Resolved, That the report of the Committee on Suffrage be taken up for consideration by the Convention immediately after the reading of the Journal on Tuesday, July 23d, unless sooner reached in its regular order; provided that if the Convention on that day has under consideration the report of any other standing committee such report shall be laid aside and shall be again taken up as soon as the article on Suffrage and Elections has been disposed of.

MR. KNOX ‑ The resolution just offered is in accordance with the action of the Democratic caucus by which this matter was considered, and the Committee on Rules direct me to report that resolution to carry their action into effect. I therefore move the adoption of the resolution, and upon that I move the previous question.

Upon a vote being taken the main question was ordered, and upon a further vote the resolution was adopted.

The report of the Committee on Journal was read:

MR. BROWNE ‑ I desire to call attention to an error in the Journal. Mr. Banks is shown to have voted no on a motion made by me to lay upon the table the minority report–

MR. KIRKLAND ‑ I rise to a point of order. The question before the House is the adoption or rejection of the report of the Committee on the Journal.

MR. BROWNE ‑ I rise for the purpose of showing that the Journal is incorrect.

MR. KIRKLAND ‑ I misunderstood the gentleman from Talladega.


2208

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. BROWNE ‑ The Journal shows that Mr. Banks voted no upon the motion made by me to lay upon the table the minority report in the Shelby matter. Mr. Banks is not present, but he did vote no, and immediately thereafter changed his vote to aye. I call on the gentleman from Calhoun (Mr. Martin) to substantiate my statement, as he sat next to him. Is that not correct?

MR. KIRKLAND (Dale) ‑ I cannot state. I was not here and do not know whether that was the case or not, but I was informed by Mr. Julian, the secretary, that the report of the Committee on the Journal is correct, and the Journal itself is correct and that the gentleman, Mr. Banks, I believe it is, would answer that the Journal is in fact correct.

MR. BROWNE ‑ I state, Mr. President, that I distinctly heard the gentleman vote from my seat over here. He did vote no, and the secretary could not hear, because he went on with the calling of other names, but Mr. Banks immediately afterwards said I voted aye, and the gentleman from Calhoun, Mr. Martin, who was sitting close to him, can coroborrate my statement.

MR. MARTIN ‑ That is my recollection of the matter.

MR. BROWNE ‑ I do not desire to change his vote, but I desire the Journal to speak the truth. He did change his vote from no to aye, and the secretary did not catch it as he was calling the roll.

MR. deGRAFFENREID ‑ If I am in order I move that the matter as to how Mr. Banks voted be deferred to some other time when Mr. Banks is present, and he then be allowed to say how he did vote upon that question.

MR. BROWNE ‑ I am perfectly willing to that, so the Journal is not approved as it stands.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM. ‑ The question is on the adoption of the report of the Committee on the Journal.

Upon a vote being taken the report was adopted.

The President here resumed the chair.

MR. LONG (Butler) ‑ I rise to a question of personal privilege.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman will state the question of privilege.

MR. LONG (Butler) ‑ In the stenographic report of yesterday the stenographer has me voting no on this question. I will state that I was not in the hall at the time and did not vote at all. If I had been here I would have noted no and I am perfectly satisfied with the report as given, but I do not know at what future time


2209

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

the stenographer may see fit to use my proxy and vote me, and I object to his voting me without my knowledge and consent.

MR. KIRKLAND ‑ I rise to a question of personal privilege.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman will state the question of privilege.

MR. KIRKLAND ‑ On last Saturday, as the roll of this convention will show, I was not present. I expect it will show that I was not present by reason of leave that I had obtained from this Convention. At that time the consideration of the report of the Committee on State and County Boundaries was up for consideration, and in the course of the debate, the gentleman from Henry offered a resolution, amending the report of that Committee, and in his address to this convention, stated that I had assisted in preparing that resolution. During the course of the debate before this Convention the gentleman from Coffee, whom I take it assumed to act for the constituency that I represent, also made the same assertion that I was present and assisted in the praparation of that resolution. I deny before this Convention, that I had any connection whatever with the preparation of the resolution, but if I had been here I state I would have voted for its adoption. I just want the record to show that is the case. I did not help to prepare it. I was in favor of the motion and would have voted for it, if I had been here, and I only want the record to show that. Further I want to state that I understand it has been said that I left because of this matter. I do not know what gentleman on the floor has done it but it has been brought to me that it has been charged by members of the Convention, that I left here to dodge this issue. I state Mr. President that I have never yet been known to dodge any issue. I always do my fighting open and above board, where every man may see and know what I do, and may always be able toy place his finger upon me, and always find me contending for what I conceive to be my duty. If I had been here, I repeat I would have voted for this resolution, and I do not see how that can be said to be dodging the question.

MR. MALONE ‑ I rise to a question of personal privilege.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter)– I pursuance of the motion which I made on yesterday that I would move a reconsideration today of Section 8 of the Article on hanks and Banking. I would be pleased to have the clerk to read it.

The Chair recognized the gentleman from Henry.

MR. MALONE ‑ I want to explain that I made the statement in the language quoted in the stenographic report, and I want to say that I went to Mr. Kirkland and said that we did not know, judging by the action of the Convention on these former reports, what the action of the Convention will be, and I always like to be


2210

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

prepared for a defeat, and want to draw up a bill to offer in the event we get beat. He said he did not want to have anything to do with establishing the lines down there, and I said let me put in a provision that these lines are temporary, and let us make the law as elastic as possible for legislation. He said I think there is some merit in that. I won't say what I will do, but you go and draw up a resolution and bring it to me and I will look over it. I went off and drew up the identical resolution, the very paper, and carried it back to Mr. Kirkland, and he said I think that covers the ground and it is all right. Now as far as dodging the question, it is the reverse. I stated in advance to Mr. Kirkland, and had given him my word that I would not attempt to do anything, that he could feel assured that no advantage would be taken of him and instead of dodging the question it was a question of confidence in carrying out the agreement. I believe those are about the conditions.

MR. KIRKLAND ‑ I think that is about right. I think you understood that I had agreed to the drawing up of the resolution but it was the statement in the stenographic report that I assisted in drawing the resolution. I deny that I assisted in drawing it.

MR. MALONE ‑ I expect that I am to blame for that, but it took place just about as you and I agree now.

MR. BANKS ‑ I understood since I came into the hall that I am recorded as voting no on the proposition to table the minority report of the Committee on County Boundaries. If the President remembers, I called his attention to the mistake I made at the time, and asked to have my vote changed.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Chair distinctly heard the correction of the gentleman from Russell, but the Secretary, in calling the roll, his mind being upon that, failed to hear the remark of the gentleman. The correction will be made.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ The question now under consideration is a motion to reconsider Section 8 of the article on Banks and Banking, which I will have the clerk to read.

The section was read as follows:

Sec. 8. The General Assembly shall by appropriate laws, provide for the examination by some public officer, of all banks and banking institutions and trust companies engaged in banking business, in this State. And each of such banking companies or institutions shall through its president or such other officer as the General Assembly may designate under oath make a report of its resources and liabilities at least twice a year.

Now Mr. President, because there is a system of examination of national banks operating in the State of Alabama, this provi‑


2211

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

sion has upon its face the appearance of being just, but the examination made of national banks and the report which goes only to the Comptroller of the Currency at Washington, bears no resemblance to this system of police espionage which you propose to place upon the private institutions of the State of Alabama. Yesterday this discussion took something of a personal nature, as a question between the rights of the national bank and the private bankers who occupied seats on this floor. That was unfortunate because we are apt to judge men from our own mean natures or from the bounty of our virtues. Now I wish to say in this connection, that I have no connection whatever with any bank, national, State or private, in the State of Alabama, I am so unfortunate at this time, gentlemen, as to not even have any deposits in any of the banks of the State of Alabama, but I am making this proposition because I see the result that it will inevitably have upon the private banking institutions of the State. Whenever you clothe the Governor, or any other authority in the State of Alabama, with the power to send a man out all over the State to examine into the private affairs of its citizens, you give him the power to strike down that institution, because when that report is submitted to him, if he chooses to do so, and who doubts but what in instances he will choose to do so, submit this report to the tax collectors of the State of Alabama, and they will thereby be enabled to jump on the deposits of citizens in this bank.

Gentlemen, it is unfortunate in the State of Alabama that we have a great many citizens who have money who try to escape taxation, but gentlemen a great many of us are like Tom L. Johnson. We fight for principles when they are not in existence, but we have got to do business in accordance with human nature a we find it, and not like we would like to make it. So gentlemen, if you do have this examination of State Banks, you will inevitably drive the private banking institutions of the State out of business, and the State banks will change their charter; and go into the national banking system, because it is a very easy matter to make such change. Do not deceive yourselves at all with the idea that this system of examination bears any resemblance to the system of examination of national banks in this State. They are just as different as night is from day. In one case the government of the United States sends an examiner, who look into the solvency of the institution and reports to the Comptroller of the Currency at Washington. In the other case you send a man who takes up the private affairs of the banker or banking institution, and find out the number and amount of deposits in the bank, and submits it to the Governor. We have no laws upon the subject of banking institutions in the State of Alabama, except a general provision that hanks may constitute themselves into corporations to do business. Then what is the sense of putting this ordinance

 


2212

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

in there, unless you connect it with the general system? I submit that this is purely a legislative matter, and should be left to the Legislature of the State of Alabama.

MR. REESE ‑ Will the gentleman allow a question?

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ With the greatest pleasure.

MR. REESE ‑ Would not it be a good idea to make the county tax commissioner ex officio bank examiner?

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ If you want to have it so that a man can go into the private affairs of everybody because he is an officer, it does not make any difference what particular officer is clothed with this power. You might give it to the Sheriff or the Probate Judge, or to any other officer. I was going to say Mr. President, something has been said about arraying influences against the adoption of this Constitution‑

MR. BAREFIELD ‑ I would like to ask the gentleman if a man has a thousand dollars on deposit in a bank and a mail has forty acres of land, why tax his land out here, and allow the man with the thousand dollars to escape taxation?

MR. ROGERS (Sumter)–I am afraid that the gentleman from Monroe is playing to the galleries this morning. I am not in favor of the thousand dollars escaping taxation, but I say this, if you tax it in a State bank, car a private bank, the man will withdraw it and put it in the National bank, where it will escape taxation. That is the proposition and not a proposition that anybody that has got money should escape taxation.

I was going on to say, it seems to me that we have said a great deal in this Convention here about arraying influences against the adoption of this Constitution. I am not in favor of keeping out, or putting anything into this Constitution merely upon grounds of expedience, but, Mr. President, we will have to submit this instrument to the people of Alabama for ratification and I tell you you can look well towards putting any proposition in there which will submit the citizens of this State to annoyance. What private bank is going to gladly and willingly and cheerfully accept a provision which he knows is going to put his competitor in the National banking business on the opposite side of the street to him at a great advantage? Why, in the city of Tuscaloosa, where one of the members of this committee resides, who favors this report, there is an institution which has been established there for 50 years; it is a private banking institution, and if this machinery is put into operation, it will work greatly to the disadvantage of that private institution. Down in the city of Dothan, if you please, there are two gentlemen, one who has just retired from the State banking business, and gone into the National bankingbusiness, and his competitor across the way was going to look with


2213

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

approval and glad welcome upon a provision which this gentleman fought himself when he was in that business, and now approves? to tell you you are going outside the rights of this Convention. We are going into the Legislative Department, and I hope that the Convention will reconsider the proposition, which at least bears all the ear marks of private interest which is desired to be perpetuated in this Constitution, the great fundamental law of this State.

MR. O'NEAL (Lauderdale) ‑ The gentleman from Sumter says this is purely a legislative matter. If this is a matter entirely within the domain of the Legislature, it is very singular that body has never given the people of Alabama any relief in reference to this important question. We know that for over a quarter of a century there has absolutely been no examination of private banks in this State. We know that one reason that private banks have not prospered in Alabama is clue to the fact that there is absolutely no protection afforded to the depositors in those institutions.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ If the gentleman will permit an interruption, the reason why National banks have succeeded in this State as opposed to the private banking institutions, is because the government of the United States permits the bonds of the United States to draw interest, while deposited for security, and he thereby gets double interest upon his money.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ Yes, but the private banks have a great many powers which the National banks cannot exercise. They can lend money on bonds and securities which are absolutely prohibited to National banks, and I say I but voice the sentiment of every citizen of the State, who has had connection with these institutions, that sufficient safeguards are not thrown around the deposits, and those who have dealings with those institution—

Mr. deGraffenreid addressed the chair.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Hale?

MR. O'NEAL ‑ I will in a moment. I cannot make an argument and answer questions every second. Let me finish the argument.

Now suppose all effort is made in the Legislature to create a bank examiner, what  is the result?  The result is the managers of these institutions flock to the Legislature, and by their influence prevent any action, whereas the depositors, the parties that are interested, will not take the trouble to come here and make any demands on the Legislature.


2214

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Now an institution of that kind, if it is insolvent, can still continue business. I remember an instance of that kind.  A private bank after the bank had failed, refused to pay check after check, though its doors were open, and they were ready to receive money from any depositor, but absolutely declined to pay any checks that might be presented. Why, under the system that prevails in the government service of the United States, that would not be tolerated a moment. After a bank becomes insolvent it is put in the hands of a receiver.

The gentleman says that this will be an unpopular matter with the people of Alabama.  That it will array opposition to the ratification of the Constitution.  In my judgment the most popular thing we could do if we look at it purely from that standpoint, would be to say to the people of Alabama you may deposit your money in private banks and you shall enjoy the same safeguards and protection that are given to depositors in National institutions. Say to those who deposit their little mites in these private banks, because in many places there are no banking institutions, you have a right to go and read the papers and ascertain the condition of the institution, whether it is solvent or insolvent, and it shall no longer be a net to draw in the unwary, the ignorant and the poor.

Now I have no connection with a bank of any kind, State or National. The only connection I have unfortunately is to frequently be on the wrong side of the ledger, but this is a matter of principle, and I think that a measure of this kind is demanded by the people of Alabama.  I think a measure of this kind will go far towards letting the people of Alabama understand that we are here to protect the great masses of people, uninfluenced by power, or by any institutions of this kind.  Why the gentleman intimates that if we undertake to pass this measure, if we undertake to say that these institutions against the ratification of the Constitution.  I am sure that argument will not prevail with this Convention.  Are we to truckle to any class of people in this State.  Are we to falter in the discharge of our honest duty, because it may array the moneyed classes against the ratification of this Constitution?  When we pander to the moneyed classes to an extent that we do injustice to the great masses of the people in Alabama, then we ought to be condemned.  Why the gentleman says it will be expensive and the State Examiners—

MR. REESE ‑ Does the gentleman think it wise or expedient that we should multiply issues which might become unpopular and might work against the ratification of this Constitution?

MR. O'NEAL ‑ No, I do not think it wise to multiply issues. We are not multiplying issues. We are simply passing such a bank law as exists in every other State almost. We simply pass a


2215

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

law to furnish protection to the public, and it is our duty to do that. We do not intend to do any injustice to any private bank, or any private banking institution. If I believed, with the gentleman from Sumter, that the effect of this law would be to injure any of these institutions, I would certainly oppose it, but I think he is under a misapprehension. I think that such legislation as this, or such a Constitutional provision, would go far towards restoring the confidence of the public in such institutions, and making them strong and powerful in Alabama. That is my honest judgment.

Now in reference to the matter of expense.  We have in this State a number of examiners, appointed by the Governor. Examiners who are skilled accountants, and whose business it is to examine the State and State officials.  Why could not these examiners perform these duties without any additional expense?  It could be done without a dollar of expense to the State.  The State is now paying these examiners—

MR. ROGERS (Sumter)– I have not said anything about expense.

MR. O'NEAL (Lauderdale)– The argument has been made here in opposition to this section that it would entail useless expense, unnecessary expense upon the people of Alabama, and create a number of unnecessary offices.  I say in answer to that argument, that the bank examiners appointed now by the Governor, receiving a salary, could be ordered by him to make an examination without a dollar’s additional cost to the people of Alabama.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman's time has expired.

MR. FLETCHER ‑‑‑ The purpose of the Committee in the adoption of that Section was the protection of the people. We thought as a matter of fact that private individuals where confidence was reposed in them by people depositing money with them would certainly have no objection to making an exhibit of the fidelity and good faith with which they acted in reference to their money. We do not propose to take advantage of any private institution in the State of Alabama, nor had we any purpose to reflect on any private banking institution of Alabama. Our  only purpose was for the protection of the people. Private banks, like public ones, ought not to have any objections to making an exhibit to the people who have had confidence in them and who have placed their money with them. Now, Mr. President, this matter has consumed enough of the time of this Contention and it was fully discussed on yesterday and adopted by the Convention, and I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ Under a proposition to lay upon the table as the mover of this resolution, have I not a right to close ?


2216

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Madison to lay upon the table the motion to reconsider. As many as favor the motion to table will say aye, and those opposed no. It seems to the Chair the ayes have it.the ayes have it.

MR. ROGERS ‑ Division.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ I make the point of order that the gentleman did not make a call for a division until the President had stated that the ayes had it, that was before the call for division was made.

MR. WILLIAMS (Marengo)–I hope the Chair will allow the division.

MR. ROGERS ‑ I call for a division and await the pleasure of the Chair; it is purely for the Chair to decide; and I am perfectly willing to repose in the justice of the Chair without any interference from you gentlemen on the other side.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Chair paused after announcing that it seemed to the Chair that the ayes had it, and looked in the direction of the gentlemen from Sumter, supposing that probably a division might he called for. The gentleman did not rise, and the Chair thereupon made the announcement of the Result.

MR. GRANT ‑ I called for a division before the decision was made.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ I withdraw my point of order.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Chair will submit the question of a division to the Convention.

A vote being taken there were fifty ‑ five ayes to forty ‑ three noes and the motion to table prevailed.

MR. WILSON (Washington) ‑ I regret to recur to a matter that has been so decidedly settled by this Convention, and it is not for the purpose of reconsidering or in any manner changing the vote on the main question, but simply to offer an amendment that I concede to be just, equitable and fair.

THE PRESIDENT– For what purpose does the gentleman rise ?

MR. WILSON ‑ I rise to move a reconsideration of the vote by which Section 6 of the article on State and County Boundaries was adopted yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Did the gentleman vote in favor of it?

MR. WILSON ‑ Yes, sir, the gentleman did for that purpose.


2217

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question will be upon the motion to reconsider the vote by which this Convention adopted the report of the Committee on State and County Boundaries, Section 6.

MR. WILSON ‑ I am not here to criticise the action of this Convention on yesterday in annulling the act providing for the removal of the court house of Shelby county, on the contrary, I think in the main that action is correct, on the ground that I consider it against, public policy to take from a people the right of a voice in these matters, but as this Convention has set out to do the fair thing, I believe that they will remove all doubt on the proposition that they mean in fact and in truth to do what is fair and proper. Now, Mr. President, in Section 6, as adopted, relative to that Shelby county platter, we have put ourselves in the attitude of correcting the errors of the Legislature in order that justice might be done. Let us not go so straight up that we will lean the other way. The proposition I refer to is simply this, there? Is a provision in Section 6 as reported and as adopted that the court house shall remain at Columbiana until removed by a vote of the people under the provisions of an act approved February and the act amendatory thereto of February 20, 1899. Now, Mr. President, I do not propose to go into the motives of either of the parties to this contest. That has been settled, but I do say, and I say that it does not take any very learned lawyer to see and understand the proposition, that it is clearly within the power of the Commissioners of Shelby county to issue their warrants and erect a $50,000 court house at Columbiana before the people of Shelby county have a voice in the matter, if they see fit to do so. I don't mean to charge that they will do this at all, but I simply say that it is clearly within the power of that body to do it, and as we have stepped in and said to one side you shall not move this court house until the people have had a voice in the matter, then I say it is only fair to say to the other side that neither shall you erect an expensive court house at Columbiana until the people of Shelby county shall have had a voice by a vote of the qualified electors of that county. Mr. President, for this: reason, and for no other, I ask this Convention to reconsider that vote, and if that vote is reconsidered I will offer this amendment : “Amend Section 6 by adding the following:

“Provided further, that no new court house shall be erected at Calera or Columbiana unless the question has beck submitted to a vote of the qualified electors of Shelby county within the time and under the provision; of an act to provide for the permanent location of the county seat of Shelby county, approved February 9, 1899, and an act an1endatory thereto approved February 20, 1899."

MR. SMITH (Mobile) ‑ I voted in favor of the report of the committee. I am satisfied from the investigation made by the committee that in fact and in truth no act of the General Assem‑


2218

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

bly was passed authorizing the removal of this court house, and I and satisfied front the report of that committee, and what I heard in regard to that matter, that it was made to appear that there was such an act of removal simply by virtue of fraud and, therefore, although I was opposed to introducing such matters, which I considered largely legislative in the Constitution, yet I deemed this to be so extreme a case as justified us in voting in favor of the report of the committee.  I have no regrets whatever upon the subject, if I had it to do over again, I should certainly vote in favor of that report.  But the suggestion now comes that an advantage will be taken of the delay which we have made in this matter in the interest of justice, and that in the heat of the struggle and in the feeling of injustice that has been done to Columbiana, they will feel justified in taking almost any measure—

MR. WILSON– “Could” be taken, not “will be.

MR. SMITH– I am speaking for myself.  There is a feeling that they would be justified in taking almost any steps in order to prevent the people who had ill treated them and fraudulently in regard to this matter, and that they would feel justified in doing it under the circumstances which exist, when they would not take that step under other circumstances, and, in order to defeat the people of Calera, should they have a majority of the county in their favor, they might go to work and erect expensive buildings and thereby put a penalty upon the removal if it should happen that the county was in favor of it, and that Board would simply shift part of the responsibility from one shoulder to another, to take the benefits of a fraud which the report of the committee says was perpetrated by those interested in Calera, and afford an opportunity to those interested in Columbiana to perpetrate, not to the same extent, but a similar fraud, so far as my view goes, in the same controversy.  I am opposed to giving either of these parties any undue advantages in this controversy, and I think, therefore, that now that we have made the delay, now that we have corrected the fraud that was perpetrated in the Legislature, we ought to tie the hands of both parties until a vote can be had in the county, and the people can say where they want the court house erected.  The amendment which the gentleman showed me this morning seems to be fair, and seems to carry out that purpose, as it merely restricts the erection of buildings at either of these controverted points until the matter can be determined by the people.  I am in favor of reconsideration for the purpose of considering that amendment, and when introduced, I shall again vote for the report of the committee.

MR. GRANT (Calhoun)– I voted for this proposition from a broader point of view than seems to be entertained by the gentleman from Mobile.  I want to say to this Convention frankly that if I had supposed that we were here settling a mere court


2219

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

house controversy between Calera and Columbiana, that I would have voted against the proposition to put this thing in the Constitution.  I voted for the proposition upon the ground that a fraud had been perpetrated upon the whole State of Alabama, and that the Legislature, the highest law-making body of the people, had been outraged in the passage of the bill.  Now, if we are to descend from that position to arrange the details of a settlement between these two villages as to whether or not the court house should ultimately go to one or the other, I think we have left the high ground upon which we acted.  Now, I don’t think, Mr. President, that if you would put the proposition of a local measure before this body that it would have any consideration whatever, no matter what the merits of the case were.  The sole consideration to my mind that governed this body was that here a fraud had been put upon the whole people of the State of Alabama, and that from the fact it became a State question, and we set a good example— rather, we put a peremptory mandamus against operations of this kind in legislation any more. Now, if we reconsider this question and begin to arrange the details as to whether the Commissioner’s Court of Shelby County may erect a court house at Columbiana, or may not, or what the people of Calera have done, we descend from the mountain the altitude of our position, descend to the merest trivalities of detail and get down to local legislation in fact, and I , therefore, am opposed to a reconsideration.

MR. deGRAFFENREID– May I ask the gentleman a question before he takes his seat?

THE PRESIDENT- Will the gentleman permit a question?

MR. GRANT– Yes, sir.

MR. deGRAFFENREID– Isn’t it a fact that this Convention has already provided in another article that no county can issue bonds without a vote of the people?

MR. GRANT– I think so.

MR. deGRAFFENREID– Wouldn’t it, therefore, be impossible for Shelby County to erect a court house anywhere without borrowing money?

MR. GRANT– I think so

MR. WILSON (Washington)- Is it not a fact that the County Commissioners in any county have a right to issue their warrants to any amount?

MR. GRANT– I don't know about that.

MR. WILSON– I  would like to state for the gentleman’s information that in my county of Washington, we have just built


2220

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

a $5,000 jail without any bonds ‑ on warrants only. And isn't it a fact that this provision the gentleman from Hale is talking about is not yet a law and will not become a law until this Constitution is ratified by the people of Alabama.

MR. COLEMAN (Greene) ‑ I voted against the adoption of this section upon the ground that I thought the matter rightly belonged to the Legislature. I rise now for the purpose of calling attention to a construction that might be placed upon the section. Some may think it rather far ‑ fetched or technical, but nevertheless it admits of an argument, and I am not prepared to say that this section goes too far in its present shape. I would vote for the reconsideration that it might he amended, and I desire to call the attention of the delegates to the reading of this section: ‘Provided, that the county site of Shelby County, in this State, shall be and remain at Columbiana unless removed by vote of the people as provided for in an act entitled ‘An act to provide for the permanent location of the county site of Shelby County by a vote of the qualified electors of said county, approved, the 9th of February, 1899, and an act amendatory thereto, approved February 20th, 1899, or by an election held under the provision of this article." Now when the court house is removed as provided by the act of 1899 and amendatory act thereto, it can never he removed at any time in the future, however much it may be desired to be removed, unless by an election held under the provisions of this article. Now I will invite the gentleman's attention to show me where there is any provision in this article under which an election can be held. If it had read “or by an election held under the law passed by the legislature in pursuance of carrying out the provisions of this article” it would meet the question, but when it says it cannot be removed except by the act of February, 1899, at all, or by an election held under, the provisions of this article, and there is no provision in this article providing for an election, I cannot see, but what we are running some risk. That is the only purpose for which I would vote for the reconsideration ‑ that it might not remain there always.

MR. BROWN (Talladega) ‑ I submit that the Committee used the proper language when they said "or held under the provisions of this article." The provision of the article is, that by law it may be so arranged that they can have that election.

MR. COLEMAN ‑ Will you please point out where it is?

MR. BROWNE ‑ No county seat shall be removed except by a two ‑ thirds vote of the qualified electors in said county." That does not carry itself into operation, but the legislature must carry it into operation, and when the legislature enacts a law, it is in conformity with that provision.

MR. COLEMAN ‑ That is the very point I made, if you will amend it.


2221

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

MR. BROWNE ‑ It is, as the gentleman said, very far fetched. One of the provisions of this article is that it must be by twothirds, which is now changed to a bare majority. In answer to the suggestion made by the gentleman from Calhoun, I thought, Mr. President, that all lawyers in this assembly knew that the county could not issue bonds except by direct authority of legislation– that is the law.

MR. WILSON ‑ And did you think that all the lawyers knew that the commissioners could not issue warrants?

MR. BROWNE ‑ The gentleman did not ask in regard to warrants.

MR. WILSON ‑ I beg pardon, I did.

MR. BROWNE ‑ You may have done so afterwards, but you first said bonds. There is no provision in existing law allowing Shelby County to issue any bonds, and therefore they could not build a $50,000 court house. There was a law passed in this bill allowing the Commissioners of Calera to issue $35,000 of bonds which this Convention has wiped out. Now the Committee left it so, if they saw fit at any time before the expiration of the law passed two and a half years ago, can within thirty days hold that election, and in the name of Heaven do the gentlemen fear that the Columbiana people can build a $50,000 court house within thirty days and deprive them of the right under that election of two years ago. The only reason the Committee had in leaving that provision in here was so they could hold the election under the law of three years ago, because the law provided for a majority vote to remove the court house, where the Committee required a two ‑ thirds majority, but now that has been amended lay this Convention, so that at any time in the future ten years, as well as within the time prescribed by the other law of three years ago, they can move the court house from Columbiana to Calera or anywhere else by a bare majority of the people.

MR. THOMPSON (Bibb) ‑ On behalf of the Committee I desire to say just a few words on this subject. The argument made by the distinguished gentleman from Greene has been fully met. The words as used by the Committee in this proviso are

unambiguous, plain and simple, and we have provided that that court house question may be settled by this act which I have before me, and under that act they can have their election upon thirty days notice, and within thirty ‑ one days hold their election. The matter is now tied up in the courts, nothing can be done prior to the ratification of this Constitution, if the Calera people want an election they can vote under the act approved February 9, 1899. It was their own act, drawn up by their own representative, that is all the security that may be required. Doubtless other gentlemen may not be informed of some of the provisions of that act. In


2222

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

their own act. passed by the people of Calera, there is a proviso that they did not like the sound of their own production, however, it provides for the deposit of a sum of money as a guaranty before they call that election. No wonder they would like to get that proviso out. I think sufficient time of the Convention has been taken up, and I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

MR. BEDDOW– On that I call for the ayes and noes.

The call was not sustained.

The question then recurred on the motion to table, which was adopted by 62 ayes and 22 noes.

MR. REESE ‑ I ask unanimous consent to introduce a short resolution relative to Senator Pugh.

Unanimous consent was recorded, and the resolution was read by the Clerk as follows:

Resolution 248, by Mr. Reese:

Whereas. Our distinguished citizen and statesman, the Hon. James L. Pugh, now lies upon a bed of sickness.

Resolved, by the people of Alabama in Constitutional Convention assembled, That the sympathy of the Convention is extended  to our valued citizen, together with its hope for his speedy recovery.

MR. REESE ‑ I move the suspension of the rules so that resolution are placed upon its immediate passage.

The motion to suspend the rules was carried.

MR. REESE ‑ I move the adoption of the resolution by a rising vote.

The resolution was adopted unanimously on a rising vote.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The next order of business will be the special order which is consideration of the report of the Committee on Legislative Department.

MR. OATES ‑ The Committee on Legislative Department considered making the present Constitution its basis, and considered all the provisions carefully, and well, and saw proper to add some new section.

I do not think it is necessary for me to consume time to explicitly notice all these changes, in as much as the report and the proposed ordinance has been printed and in the hands of the delegates an ample length of time for everybody to have familiarized themselves with them. Every delegate here is supposed to be familiar with the defects in the provisions of our present Constitution admitting of abuses in the matter of legislation. Of course


2223

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

every one knows that this department of the State Government is first in importance, the legislative, the medium through which the people of the State have laws enacted, bad laws repealed, and defective laws amended, and in order that there may not be any abuse of this power, it is essential that these statutes should constitute rules of proceeding which will carefully guard against any wrong or reckless and hasty action upon the part of the Legislature or any member thereof, from the vast accumulation of local legislation. We heard on yesterday, or the day before from a gentleman who has the honor of being a member of the House of representatives, and also a delegate upon this floor, my learned young friend from Crenshaw, as to the manner in which local measures were passed, especially towards the heel of the last session. With but a dozen of the members present, the roll called rapidly, the names of the whole membership for their aye or their no vote, and that it was very rare that any one answered aye or no, and yet the bills were decided to have been passed by a majority vote. Such things ought not to be, and leads to inextricable confusion, and affords opportunities of getting measures before the country the authority of which is doubted by people interested. We had an exhibition on yesterday with regard to one of these local measures. Others may be equally defective. It is very much to the discredit of the General Assembly or Legislature, whichever you see proper to call it, and ought in the future to be avoided. Now, sir, your Committee endeavoring to remedy these things have made changes and tightened up the Rules of Procedure, so that as far as can be done these things will be prevented in the future. As it will become necessary as the go along considering the ordinance, Section by Section to explain each in its turn, I shall not dwell or undertake to do that here, and I want to say furthermore that this Committee consisting of eighteen members besides the Chairman, as a rule are men of experience and learning, and most of whom took an interest in this work. are not in harmony on all the provisions of the report. They differed in opinion. The report, Mr. President, is simply the way that the majority voted. Some points the Chairman is not with the majority, but with the minority, and the course I propose to adopt is that when I reach such a provision, having explained it, to call attention of that member of the Committee who took the lead on the other side, and let him take the management of it where I could not, and ought not. being opposed, to undertake to manage it when my desire is to change it. Then, again, sir, I wish to state to the delegates here, impress upon them. I, as the Chairman, am not going to pursue a course of doggedness, I will endeavor to fully explain to this body the reasons for the changes made from every point, and to respectfully answer any question which any delegate desires to ask, and then if this Convention sees proper to refuse, and set aside the recommendation of the Committee, that is your work, I will have discharged my duty


2224

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

when I have presented it to you fairly and in a manner which you cannot fail to understand. Now, Mr. President, without consuming any further time, I move that the ordinance be taken up and considered Section by Section.

MR. DENT ‑ I second the motion.

Mr. Robinson here took the Chair.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The gentleman from Montgomery moves the consideration of the report Section by Section.

And upon a vote being taken the motion prevailed.

The Clerk then read Section 1 as follows:

An Ordinance to create and define the Legislative Department.

Be it ordained by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That Article IV. of the Constitution be stricken out, and the following Article inserted in lieu thereof

ARTICLE—

Legislative Department.

Section 1. The Legislative power of the State shall be vested in a Legislature. which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

MR. OATES ‑ The gentleman will discover a change made in this first Section. I wish to give the Convention the reasons why the Committee has thus recommended:

You will see in the present Constitution that this first Section is that the legislative power of the State shall be vested in the General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. The words General Assembly are stricken out and the word Legislature recommended by the Committee. In this age of brevity and hurry to accomplish the tasks of life, we do not wish to use words unnecessarily. The old style used in constitutions touching this point were. many of them, very cumberous ; and it is only in the more recent years that changes have been made. I wish to call the attention of the Convention briefly to the constitutions of the different States on this point:

For instance: The State of Illinois ‑ Be it enacted by the people of Illinois, represented in General Assembly.

Idaho ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho.

Georgia ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Georgia and it is hereby enacted by authority of the same.

Florida ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of       Florida.


2225

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Delaware ‑ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware in General Assembly met as follows:

South Dakota ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of South Dakota.

Connecticut ‑ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened.

Colorado ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Colorado.

California ‑ The people of the State of California represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

Arkansas ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas.

Wisconsin ‑ The people of Wisconsin represented in Senate and Assembly enact as follows:

Wyoming ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming.

Nevada ‑ The people of the State of Nevada, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows.

Nebraska ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Nebraska.

Montana ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Montana.

Missouri ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri as follows.

Massachusetts ‑ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled and by authority of the same.

Michigan ‑ The people of the State of Michigan enact.

Minnesota ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota.

Mississippi ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi.

Maryland ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland.

Maine ‑ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in Legislature assembled, as follows:

Louisiana ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana


2226

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Kentucky ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Kansas ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa.

Indiana ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana.

Pennsylvania ‑ Be it enacted, etc.

Oregon ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon.

Ohio ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio.

North Carolina ‑ The General Assembly do enact.

New York ‑ The people of the State of New York, represented in the Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows.

New Jersey ‑ Be it enacted by the State and General Assembly of the State of

Virginia ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly ‑ of Virginia.

Washington ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington.

Vermont ‑ It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont.

Utah ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Utah.

Tennessee ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee.

South Carolina ‑ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina.

Texas ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas.

Rhode Island ‑ It is enacted by the General Assembly as follows.

West Virginia ‑ Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia.

So the Convention will see at once that the States of Alabama, Arkansas and twenty ‑ four others enumerated, use the words "General Assembly," and seventeen, including nearly all the later States admitted into the Union, use the word "Legislature." Then, again, I wish to call the attention of the delegates to the fact that all of our textbooks, those on Constitutional Law, for insance: "Cooley's Constitutional Limitations," Ordinaux's Constitutional Legisla‑


2227

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

tion," "Hare on American Constitution Law," "Smith on Constitutional Law," "Sedgwick on Statutory Construction," in fact all of our elementary text ‑ books, largely every one of them use the term "Legislature." Now I have noticed it and in debating our proceedings, even the chairmen, men who have in their reports language "The General Assembly" ‑ it is high ‑ sounding, old ‑ fashioned and old ‑ time language, but they more frequently speak of the "Legislature" than they do of the "General Assembly." You go forth in the country, among the common people, and it is but one time in a thousand you will hear it called the General Assembly. They speak of it as the "Legislature." We want to use a term which is equally applicable, and which is briefer, half the length of the other, and a thing commonly used by our people. These reasons and none other actuated the committee in making this recommendation; and I move its adoption.

MR. HARRISON ‑ I offer an amendment.

The clerk then read the amendment as follows:

"By amending Section 1 of the report of the Committee on Legislative Department: "Amend Section 1 by striking out the word "Legislature" where the same occurs therein, and inserting in lieu thereof the words "General Assembly."

MR. HARRISON ‑ I have listened with some pleasure to the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the committee, which fail to satisfy the that the word Legislature was any better or more significant than the words General Assembly, which we have been using for the last decade or more in Alabama. In fact, I don't know but that it never has been "Legislature" in the Constitution. Perhaps, at an early period, it was called Senate and House of Representatives; but "General Assembly" has been used a long time. It is referred to in the other Articles in the Constitution as "General Assembly" and we are accustomed to it. It is true it is two words, but only a few more letters than the word "Legislature;" can't see any good reason for the change, upon the theory that we were to make as few changes as necessary, and I don't think it wise to make this change and then perhaps have to change every article where the General Assembly is referred to in the Constitution in order to conform to it; but I simply offer this amendment now at its incipency to test the views of the Convention. Individually, I prefer the words General Assembly; but in order to test the Convention, I offer that amendment without consuming time to make any speech on it.

MR. BEDDOW ‑ I move to lay the amendment of the gentleman from Lee on the table.

And upon a vote being taken, it resulted in 51 ayes and 38 noes; and the motion to table the amendment prevailed.


2228

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM. ‑ The question is upon the adoption of Section 1 as reported by the committee.

And upon a vote being taken, the section was adopted.

MR. HOWELL ‑ I desire to submit a report from a special committee, which, I believe, under the rules, is a privileged question.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The chair is not informed that it is a privileged question.

MR. deGRAFFENREID ‑ I have a minority report as to that.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ Is there objection to receiving the report of the special committee?

Objection was made.

MR. HOWELL ‑ I move that the rules he suspended and that the committee be allowed to report.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The gentleman from Cleburne moves that the rules be suspended in order that the special committee may make their report.

And upon a vote being taken, on a division it resulted in 73 ayes and 16 noes, and the rules were suspended.

The clerk then read the report of the special committee as follows:

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.

Mr. President:

The Special Committee to whom was referred the matter of cutting down expenses by dispensing with some of the employes of the Convention, have carefully and impartially considered the same and a majority of whom desire to submit the following report and recommend the adoption of the same:

We recommend,

First ‑ The dispensing with all clerks of committees after today except the clerks of the following standing Committees :

1. On Rules.

2. On Order, Harmony and Consistency of the Whole Constitution.

3. On Suffrage and Elections.

4. On the Journal.


2229

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

And these clerks who are retained are expected to serve  other Committees when necessary.

5. We recommend that the two messengers be dispensed with, as we have assurances that the postmaster of this city under the free delivery system, will deliver the mail here three times a day and carry off what mail matter is to be sent off.

6. We further recommend that five of the ten pages be disposed with and in order that each of these pages have an equal chance to be retained, we suggest and recommend the following plan, that the Secretary and Assistant Secretary in the presence of the President of this Convention, write the names of the ten pages upon slips of paper and place these slips in a hat and then let the Secretary draw out the slips and the first five names drawn out shall be those who are retained as pages.

7. We recommend that the clerical force in the office of the Secretary of this Convention be retained.

The aggregate reduction in expenses by the reduction of employees here recommended will be $26 per day.

Very respectfully,

W. P. Howell,

J. E. Cobb,

B. B. Boone.

Committee.

The Clerk then read the minority report as follows:

THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMICS.

      Minority Report.

Your undersigned member of this committee regrets to say that he is unable to concur with the other members of the Committee in their recommendation that the pages selected by this Convention shall be reduced to five in number; and I recommend in lieu thereof, that the pages which have been selected to wait on the Convention shall be retained.

Since the organization of this Convention, many of the Committees have made their reports and the members of the Convention have ceased to offer ordinances for the consideration of the Convention.

For this reason, I am of the opinion that the Clerks recommended by the Committees to be discharged can be dispensed with, but the same conditions, so far as the service of the pages is


2230

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

concerned, that existed when the Convention was organized, still exists.

Respectfully submitted,

Ed. deGraffenreid.

MR. WILLIAMS (Marengo) ‑ I desire to offer an amendment to the minority report.

PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The question before the Convention is the substitution of the minority report.

MR. WILLIAMS ‑ I have an amendment to the minority report.

MR. WHITE ‑ I make the point of order that this matter is not now properly before the Convention.

MR. BEDDOW ‑ On yesterday morning this same point of order was up, and while it was true for the first time since this Convention met this rule has been invoked, it was invoked on the report of the Committee on Printing, etc., which reported upon a resolution concerning union labor in this State. I rose for information and the Chair made this ruling—

PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The Chair has decided that point of order.

MR. BEDDOW ‑ Does the Chair refuse to hear the ruling?

PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The Chair has decided that point of order.

MR. BEDDOW ‑ Then I appeal to the house.

And upon a vote being taken the Chair was sustained.

MR. HOWELL ‑ I would like for the House to allow me a few moments.

PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The gentleman from Marengo has the floor and has sent up an amendment.

The Clerk then read the amendment offered by Mr. Williams of Marengo as follows: "To amend the minority report by adding thereto ‘and the messengers’ after the word pages wherever it appears."

PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The gentleman front Marengo moves to amend the minority report by including messengers and the question before the Convention is on the adoption of the amendment to the minority report.

MR. HOWELL ‑ I desire to say in behalf of the majority of that Committee, that it has been one of the most delicate and diffi‑


2231

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

cult duties we have had to perform since this Convention began, and if left to our feelings, respect and love for these dear boys, we would have brought in a different report; but that could not be our guide in this matter. We had no personal interest in a single employe who is affected by this report. We believe it is our duty to the citizens and taxpayers of Alabama, although in the aggregate the amount is small, but there is a principle in it that we woud not ignore; and I do not believe any disinterested man on this floor will pretend to say but what we can with all safety and with all propriety dispense with these employes suggested in the report; and while it is a painful duty, yet those feelings and sympathies are not to govern us; and we insist that the report of the majority be adopted. Now I felt it due myself and to this committee to make this statement. I shall be content with whatever this Convention does. We have done our duty as we saw it; and there is no complicated question in it and leave it for the Convention to decide for themselves.

MR. WILLIAMS (Marengo) ‑ I yield my time to the gentleman from Sumter.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention. At the assemblage of this Convention, whether wisely or unwisely, there were appointed for this body ten pages and two messengers I say wisely or unwisely is the question for gentlemen who have their sons upon this floor to decide. Speaking for myself and with all due respect to those gentlemen, I would never like for a child of mine to be launched out on the great sea of this world in politics in this way; but these young men are here and it is too small a question for this Convention to go into the peanut business and send these little boys home. If you could introduce a resolution here cutting down the membership of this body from 155 to 100, I would gladly vote for such a provision as that; but I would never vote to humiliate a child in this Convention. I have infinitely more respect for the little boy who has the possibility of the future of his life before him and who is aglow with hope than I have for the gray ‑ headed man who has never accomplished anything in this world. Therefore, I move the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Marengo; and upon that I ask for the previous question.

MR. deGRAFFENREID ‑ I would ask the gentleman to withdraw that.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ For what purpose does the gentleman ask me to withdraw the call for the previous question?

MR. deGRAFFENREID ‑ I will state for the purpose of making a few remarks on the minority report and then I will call for the previous question afterwards upon the amendment to the minority report.


2232

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ For that purpose and no other I withdraw the call for the previous question.

MR. deGRAFFENREID ‑ The appointment of this committee was precipitated, I presume, by a resolution introduced by me several days ago, which sought simply to reduce the number of clerks to committees. It was my opinion then and it is now that possibly a good many of the standing committees had already made their reports ; and we could consistently get rid of the services of some of these committee clerks and save the State some small expense thereby. Some other gentleman introduced in resolution dispensing with the pages or a part of them. The same condition that existed in this Convention when these pages were appointed still exist: and for that reason I have been opposed to cutting down their number. So far as the two messengers are concerned, if the Convention in their wisdom decides to retain them, it will all be satisfactory with me. I have nothing to say upon that matter.

MR. HARRISON ‑ I would like to ask the gentleman if it was the intention of the committee to prevent the Committee on Corporations, which has not completed its labors, of the use of its clerk, until their report was made, which I think will be within the next two or three days, and I trust that we be allowed to retain our clerk until the report is made.

MR. deGRAFFENREID ‑ So far as I am concerned, I think that will be entirely proper and right, If the Convention acts upon the matter of this minority report anti these gentlemen desire to amend the report and except from the operation of it two or three clays the clerk of the Committee on Corporations, I shall not object.

MR. HARRISON ‑ Your motion for the previous question Would cut off all debate. I wanted to amend---

MR. deGRAFFENREID ‑ I move the adoption of the minority report and upon that I call for the previous question on the amendment offered by  the gentleman from Marengo and the minority report.

(The President here resumed the chair.)

Upon a vote being taken the main question was ordered.

MR. HOWELL ‑ I call for the ayes and noes to see how many men here are willing to waste the public money.

The call was not sustained.

MR. HOWELL ‑ Doesn't the committee have a little time to reply after the previous question?

MR. WILLIAMS (Marengo) ‑ The point of order is too late. He called for the ayes and noes himself.


2233

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Marengo as the mover, if he desires to discuss this question.

MR. WILLIAMS (Marengo) ‑ No, sir; I do not care to speak.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The previous question was not ordered on the report of the committee.

MR. HOWELL ‑ I called for the ayes and noes.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The call was submitted but not sustained.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The amendment of the gentleman from Marengo retains the messengers as well as the pages.

MR. COBB ‑ I call for a division on that, separate vote on the pages and messengers.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ There is no occasion for a division. The question must be submitted in separate order because they are separate motions. The motion of the gentleman from Marengo favors the retention of the messengers, and the minority report as offered retains the pages. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Marengo.

Upon a vote being taken, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Marengo (Mr. Williams) was adopted.

MR. deGRAFFENREID ‑ I don't want anything done that will cut off the gentleman from Lee.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question is not debatable. The question is upon the adoption of the amendment offered by the minority committee, as amended, which retains the pages and the messengers.

Upon a vote being taken, the minority report was adopted.

MR. HARRISON ‑ I dislike to ask anything that appears to be a special favor. But I desire to offer an amendment.

The clerk then read the amendment offered by Mr. Harrison of Lee, as follows: "To amend so as to allow the clerk to the Committee on Corporations to be retained by said committee during the present week, or until the report of said committee is made."

MR. HARRISON ‑ In the advocacy of that amendment. I desire to state very briefly----

MR. HOWELL ‑ I desire to say that the committee will accept that amendment.


2234

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. HARRISON ‑ I wanted to state the reasons which I thought would be satisfactory to the Convention, but if the committee accepts it, that ends it.

MR. OATES ‑ I desire to amend in this: "That the Committee on Legislative Department be allowed to retain its clerk until the consideration of this report be finished. I ask that for this reason only: The clerk is very efficient and can aid me a good deal. I don't know whether it will be adopted and there may be changes, and I will need his services. I hope to get through in a few days. I offer that as an amendment to the amendment to retain him until this report is finished.

MR. HOWELL ‑ The gentleman from Montgomery will allow me to state that the Clerk of the Committee on Order and Harmony has been retained because that committee has not reported, and another committee or two have retained their clerks who will serve those committees, when needed.

MR. OATES ‑ I will say, in reply to that, that they would be of no service to me in this matter, because Mr. Swanson, the present clerk, is perfectly familiar with all those things, has all the memoranda and everything of that kind, and can aid me greatly.

MR. HOWELL ‑ I will accept that.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The chairman of the special committee indicates a willingness to accept the amendment. The question will be on the amendment offered by the gentleman froth Montgomery ; that the Committee on Legislative Department be permitted to retain its clerk until the consideration of the report is finished, and upon a vote being taken the amendment was adopted, and the question now is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Lee.

MR. COFER ‑ I desire to make a motion in order to give these committees an opportunity to retain their clerks until they get through their reports. I make a motion to lay  the section as reported by the committee upon the table.

Upon a vote being taken, the motion to table was lost.

A further vote being taken, the amendment of the delegate from Lee was adopted, and the report, as amended, was then adopted.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The special order now before the Convention is the consideration of the report of the Committee on Legislative Department.

MR. WHITE ‑ I would ask if it would not be proper to adopt the amendment of the delegate from Montgomery.


2235

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

THE PRESIDENT ‑ It has been adopted. Both amendments were submitted and adopted.

Section 2 of the report of the Committee on Legislative Department was then read as follows:

Sec. 2. The style of the laws of this State shall be: "Be it enacted by the Legislature of Alabama," which shall not be repeated, but the Act shall be divided into sections for convenience. according to substance, and the sections designated merely by figures. Each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except general appropriation bills, general revenue bills, and bills adopting a code, digest or revision of statutes; and no law shall be revived, amended, or the provisions extended or conferred, lay reference to its title only ; but so much thereof as is revived, amended, extended, or conferred, shall be re ‑ enacted and published at length.

MR. OATES ‑ The only change recommended by the committee is the change in the first part of the section, which is the same as was made in the first section, which has already been passed upon‑‑"Be it enacted by the Legislature of Alabama.”  The latter part of the change is in regard to Sections of Acts. You will find a good many Acts that have been passed repeat in every section "Be it further enacted," which is wholly unnecessary, and this provides that it is not necessary to repeat those words in the subsequent sections.

MR. JONES (Montgomery) ‑ What is your opinion if the Legislature put it, "be it further enacted," in some of the subsequent sections? Would that invalidate the Act or that part of the Act?

MR. OATES ‑ I don't think it would vitiate it at all.

MR. JONES ‑ The courts have held if you leave out the word "Alabama," or anything that is mandatory, it vitiates the law.

MR. OATES ‑ I do not think the repetition of "be it further enacted" would invalidate the law.

MR. JONES ‑ Would the gentleman accept "need" instead of "shall?" Make it read "need not" instead of "hall not?"

MR. OATES ‑ I do not think it is necessary, but if it is insisted on, I do not care.

The amendment of the delegate from Montgomery was read as follows : "Amend Section 2 by striking out the word ‘shall’ where it first appears, and insert the word ‘need’ in place thereof. in line 2."

A vote being taken, the amendment was adopted.


2236

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. O'NEAL (Lauderdale) ‑ I have an amendment.

The amendment was read as follows:

Amend Section 2 by striking out the word "legislature in the second line and adding in lieu thereof, the words ‘General Assembly.’”

MR. OATES ‑ That question has been considered in the first section and the vote there was adverse to the gentleman's proposition I therefore move to lay the amendment on the table.

A vote being taken the amendment was tabled, and a further vote being taken the section as amended was adopted.

Section 3 was then read as follows:

"Sec. 3. Senators and Representatives shall be elected by the qualified electors on the first Monday in August, nineteen hundred and two, and every four years thereafter, unless the legislature shall change the time of holding elections. The terms of office of the Senators and Representatives shall be four years, commencing on the day after the general election, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. Whenever a vacancy shall occur in either House the Governor shall issue a writ of election to fill such vacancy for the remainder of the term."

MR. OATES ‑ This section, as recommended here, retaining the first Monday in August as the day for electing these officer, did not meet the approval of the Chairman of the Committee, who favored the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. I will state to the Convention that the delegate from Mobile (Mr. Brooks ) and the delegate from Sumter (Mr. Chapman) were the members of the Committee who most strongly advocated this in this form. I, therefore, propose to yield the floor to the delegate from Mobile (Mr. Brooks.)

MR. JONES (Montgomery) ‑ Would it be in order to offer an amendment?

MR. BROOKS ‑ If the gentleman will yield to me for a moment.

MR. JONES ‑ I will yield.

MR. BROOKS ‑ I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the point referred to by the Chairman of the Committee, although, before I get through, I hope to have something to say on that subject.

The Section reported by the Committee proposes a change in the present Constitution, which, as I conceive it, is not only a serious but an injudicious change. It proposes that hereafter the representatives shall be elected every four years instead of every


2237

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

two years; and a subsequent section requires that the legislative sessions shall be had every four years, instead of every two years. Now, it is impossible to discuss one of these points without at the same time discussing, to a certain extent, the other, they are so intimately connected. In the discussion of these two points connectedly three phases of the question have been presented. The first point of view is favorable to that which now obtains under our present Constitution, namely, biennial elections and bi ‑ ennial sessions. The third is favorable to the proposition in this section to quadriennial elections and quadriennial sessions. Now I cannot get my consent to the change proposed. I prefer to have biennial elections and bi ‑ ennial sessions. If I cannot get that, I would prefer to have quadrennial elections and bi ‑ ennial sessions.

I have heard no good reason assigned for this change. Gentlemen refer to the action of this Convention in eliminating from the legislative action hereafter so much in regard to local laws‑

MR. OATES ‑ Will the gentleman allow me. I did not state that there are two questions involved in this section. One is that the August election shall be retained and the other is whether the elections shall he quadrennial or biennial as heretofore. The first question, as to whether you will have elections in August or November, is the question I presented but both are involved in it.

MR. BROOKS ‑ Probably the gentleman from Montgomery did not hear my opening remarks when I stated that I would not confine myself to the particular issue he raised, but would discuss the proposition contained in the section and in discussing that it was hard to separate the question of quadrennial elections and sessions.

MR. JONES (Montgomery) ‑ Will the gentleman allow me to offer an amendment which is in line with his remarks and then he can discuss it.

MR. BROOKS ‑ I would prefer the gentleman to wait until I get through.

MR. JONES ‑ I yielded the floor to you.

MR. BROOKS ‑ I say that contention falls to the ground when we recollect that over one ‑ half of the States have in their constitutions the section we have been squabbling over for the last few days on local legislation. The provisions in that regard that we have adopted are not new with us but are contained in a majority of the Constitutions of the States of the Union, and not one of those States was seen fit under the operation of that constitutional enactment to change the terms of office of their representatives or the time when their legislature shall meet. simply because it is not necessary.


2238

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Gentlemen have held up as an object lesson on more occasions than one the volume of the local and special laws of the legislature to show what the legislature has done in that regard and then they argue that having eliminated the power of the General Assembly over so many questions of local legislation, that in the future that thing will not be possible. Then they have held up the very thin volume of the general laws passed, but they do not show the number of general laws that were not acted upon and were not reached because of the pressure upon the time of the legislature by reason of local legislation, and they do not show us how many laws are on the statute books that may have to be repealed because the legislature did not have time to give the necessary deliberation and attention to them. So I say that we have not done anything in removing from the legislature the power to pass this local legislation that shows that we will not need a General Assembly every two years as much as we do now for the purpose of general legislation.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The time of the gentleman has expired.

MR. BROOKS ‑ I make the point of order that I am not discussing any amendment but a provision in the report. I am entitled to speak thirty minutes.

MR. OATES ‑ I agreed with the gentleman from Lee (Mr. Harrison) that he would offer an amendment.

MR. JONES ‑ I object. I had the floor to offer all amendment and yielded and have not yet had a chance to offer my amendment.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ It seems to the Chair that the gentleman from Mobile is correct. He is opposing the adoption of the section.

MR. BROOKS ‑ I do not want to inflict myself on the Convention, but I do want to be heard attentively if I can be for I have fixed convictions in regard to this section.

Now so much for the question of substituting quadrennial sessions for biennial sessions on the ground that there is no need for our representatives to come together every four years, I am opposed to it.

MR. FOSTER ‑ Will the gentleman permit we to ask him a question in the way of a suggestion?

MR. BROOKS ‑ Yes. sir.

MR. FOSTER ‑ Does the gentleman know of a civilized State in the world that has quadrennial sessions?

MR. BROOKS ‑ I am glad the gentleman called my attention to that, because I want to state all of the forty ‑ five States in the


2239

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Union have biennial elections and biennial sessions with the exception of seven of the States which have annual elections, namely, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, and the single exception of Mississippi, which as has quadrennial elections and quadrennial sessions and those quadrennial sessions are divided into two, one for genoral laws and the other to deal with local legislation alternating every two years. That seems to be the experience of all the States and a majority of them having the same constitutional provisions that we have adopted in regard to local legislation. They are all having biennial elections and sessions with the exception of the seven which have annual elections and sessions and with the exception of Mississippi, which as has been suggested, is a purely agricultural community.

I remember a good many years ago that brilliant Virginia statesman, Henry A. Wise, made an eloquent address to the people in behalf of the claims of the Old Dominion for the services of its ablest and best men in State affairs. He contended that their best men were attracted more by the honors of Federal elections and Federal preferment than by those of the State. He argued that the State was the repository of those great governmental powers and agencies with which the people were most brought into contact, and that their liberty and happiness and protection depended more upon the just administration of State affairs than Federal matters. If that was true then, it is equally true now, when there is a tendency to centralization of Federal power, when that power constantly impinged upon the rights of local self government and when the dominating influence of Federal affairs are more and more apparent. But while the State offers to her best men the highest field for the inculcation of statesmenlike views and for the exercise of the highest qualities of political genius, it is true                             also that the interests of the State demand that the people should from time to time have an opportunity frequently to assert themselves in the election of their representatives and to have a corresponding opportunity through representation coining fresh from the people, to revise, review and modify, if need be, in the legislative halls, their governmental powers and agencies in so far as needs and requirements made it necessary.

Now we have enlarged the powers of the Executive and we propose to give the Executive some quasi legal power in the matter of revenue bills, but I submit that the interval of four years is too long and that we ought to retain the constitutional provision which we now have for biennial elections and biennial sessions. The best safeguard against the corroding influence of stagnation among the people is to let them have a free movement in all that pertains to their interest, in coming together from time to time and electing their representatives and getting the benefit of the


2240

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

educational influence of free institutions upon the hustings in speeches and discussions and then have an opportunity of going to their Legislature once in two years and having their needs and requirements looked into the subserved. Not only that, but we live in an age of rapid thought and progress and quick in great development, going sometimes by leaps and bounds. And who know what may occur within two years, much less four years when it may be necessary for the law ‑ making body of the people to assemble together to modify existing laws or enact new ones which have a bearing upon the peculiar or particular circumstances that may then exist?

Now, Mr. President, this section in my opinion needs to be amended in two or three particulars. I do not care about amending it as to the time of holding elections and on that point I am in line with the provisions as reported by the chairman of the committee and believe our State election should be held in August. I do not believe they ever should be and certainly hope in my life tithe they never will be on the same day that Federal elections are held, for the simple reason that although the Federal laws which have heretofore interfered with our elections may have been repealed and although it may not be the purpose of Congress to ever enact such laws again, still the moral effect of having State elections is bad, and I tell you the Federal power will exert its dominating influence on that day if possible whichever party is in power and our interests and general welfare depend upon the holding of these two elections on entirely separate and distinct days.

MR. JONES—I have an amendment to offer.

MR. BROOKS ‑ I have not yielded yet, but I am going to retire in a short time and will give the gentleman an opportunity to offer his amendment then. But I want to say that I have intended no discourtesy in insisting on my right to hold the floor.

Now I am going to read as the concluding part of my remarks an amendment which I propose and will then yield to the gentleman to offer his amendment.  My amendment is as follows:

Amend Section 3 of the report of the Committee on Legislative Department by striking out all after the section number and insert the following: Senators and Representatives shall he elected by the qualified electors on the first Monday in August, 1902, and every two years thereafter unless the Legislature shall change the time of holding elections. The terms of office of the Senators shall be four years, commencing on the clay after the general election. except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. Whenever a vacancy shall occur in either house, the Governor shall issue a writ of election to fill such vacancy for the remainder of the term.

MR. OATES ‑ Before the amendments are considered, I ask unanimous consent to make a correction of punctuation. In the


2241

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

third line, after the word "elections," there should be a full stop, and the next word would begin with a capital. It is simply an error of the printer.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The secretary does not use the printed report, but has the original, and the error does not occur in that.

MR. JONES ‑ I offer an amendment.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The chair would suggest to the gentleman that there is an amendment pending and his amendment would have to relate to that amendment or the gentleman can withhold it until the Convention passes on this amendment.

MR. JONES ‑ Well, I will do that.

MR. deGRAFFENREID– I move to lay the amendment of the gentleman from Mobile on the table.

A vote being taken, the amendment of the delegate from Mobile was tabled.

MR. JONES ‑ I now offer my amendment.

The amendment was read as follows:

"Amend Section 2 by striking out all after the words '1902' and insert in lieu thereof the following words: `Representatives shall be elected every two years thereafter and Senators every four years thereafter, so that the terns of Representatives shall be two years and that of Senators shall be four years, commencing on the day after the general election at which they were elected. except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. Whenever a vacancy shall occur in either house, the Governor shall issue a writ of election to fill such vacancy for the remainder of the term.' "

MR. JONES ‑ I offer this specific amendment because I do not desire to trespass upon the patience of the House longer than—

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Will the gentleman explain wherein his amendment differs from the amendment of the gentleman from Mobile?

MR. JONES ‑ Yes, if you do not take it out of my time. In my amendment the Senators are elected in 1902 and hold for four years, and the Representatives elected hold for two years.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ What was the amendment of the gentleman from Mobile, which was laid on the table?

MR. JONES ‑ It makes no difference; you can offer a proposition that has been laid on the table.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ It semis to the chair the amendment is practically identical with the amendment of the delegate from Mobile, and if it is, the gentleman would not be in order.


2242

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. JONES (Montgomery) ‑ Then I have the floor and you can put my amendment on the floor or anywhere else, and I will speak on the main question. There cannot be any point of order on that.

I am opposed to this section in toto. This is one of the most important matters that has come before this Convention. It is a thing that has been discussed and mooted by scholars, jurists and publicists and plain common ‑ sense people from time to time, so that it is hardly possible to adduce anything new on the subject.

After the Revolution, as everybody knows who has studied history, some of the States, like Virginia, held on to the old English system and elected their Representatives for seven years. Other States elected them every, six months, and some of them every year. Then when the Constitution of the United States was under discussion, some things were said which are familiar to us all, but perhaps I may be pardoned for recalling them. Fischer Ames said, "Tyranny begins where annual elections end."  Readers of history are also familiar with the fact that such a thing, even in England centuries back, as having the legislative power, put to sleep for four years, excited the indignation of the House of Commons and in the time of Charles II they enacted a statute that Parliament must meet at least every three years. I believe there is no State in this Union, unless it is the State of Mississippi, where they allow the legislative power to go to sleep for four years, so that it cannot be put in motion during that time unless the Governor calls it together on some extraordinary occasion.

The Executive going into power is generally given a longer tenure of office, but on the formation of the Constitution of the United States, and of nearly every Constitution the people have framed, they have insisted on having the legislative power in session at least every two years.

Now who are the Legislature? They are the masters, and the master ought to visit his premises at least once every two years. Now, human nature is pretty much the same, and officers are pretty much the same, but we know by universal experience that the Executive generally regards the Legislature as somewhat of a nuisance. He is glad to get rid of them. Now, we have officers in office for four years. They might do something requiring impeachment, and it is not to be expected the Governor would call the Legislature together to impeach himself; and this people, if they put such a thing as that in the Constitution, may be the victims of outrageous wrong by the Executive, false policies enforcing law, and have no redress on earth.

Here comes up great questions, Federal questions it may be. You have a couple of Senators to elect and your Executive may not be in harmony with the prevailing thought of the people, and


2243

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

yet for four years the Executive will put Senators in there directly opposed to the will of the people, or whom the people do not want.  I submit that is not wise.

Now, it is said that the people are tired of frequent elections. So they are: but there ought to, be a happy mean. The elections for the Legislature do not tear people up like the elections for the higher executive officers, what are known in common parlance as the "paying offices." Then, another thing, take an illustration from Aldermen. An Alderman goes in for four years and the first two years he is absolutely arrogant. He does not care for public opinion. But in the last two years, trying to make up for that, he absolutely debases himself in the other direction trying to meet the approbation of the people. We wait to give our young men a chance. They are the hope of the country. They ought to have a chance to legislate, and the people ought to have a chance to send them here to educate them in the great busines of government.

There is an additional reason. Under this section all of the Senators go out at the same time, at the end of four years, and there is a brand new Senate and House. It has been the policy of framers of Constitutions in Alabama for half a century back to allow one ‑ half of the Senators to go out every two years, so that in every legislature there are some men who are familiar with the business.

MR. MACDONALD– Do I understand the gentleman to suggest that we had better have legislatures every two years for the purpose of sending the young men to them ?

MR. JONES ‑ I said we had better give them opportunity to be trained in the great business of government.

MR. MACDONALD ‑ Then you think the legislature should be a kind of political kindergarten?

MR. JONES ‑ To some extent, yes. Because when people do not exercise themselves with their government, they soon have inefficient officers.

I was proceeding to say that this section precipitates on the State every four years a fresh set of legislators, instead of retaining one ‑ half of the Senators who are presumed to be familiar with legislation. They all go out and I do not see any reason for this change. I have not heard anything adduced in favor of this change except that the people are tired of elections. But the only way to retain our liberties is sometimes to get tired in efforts to retain them.

MR. MACDONALD ‑ Is not there an additional reason that we should have the cost of an election and the cost of a session of the legislature every two years?


2244

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. JONES ‑ I understand that is one of the reasons advocated and the main reason; and we are putting up against the cost of a legislature, twenty ‑ five or fifty thousand dollars, all of the evils that may happen to the people when they cannot have their legislative department in session once every two years. Why, Mr. President, we have been so constrained in our legislation, the legislature being absorbed in local matters, electing solicitors and Senators, that apparently the people have not been able through their representatives to give attention to grave economic problems and matters of reform that concern the State and which are not in their nature political.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman is discussing his amendment.

MR. JONES ‑ No, sir. I am not discussing my amendment. the Chair said my amendment was not in order.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ To what point is the gentleman speaking?

MR. JONES ‑ Generally, against the ordinance. I think if the Chair had listened there could have been no doubt in his mind as to what I was driving at.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Chair understood the gentleman was advocating his amendment.

MR. JONES ‑ I beg pardon, but it was not my fault that the Chair so misunderstood. What is the ruling of the Chair?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ There was an amendment bending and the gentleman from Montgomery offered his amendment.

MR. JONES ‑ But I understood the Chair ruled that amendment out of order.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Chair has not ruled but the Chair is prepared to rule on that question now.

MR. JONES ‑ If the Chair will pardon me, when the Chair ruled my amendment out of order I remarked that the amendment could be put on the floor or anywhere else, I did not care about it and that I would speak generally on the section.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman made that statement and without pausing to await the ruling of the Chair the gentleman proceeded to a discussion of the amendment. When an amendment is offered and is read before the Convention, it is before the Convention for consideration until it is withdrawn by consent of the House or until it is ruled out of order by the Chair and the Chair as a basis for ruling upon the question asked the gentleman to explain the difference between his amendment and the amend‑


2245

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

ment offered by the gentleman from Mobile. Without making an explanation the gentleman proceeded to a discussion of the question and has consumed ten minutes in the discussion of the amendment, because the amendment was before the Convention and if lie was not discussing the amendment, he was not in order.

MR. JONES ‑ Then how was the gentleman from Mobile in order?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ At the time the gentleman from Mobile was discussing the question, there was no amendment pending.

MR. JONES ‑ I submit that I had a right. The Chair indicated that my amendment was not in order and I proceeded then to discuss the main question, saying that the amendment could be put on the floor if the Chair wished, that I did not care for it. I did have the understanding from what the Chair said that my amendment was not in order, but was out of order and was discussing the section generally, and so stated to the Chair.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman from Montgomery stated that his amendment might be put on the floor, but it was not put on the floor, but is on the desk of the Secretary and is now before the Convention until the Chair rules otherwise and it was upon that amendment that the gentleman was addressing the Convention, if he was in order at all.

MR. JONES ‑ I beg pardon. I thought and said that I would speak upon the main proposition and I started out by saying that I was opposed to it in toto. Upon that there can be no mistake, as the stenographer has it down. I would like to know what the Chair does rules, if I am in error.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Chair has not ruled upon the amendment at all, but in the opinion of the Chair the amendment is not in order as it substantially sets forth the same provisions that were embodied in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mobile, and the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery would not be in order without taking from the table the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mobile.

MR. JONES ‑ Then am I not in order to discuss the general subject and was I not entitled to thirty minutes on that?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman may discuss the general question.

MR. OATES ‑ I would like to explain as some of the gentlemen do not seem to understand this as well as my friend, the gentleman from Montgomery. I stated when this section was read that I had made the report but I was not in accord with it and that the delegate from Mobile in the Committee was the leading man advocating it in its present shape in regard to holding elections in


2246

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

August; and, therefore, I yielded the floor to him and he spoke generally in the first place.

MR. JONES ‑ I understood that perfectly well, but I understood that the rule of the Convention was that members had thirty minutes when speaking on the general subject.

MR. O’NEAL ‑ I call for the reading of both the amendment offered by the delegate from Mobile and that offered by the delegate from Montgomery, so that we may see what they are. I think there is some difference.

MR. HARRISON ‑ I have an amendment.

The amendment ,vas read as follows:

Amend Section 3 by striking out the words “first Monday in August" where they occur therein, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "The Tuesday after the first Monday in November."

MR. O'NEAL ‑‑‑ I rise to a point of order. The amendment offered by the delegate from Mobile (Mr. Brooks) was never read by the Clerk. It was read by Mr. Brooks in the course of his remarks but was never sent to the clerk's desk and never read by the Clerk.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The amendment was read and was discussed by the delegate from Mobile for over thirty minutes and the Chair regrets that the gentleman from Lauderdale did not hear the reading and the discussion despite the efforts of the Chair to maintain order.

MR. HARRISON ‑ The object of the amendment is to change the time of holding elections froth August to November to correspond with the general election. This was formerly, the custom in Alabama until changed by the Constitutional Convention of 1875, when on account of hostile legislation threatened on the part of Congress, the Constitutional Convention which then met changed the time of holding the elections to August. The reasons were good then. They have been intimated by the delegate from Mobile, but I submit that we have reached the time in Alabama when we need apprehend no fear of Federal intervention in our elections. I am satisfied that the change will be in the interest of economy as well as meet the general view of the people not to have so many elections. I do not think it is wise when we are going to have an election in November to have an election in August. We should save not only the expense of the election but avoid stirring up the people in August and in November of the same year. I don't care which sentiment prevails so far as the proposition of the Committee as reported is concerned, I am in favor of it with this amendment, but should they succeed in changing the Section and having biennial elections, still this amendment should be adopted. I think


2247

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

the interests of the people will be subserved in the two aspects that I have referred to, economy, useless expenditure of time and money, and stirring up the people. This can apply to the Section as it now stands and if the Convention in its wisdom should see proper to have biennial elections and sessions, this will still apply.

MR. SOLLIE ‑ Will the gentleman answer a question? Does your amendment make it mandatory that the election shall be in November, or does it leave it optional with the Legislature?

MR. HARRISON ‑ It leaves it as reported by the Committee unless it shall be changed by the Legislature.

MR. SOLLIE ‑ It leaves it optional?

MR. HARRISON ‑ It only fixes it until the Legislature changes it.

MR. CHAPMAN– I shall detain the Convention but a few moments, in support of the report of this Committee as to this Section. It seems to me that August is the proper time for an election, to subserve the lest interests of the people of the State. That is at a period of the year when the farmers have less to do. They are through with their work of making a crop and have not begun the work of gathering it. It is at a time, Mr. President, when we can attend to elections, and to a canvass, better than at any other period of the year. We have gotten used to it in such a way that we all know that in August and during the summer, comes a period of canvassing. of elections, of barbecues, dinners and camp meetings, and such things as that, and they go pretty much hand in hand. If we change the time to November it come at a time when our farmers are all busy. They are more especially busy then than at any other time during the fall. They are busy gathering corn and cotton, and—

MR. SANFORD (Montgomery) ‑ And sowing wheat.

MR. CHAPMAN ‑ Sowing wheat, as suggested by my learned friend from Montgomery, and I submit they have less time the second Monday in November than they have at any time during the summer months.

Again, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, I am absolutely and utterly opposed to having the Federal elections and State elections come on at the same time. No matter if there is no fear of interference from the Federal authorities. I concede that there is none now, and probably will not be in the future, but there is a certain influence, whether it comes direct from Federal authority, or in an indirect way through Federal money, why it comes and the State elections are more or less influenced by Federal interference in that way. Another objection to it is, my observation has been that the more elections you bunch together,


2248

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

the greater opportunity for fraud, and the greater the fraud committed. There is more opportunity for trading and trafficing. There is more opportunity for combinations among candidates, which will ultimately destroy the will of the people in the election. For these reasons, Mr. President and delegates of the Convention, I think that this Section as reported by the Committee should be adopted by the Convention. If in the future it should be found advisable to change the election from August to November, the authority is conferred upon the Legislature to do it, but until that necessity appears, from my experience under the present Constitution, I am decidedly in favor of keeping the elections separate.

MR. SOLLIE ‑ Do you think it wise to disassociate the idea of good watermelons in our summer elections?

MR. CHAPMAN ‑ Not a bit of it. We ought to have good watermelons and good peaches, and good everything else, at they time of our summer elections, and occasionally we may get a little importation from the northern part of the State, from the "eyeless tiger." I do not know how that may be, but sometimes it is enjoyed. I have heard of people who enjoy the elections in the summer time. (Laughter.)

As I have just said, if it is found better to change the election to November, we can do so.

Insofar as holding the session quadrennially, instead of bienially, I am decidedly in favor of that. I do not believe that we ought to have a meeting of the Legislature every two years as heretofore, and we have but to point to the action of the various Legislatures in the accumulation of bills. and the passage of bill, to convince any on that it is necessary to lengthen the time, and shorten the session, in order to stop, as we might say, this infuriated folly of the Legislature in passing so many bills. If we both lengthen the time between the sessions of the Legislature and at the same time shorten the sessions, or limit the time, which another section of this article does, within which local bills may be passed, we will have some remedy against the flood of bills that has heretofore deluged the Legislature of this State.

MR. SPRAGINS ‑ I move to lay the amendment by the gentleman from Lee upon the table.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman from Sumter has the floor.

MR. CHAPMAN ‑ For the purpose of seconding your motion, and having the motion before the Convention, I yield the floor to the gentleman—


2249

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Montgomery.

MR. OATES – The amendment offered by the delegate from Lee, changing the election from August to November fully meets my approval. Delegates will remember that prior to the Convention of 1875 was a period when there were Federal bayonets in Alabama and during the period of reconstruction.

MR. CARNATHON ‑ Do I understand you accept the amendment of the gentleman from Lee.

MR. OATES ‑ I leave no right to speak for the committee in accepting it; it is acceptable to me personally, and I know it is to several members of the committee, but a majority of the committee voted as it is reported here, and the report is as the majority voted, though it was a close vote.

Now, Sir, I want to give a few reasons briefly why I am in favor of the amendment offered by the delegate from Lee. Prior to 1875 we had all of the troubles of reconstruction and bayonets, when Federal troops were here, but the troops had been withdrawn at that time, and there was a difference among the members of that Convention as to whether the State elections should be changed from November to August. Gentlemen know they all come off in November together prior to that. However, there was one good reason for the change, and it was because at that time there still remained upon the statute books several federal enactments which authorized the appointment of inspectors and watchers you may call them, and Federal officials to interfere in all election. In order that we might get away from them, and hold our own State elections without interference from them, was the reason that it was changed to August. But every one knows it is against economy. It is disadvantageous to the people to have two elections in one year but a few months apart. It creates during the whole of that year a furor—

MR. SAMFORD– What is the disadvantage?

MR. OATES ‑ I am telling you.  If you will wait I will do it. I am not going to dodge it. Men are excited more or less, and are taking interest in the elections, friends are candidates, first in the August election and then in the November election, and it is one continual round of electioneering and excitement during the whole year, wheel it is wholly unnecessary. You do not need to separate them. You do not need an August  election on account of Federal interference. Why? Because during Mr. Cleveland's second term,  when both Houses of Congress were Democratic, the question was extensively debated and every Federal Statute on that subject was wiped from the statute books. There is not one in existence now, bar which the Federal government can interfere in any State election. It belongs entirely to the State.


2250

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. WILLIAMS (Barbour) ‑ In the State of New York they hold both the State and Federal elections upon the same day? That is a fact?

MR. OATES ‑ Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS (Barbour) ‑ It is the vote of the city of New York that carries the State Democratic. And is it not a fact that in a national election in the city of New York many voters trade off a President for some petty State officer?  Has not  that been done?

MR. OATES ‑ I suppose it has, and have you ever known any election where there was not a swapping and trading in that way?

MR. WILLIAMS (Barbour) ‑ No, I do not, but if the State election in New York was on a different day, there would be no opportunity for it.

MR. OATES– That is for the people of New York to determine. I am talking about the people of Alabama.  Here there is not so much danger from trading.  It saves much expense and excitement, and trouble, and there is no reason why we cannot hold our elections the same day as the Federal elections are held, and it will not be then as it is now, where one of the things which puts the members of Congress from this State at a disadvantage is that they do not receive so many votes, and not one-fourth of the voters are polled in the districts in the November election as are polled in the August election.  The delegates from Lee and from Macon know that from their experience in Congress.  They have seen that from their own experience.  Men get tired of going out on so many election days, and there is no good reason at this time why they should not all go out to the election on Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  There is no reason on earth why we should have so much excitement, and so much expense, and then besides some other important committees have been shaping their work in view of that very thing. The committee of which I had the honor to be chairman was divided upon it, the majority favoring August, but a large minority favoring November.  I think it is unnecessary to consume any further time, as the Convention certainly understands the question, and I move the previous question on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lee.

MR. HEFLIN (Chambers) ‑ I would ask the gentleman to withdraw that in order that some of the members of the committee may be heard that opposed the measure.

MR. OATES ‑ I do not know how many of them want to be heard. I will ask the delegate from Chambers if he wishes to be heard. I have no objection to withdrawing the motion.


2251

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

MR. HEFLIN (Chambers) ‑ I would like to be heard as to how the majority of the committee stood on the report.

MR. OATES ‑ If I withdraw, will you renew the motion, before you take your seat?

MR. HEFLIN (Chambers) ‑ My purpose was before I sat down to move to table the amendment.

MR. OATES ‑ I decline to yield for any such purpose and I call for the previous question.

MR. REESE– I move to table the amendment of the gentleman from Lee.

THE PRESIDENT ‑‑‑ The gentleman from Montgomery moves the previous question upon the amendment by the gentleman from Lee, and thereupon the gentleman front Dallas moves to lay upon the table the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lee. The question will be upon the motion to table the amendment.

Upon a vote being taken, a division was called for and by a vote of 43 ayes and 63 noes, the motion to table was lost.

MR. HEFLIN (Chambers) ‑ I voted no for the purpose of taking the amendment up for consideration again.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ It is not necessary for the gentleman to state how he voted in order to move to take from the table. Any member may move to take from the table.

MR. HEFLIN (Chambers) ‑ I do not believe you can move to reconsider a vote to table, can you?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ You cannot, but any gentleman may enter a motion to take from the table. whether he voted for or against the proposition.

The question recurring upon the motion of the gentleman from Montgomery, the main question was ordered, and upon a further vote being taken, the amendment was adopted.

MR. BROWNE ‑‑‑ In order that the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. Jones) may have considered the amendment that he offered to introduce, and which was ruled out of order on account of the fact that it was similar to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mobile, I now move to take from the table the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mobile.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ It is moved that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mobile which was laid upon the table, be taken from the table.


2252

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. BULGER ‑ Before that vote is taken. I would like to hear the amendment read.

The amendment was read as follows: "Amending Section 3 of the report of the Committee on Legislative Department, Strike out all after the section number, and insert the following: Senators and Representatives shall be elected by the qualified electors on the first Monday in August, 1902, and every two years thereafter, unless the Legislature shall change the time of holding elections. The terms of the office of Senators shall be four years, commencing on the day after the general election, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. Whenever a vacancy shall occur in either house, the Governor shall issue a writ of election to fill such vacancy for the remainder of the term.

MR. BULGER ‑ I move to lay the motion of the gentleman from Talladega on the table.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The motion is not in order, in the opinion of the chair.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ I call for the ayes and noes on the motion of the gentleman from Talladega.

The call was sustained.

MR. REESE ‑ I rise for the purpose of making a motion to indefinitely postpone the motion of the gentleman from Talladega.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ In the opinion of the chair, the motion is out of order. The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Talladega to take from the table the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mobile. The ayes and noes have been called for and the call sustained. As many as favor taking from the table the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mobile will say aye, and those opposed no, as your names are called.

Upon the call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:

AYES

Brooks,

Jones, of Montgomery,

Sollie,

Browne,

Lomax,

Shears,

Byars,

Martin,

Tayloe,

Foster,

Moody,

Thompson.

Grayson,

O'Neal (Lauderdale),

Watts,

Greer, of Perry,

Rogers (Lowndes),

White,

Heflin, of Chambers,

Sanford,

Williams (Barbour),

Heflin, of Randolph,

Selheimer,

 TOTAL ‑ 23.

NOES

Messrs. President,

Barefield,

Beddow.

Banks

Bartlett,

Bethune,


2253

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901 

Blackwell,

Hood,

Pettus,

Boone,

Howell,

Phillips,

Bulger,

Howze,

Pillans,

Burns,

Inge,

Pitts,

Cardon,

Jones, of Bibb,

Porter,

Carnathon,

Jones, of Hale,

Reese,

Case,

Kirk,

Reynolds (Chilton),

Chapman,

Kirkland,

Reynolds, of Henry,

Cobb,

Knight,

Robinson,

Cofer,

Ledbetter,

Rogers (Sumter),

Coleman, of Greene,

Leigh,

Sanford,

Davis, of DeKalb,

Locklin,

Searcy,

Davis, of Etowah,

Lowe, of Jefferson,

Sentell,

Dent,

Macdonald,

Sloan,

deGraffenreid,

McMillan, of Baldwin,

Smith (Mobile),

Duke,

Malone,

Smith, Morgan M.,

Eley,

Maxwell,

Sorrell,

Eyster,

Merrill,

Spragins,

Ferguson,

Miller (Marengo),

Stewart,

Fletcher,

Miller ( Wilcox ) ,

Stoddard,

Foshee,

Murphree,

Vaughan,

Freeman,

NeSmith,

Waddell,

Gilmore,

Norman,

Walker,

Glover,

Norwood,

Weakley,

Graham, of Montgomery,

Oates,

Whiteside,

Greer, of Calhoun,

Opp,

Willet,

Haley,

O'Rear,

Williams (Marengo),

Handley,

Palmer,

Wilson (Washington),

Harrison,

Parker (Elmore),

Winn,

Hodges,

Pearce,

TOTAL ‑ 96.

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING

Almon,

Grant,

Morrisette,

Altman,

Henderson,

Mulkey,

Ashcraft,

Hinson,

O'Neill, of Jefferson,

Beavers,

Jackson,

Parker (Cullman),

Burnett,

Jenkins,

Proctor,

Carmichael, of Colbert,

Jones, of Wilcox,

Renfro,

Carmichael, of Walker,

King,

Sanders,

Cornwall,

Kyle,

Smith, Mac. A.,

Craig,

Long, of Butler,

Weatherly,

Cunningham,

Long, of Walker,

Williams (Elmore),

Fitts,

Lowe, of Lawrence,

Wilson (Clarke),

Graham, of Talladega,

McMillan (Wilcox),

By a vote of 96 noes and 23 ayes, the motion to take the amendment from the table was lost.


2254

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. OATES ‑ I move the previous question on the adoption of the section as amended.

MR. WATTS ‑ I hope the gentleman will allow me a moment—

There were expressions of dissent, and upon a vote being taken, the main question was ordered, and upon a further vote the section as amended was adopted.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ It is now very near 1 o'clock. and I move that we adjourn before taking up the next section.

MR. REESE ‑ I desire to give notice that I voted in the affirmative, and I make a motion to reconsider the vote on this section.

Leaves of absence were granted to Mr. Parker (Cullman) for today; Mr. Sollie for this afternoon, Thursday and Friday, and Mr. Kirkland for this afternoon, and the Convention adjourned.

_____________

AFTERNOON SESSION

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment, there being 125 delegates present upon the call of the roll.

Leave of absence was granted to Mr. Long of Butler for tomorrow.

MR. LOMAX ‑ Mr. President, I move that the Article on Preamble and Declaration of Rights be now read a third time and put upon its passage.

There being no objection, the article was read by the Clerk as follows:

An ordinance adopting a Preamble and Declaration of Rights for the Constitution for the State of Alabama.

Be it ordained by the people of the State of Alabama in Convention assembled, that the following shall be the Preamble and Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of this State :

PREAMBLE

We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama.


2255

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

ARTICLE I.

Declaration of Rights.

That the great, general and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare

1. That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

3. That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship, nor pay tithes, taxes or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious tests shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State; and that the civil rights, privileges and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner, affected by this religious principles.

4. That no law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press; and any person may speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

5. That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable seizures or searches; and that no warrant shall issue to search any place or to seize any person or thing without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.

6. That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to be heard by himself and counsel, or either; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation; to have a copy thereof, to be confronted by the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; to testify, in all cases, in his own behalf, if he elects so to do; and, in all prosecutions bar indictment, a speedy, public trial, by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense was committed; and that he shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, but by due process of law; but the General Assembly may by a general law, provide for a change of venue for the defendant in all prosecutions by indictment, and that such change of venue, on application of the defendant may be heard


2256

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

and determined without the personal presence of the defendant so applying therefor, Provided, that at the time of the application for the change of venue the defendant is imprisoned in jail or some legal place of confinement.

7. That no person shall be accused, or arrested, or detained, except in cases ascertained by law, and according to the forms which the same has prescribed; and no person shall be punished, but by virtue of a law established and promulgated prior to the offense and legally applied.

8. That no person shall, for the same offense be proceeded against criminally, by information except in cases arising in the militia and volunteer forces when in actual service, or when assembled under arms as a military organization, or, by leave of the court, for misfeasance. misdemeanor. extortion and oppression in office, otherwise than is provided in this Constitution ; Provided. that in cases of misdemeanor, the General Assembly, may, by law dispense with a grand jury and authorize such prosecutions and proceedings before Justices of the Peace or such other inferior courts as, may be by law established.

9. That no person shall, for the same offense be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ; but courts may, for reasons fixed by law, discharge juries from the consideration of any case, and no person shall gain any advantage by reason of such discharge of the jury.

10. That no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending, before any tribunal in this State, by himself or counsel, any civil cause which he is a party.

11. That the right of trial lay jury shall remain inviolate.

12. That in all prosecutions for libel or for the publication of papers investigating the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and that in all indictments for libel, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts under the direction of the court.

13. That all courts shall be open ; and that every person, for any injury done him, in his land, goods, person or reputation shall have a remedy by due process of law, and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.

14. That the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.

15. That excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.


2257

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

16. That all persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient securities, except for capital offence, when the proof is evident or the presumption great, and that excessive bail shall not, in any case be required.

17. That the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended by the authorities of this State.

18. That treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort; and that no person shall be convicted of treason, except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or his own confession in open court.

19. That no person shall be attainted of treason by the General Assembly; and that no conviction shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate.

20. That no person shall be imprisoned for debt.

21. That no power of suspending laws shall be exercised, except by the General Assembly.

22. That no ex post facto law, or any law impairing the obligation of contract, or making any irrevocable or exclusive grants of special privileges, or immunities. shall be passed by the General Assembly, and every grant of a franchise, privilege or immunity shall forever remain subject to revocation, alteration or amendment.

23. That the exercise of the right of eminent domain shall never be abridged nor so construed as to prevent the General Assembly from taking the property and franchises of incorporated companies and subjecting them to public use the same as individuals, but private property shall not be taken or applied for public use, unless just compensation be first made therefor; nor shall private property be taken for private use, or for the use of corporations. other than municipal, without the consent of the owner. Provided, however, that the General Assembly may, by law, secure to persons or corporations the right ‑ of ‑ way over the lands of other persons or corporations and by general laws provide for and regulate the exercise by persons and corporations of the rights herein reserved; but just compensation shall in all cases be first made to the owner; and provided, that the right of eminent domain shall not be so construed as to allow taxation or forced subscription for the benefit of railroads or any other kind of corporation other than municipal or for the benefit of any individual or association.

24. That all navigable waters shall remain forever public highways free to the citizens of the State and of the United States, without tax, impost or toll; and that no tax, toll, impost or wharf‑


2258

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

age shall be demanded or received from the owner of any merchandise or commodity for the use of the shores or any wharf erected on the shores, or in or over the waters of any navigable stream, unless the same be expressly authorized by law.

25. That the citizens have a right, in a peaceable manner to assemble together for the common good, and to apply to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances, or other purposes by petition, address or remonstrance.

26. That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State.

27. That no standing army shall be kept up without the consent of the General Assembly, and, in that case, no appropriation for its support shall be made for a longer term than one year, and the military shall in all cases and at all times be in strict subordination to the civil power.

28. That no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

29. That no title of nobility or hereditary distinction, privilege, honor or emolument shall be granted or conferred in this State: and that no office shall be created, the appointment to which shall be for a longer time than during good behavior.

30. That immigration shall be encouraged, emigration shall not be prohibited and that no citizen shall be exiled.

31. That temporary absence from the State shall not cause a forfeiture of residence once obtained.

32. That no form of slavery shall exist in this State; and there shall not be any involuntary servitude otherwise than for the punishment of crime, of which the party shall have been duly convicted.

33. The privilege of suffrage shall be protected by laws regulating elections and prohibiting under adequate penalties, all undue influences from power, bribery, tumult or other improper conduct.

34. Foreigners who are, or may hereafter become bona fide residents of this State, shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment and inheritance of property as native born citizens.

35. 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.


2259

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

36. In the government of this State, except in the instances in this Constitution hereinafter expressly directed or permitted, the Legislative Department shall never exercise the executive or judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative or executive powers, or either of them; to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.

37. That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the General Powers of Government and shall forever remain inviolate.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question now is on the passage of the article, which under the rules will be submitted to any aye and nay vote. As many as favor its adoption as read will say aye and those opposed no as your names are called.

Upon the call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:

AYES

Messrs. President,

Fitts,

Leigh,

Banks,

Fletcher.

Locklin,

Barefield.

Foshee,

Lomax,

Beddow,

Foster,

Long ( Butler),

Bethune,

Freeman,

Long (Walker),

Blackwell,

Gilmore,

Lowe (Jefferson),

Boone,

Glover,

Macdonald,

Brooks,

Grayson,

McMillan ( Baldwin),

Bulger,

Greer, of Calhoun,

Malone,

Burns,

Greer, of Perry,

Martin,

Cardon,

Haley,

Maxwell,

Carmichael, of Colbert,

Handley,

Merrill,

Carnathon,

Harrison,

Miller (Marengo),

Case,

Heflin, of Chambers.

Miller (Wilcox),

Chapman,

Heflin, of Randolph,

Moody,

Cofer,

Henderson,

Murphree,

Coleman, of Greene,

Hodges,

NeSmith,

Cornwall,

Hood,

Norman,

Davis, of DeKalb,

Howell,

Norwood,

Davis, of Etowah,

Howze,

Oates,

Dent,

Inge,

O’Neal (Lauderdale).

deGraffenreid,

Jones, of Bibb,

O'Neill (Jefferson),

Duke,

Jones, of Hale,

Opp,

Eley,

Jones of Montgomery,

O'Rear,

Eyster,

Kirk,

Palmer,

Espy,

Knight,

Pearce,

Ferguson,

Ledbetter,

Pettus,


2260

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Pillans,

Selheimer,

Waddell,

Pitts,

Sentell,

Walker,

Porter,

Sloan,

Watts,

Proctor,

Smith (Mobile),

Weakley,

Reese,

Smith, Mac. A.,

Weatherly,

Reynolds (Henry),

Smith, Morgan M.,

White,

Robinson,

Sorrell,

Whiteside,

Rogers (Lowndes),

Spragins,

Williams (Barbour),

Rogers (Sumter),

Stewart,

Wilson (Clarke),

Samford,

Studdard,

Wilson (Washington),

Sanders,

Tayloe,

W inn.

Sanford,

Thompson,

Searcy,

Vaughan,

 TOTAL ‑ 117. NOES

Byars,

Willet,

 TOTAL ‑ 2.

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING

Almon,

Graham, of Montgomery,

Morrisette,

Altman,

Graham, of Talladega,

Mulkey,

Ashcraft,

Grant,

Parker (Cullman),

Bartlett,

Hinson,

Parker (Elmore),

Beavers,

Jackson,

Phillips,

Browne,

Jenkins,

Renfro,

Burnett,

Jones, of Wilcox,

Reynolds (Chilton),

Carmichael,

King,

Sollie,

Cobb,

Kirkland,

Spears,

Coleman, of Walker,

Kyle,

Williams (Marengo),

Craig,

Lowe (Lawrence),

Williams (Elmore),

Cunningham,

McMillan (Wilcox),

THE PRESIDENT ‑ It appears there are 116 ayes and noes 2, and the article is adopted. The article will be referred to the Committee on Order Consistency and Harmony.

MR. WHITE ‑ Will it be printed?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The rules provide that it should be printed and referred to the Committee on Order, Consistency and Harmony.

The Convention here resumed the special order, the consideration of the report of the Committee on Executive Department.

The Clerk read Section 4 as follows:

Sec. 4. ‑ Senator shall be at least 27 years of age and Representatives 21 years of age; they shall have been citizens and inhabitants of their respective counties or districts one year next


2261

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

before their election, if such county or district shall have been so long established; but if not, then of the county or district from which the same shall have been taken; and they, shall reside in their respective counties or districts during their terms of service.

MR. OATES ‑ Mr. President, that is the old section, just as it is in the present Constitution, and I move its adoption.

MR. ROGERS (Lowndes) ‑ I have a substitute to offer.

The clerk read the substitute as follows: "Substitute the word ‘resident’ in line 2 for the word ‘inhabitant’”

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question will be on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lowndes. As many as favor the adoption of the amendment will say aye. The ayes have it. Is the Convention ready for the previous question?

MR. WATTS ‑ I want to know whether, in the report, these words are included which were in the old Constitution in the second line: "They shall have been citizens and inhabitants of their respective counties," is the way it reads in the print, but the way it reads in the old Constitution of this State "for three years, and inhabitants of their respective counties."

THE CLERK ‑ It is not here.

MR. WATTS ‑ I would like to have time to put it in there.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ There is an amendment pending now; no doubt the gentleman will have time to offer his amendment.

MR. DUKE ‑ I have an amendment to offer: "Amend Section 4 of Article on Legislative Department by striking out the words ‘twenty ‑ seven’ in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof ‘twenty-five’”

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Chambers. Is the Convention ready for the question ?

MR. DUKE ‑ I dislike to offer an amendment to a section that a committee from this Convention has left intact, and I would not do it, but for the fact that I think the section is inconsistent with some other sections of this Constitution and ought to be changed. Now, the amendment which I have offered changes the word "twenty ‑ seven" to "twenty ‑ five" in the first line of the section. It makes it read that the Senators shall be twenty ‑ five years of age instead of twenty ‑ seven as it stands in the old Constitution. Now, Mr. President, the old Constitution and all of the section that we have adopted with reference to other officers do not require any officer to be over twenty ‑ five years of age except the Governor of the State, and I cannot see why this Constitution


2262

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

should require that State Senators should be twenty ‑ seven years of age. Under the Constitution a man twenty ‑ five years of age may be elected Secretary of State and perform the duties of that office. Under the Constitution, a man may be elected Auditor of your State at twenty ‑ five years of age and perform the duties of that office. Under the Constitution, a man may be elected Treasurer of your State and take charge and have control of the funds of the State. and yet it does not require him to be over twentyfive years of age. According to the sections of the Constitution that eve have thus far adopted, a Justice of the Supreme Court need not be over twenty ‑ five years of age. A man may be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State at twenty ‑ five years of age; and yet, Mr. President, this committee, with its report framed after the old Constitution, says that a man who is elected to the office of Senator of this State must lie twenty ‑ seven years of age. Now, I cannot see why this difference, I cannot see why a man is to be considered competent to fill all these offices at the age of twenty ‑ five years that he should be sufficiently mature to fill all the officers I have mentioned at twenty ‑ five years old, and yet not be so mature as to fill the office of Senator of this State.

MR. WILLET ‑ Will the gentleman allow me to ask a question?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Does the gentleman consent to be interrupted ?

MR. DUKE ‑ Yes sir.

MR. WILLET ‑ Does not the gentleman recognize the difference between a clerical office and a representative office?

MR. DUKE ‑ Yes, and in reply to that I will ask him if he thinks the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama is a clerical office?

MR. WILLET ‑ To some extent, yes.

MR. DUKE ‑ Well, we differ about that. Not stopping there according to the Federal Constitution, a man may go to Congress and be but 25 years of age, and yet we say if he goes to the State Senate he must be 27 years old. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have no interest in this personally, everybody here knows that I am over 27 years of age, and I have no friend under 27 years of age that wants to be Senator, but I do not think this inconsistency should appear in this Constitution ; it is unreasonable, Mr. President, to require it. While I say I have no friend that I know of who wants to fill the office of State Senator, yet in the language of the distinguished and eloquent gentleman from Montgomery, Governor Jones, this morning in his remarks on another Section of this Article, I say give the young men a chance, they are the hope of the country.


2263

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Now, Mr. President, in youth, while a man is young, is the time that he is qualified to perform the duties of life. You take for example the men that have made their impress upon the world's history, and it has been when they were young men. Napoleon Bonaparte was at the very height of his glory when he was 25 years of age. Caesar almost conquered the world, yet died a young man. Alexander had the world at his feet, and wept because he could find no other worlds to conquer when he was a young man, and I do not see, Mr. President, why it is that we should not make this amendment and allow a person who is 25 years of age to be elected to the office of Senator in this State– especially in view of the fact that we have other provisions that only require other officers to be 25 years of age, which are more important than the office of Senator.

MR. OATES ‑ I believe the amendment is to strike out “twenty ‑ seven" and insert "twenty ‑ five?"

MR. DUKE ‑ That is all.

MR. OATES ‑ Well, I have no special objection to it.  It stands that way in the present Constitution– twenty-seven, and that is the only reason why we retained it that way. The Committee passed the Section as they found it in the Constitution. I notice, however, in the copying, either by the Clerk or the printer, there are some words omitted which I will ask presently to have reinstated. It don't affect this question, however, of changing the age from 27 to 25. I have, no special reason to favor it one way or the other. Either put it 27 or 25 as you desire.

MR. HEFLIN (Chambers) ‑ Do I understand the Chairman to say that he has no objection?

MR. OATES ‑ I have none. I just as leave put it at 25 as 27 The Committee voted it 27, and for that reason it is in there.

Mr. Boone here took the Chair.

MR. HEFLIN ‑ As a member of the Committee, I opposed that majority report in order to allow the young men of 25 years of age to come to the Senate. I see no good reason when the Congress of the United States allowed a member to sit in that body at 25, that the State Senate should require a man to be 27 years of age before he could sit in a legislative body at home.

MR. CHAPMAN ‑ May I ask the gentleman a question?

PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ Does the gentleman yield for a question?

MR. HEFLIN ‑ Certainly.

MR. CHAPMAN ‑ Do you compare a Senator in the State Legislature of any age with a common Congressman of any age?


2264

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. HEFLIN ‑ I admit the point of order is well taken.

MR. SAMFORD (Pike) ‑ Will the gentleman permit a question ?

MR. HEFLIN ‑ Certainly.

MR. SAMFORD ‑ How would the State of Alabama fare with thirty ‑ three Senators 25 years old, and in the House 100 Representatives 21 years of age?

MR. DUKE ‑ Ask him how Congress would fare with all the Representatives only 25 years of age?

MR. HEFLIN ‑ I will ask the gentleman if he thinks in the course of human events that it would ever occur while the world stands, that the Senate would be composed of thirty ‑ three Senators of the age of 25 years each, and the House be composed of 100 Representatives of the age of 21 years or between 21 and 25 years of age? It would not occur, Mr. President, in a thousand generations, no such thing would ever confront the people of Alabama, and , I want, to lift my voice here along the lines suggested by the gentleman from Montgomery this morning and endorsed by my colleague from Chambers, that what Alabama needs is to give more encouragement to her young men. If there are those here who are not willing to open the gates and permit them to compete with their before the people I ask them to reconsider, to let down the bars and let those of the twenty ‑ five year limit come in, and give those young men an opportunity to come into this body and into the other end of the Capitol and be trained properly to make good servants of the people of Alabama. There can be no objection to it, Mr. President. The gentleman from Chambers (Mr. Duke) my colleague, has argued that the other officers of State are only required to be twenty ‑ five years of age, except the Governor. As I said before, a Congressman from Alabama is not required to be but twenty ‑ five years of age and why should we say here in the very organic, structure of our law that a young man who stands up before his people competent in every respect to represent them in the Senate, and they desire him to represent them, he is met with this stumbling block in the fundamental laws of the State ‑ you are not old enough. Mr. President, William Pitt was Prime Minister of England when he was twenty ‑ five years of age. I trust the gentlemen do not argue that a man must be old before he has any sense, if so we differ on that proposition. We have seen a negative answer given to that contention by even boys of sixteen years of age. I favor, Mr. President, putting in the amendment at twenty ‑ five years. I have spoken longer than I intended, and as there is practically no opposition to the twenty ‑ five year limit, I move the previous question.


2265

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The question is, shall the previous question be ordered?

MR. WATTS ‑ Is that on the whole section?

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ No, sir; on the amendment.

A vote being taken, the previous question was ordered. The question then recurred upon the adoption of the amendment, and on a division, the amendment was adopted by 73 ayes to 30 noes.

MR. OATES ‑ I desire to offer an amendment to supply an omission that has been made.

The Clerk read the amendment as follows : "Amend by adding after the word ‘citizen’ in line two, the following: ‘An inhabitant of this State for three years.'"

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ I will state to the gentleman from Montgomery that an amendment has already been adopted offered by the gentleman from Lowndes inserting the word "resident" instead of "inhabitant."

MR. OATES ‑ That is true, the Clerk will change that. I will ask the Clerk to read the amendment as it is now.

The Clerk read as follows: "They shall have been citizens and residents ‑ as amended the word residents.

MR. OATES ‑ I am asking about the original bill.

THE CLERK ‑ That is what I am reading from.

MR. OATES ‑ Read the balance of the Section.

The Clerk read as follows: "Shall be citizens and inhabitants" ‑ changed to "residents"‑"of their respective counties and districts one year next before their election."

MR. OATES That is not the right place. Send my amendment back to me.

MR. EYSTER ‑ I have an amendment I wish to offer.

The clerk read the amendment as follows : "Amend Section 4 by striking out twenty ‑ one in the first and second lines and inserting in lieu thereof the word twenty ‑ five."

MR. PETTUS ‑ I move to lay that amendment on the table.

A vote being taken, the amendment was tabled.

MR. BURNS ‑ Are amendments in order?

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ Yes.

MR. BURNS ‑ I have a substitute.


2266

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. SAMFORD (Pike) ‑ I move the adoption of this section as it stands, and on that I call for the previous question.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The gentleman from Dallas has an amendment.

MR. ROGERS  SUMTER ‑ I make the point of order that it is against the rules to wait upon a gentleman to prepare an amendment.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM. ‑ The amendment has already been handed to the clerk.

The clerk read the amendment as follows: Amend ‑ I don't know what; it don't say‑"shall have been a white qualified election for three years."

MR. SAMFORD (Pike) ‑ I move to lay the amendment on the table.

MR. BURNS ‑ That is to keep "niggers" from being Senators.

A vote being taken, the amendment was tabled by 50 ayes to 38 noes on division.

MR. DUKE ‑ I move the adoption of the section, and upon that I call for the previous question.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. Oates) desired to interline two or three words that are in this section in the old Constitution and that seem to be material to the sense of the section, and which by inadvertance has been omitted. The amendment of the delegate from Montgomery was read as follows:

Amend by adding after the words citizens in line 2 of the printed copy the following: "And residents of this State for three years."

MR. SAMFORD ‑ I call the attention of the gentleman from Montgomery to the fact that if it reads that way, according to my conception, it will not have any sense. That is the way it appears to me.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ Read the section with the amendment in it as it would appear if the amendment is adopted.

The clerk read as follows: Senators shall be at least 25 years of age and Representatives 21 years of age. They shall have been citizens and residents of this State for three years and residents of their respective counties or districts one year next before their election.

MR. OATES ‑ I do not understand that the word "inhabitant" has been stricken out but once.


2267

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

THE CLERK ‑ It does not appear in the report but once.

MR. BURNS ‑ Is an amendment in order. I want to strike out that residents and citizens and insert qualified electors.

MR. OATES ‑ I ask the Secretary to read this section with the insertion of this amendment.

The Clerk then read the section as follows: "Senators shall be at least twenty ‑ five years of age and representatives twentyone years of age. They shall have been citizens and residents of this State for three years and residents of their respective counties or districts one year next before their election."  That is the way it will read as amended by your amendment.

MR. OATES ‑ It ought to be inhabitants.

THE CLERK ‑ That inhabitants was stricken out.

MR. OATES ‑ I was inquiring whether it was stricken out the first or second time.

THE CLERK ‑ It only appears in your report in one place. It is left out in the first place or the second time, I don't know which.

MR. OATES ‑ Shall have to be citizens and resident of this– inhabitants of their respective counties and districts.

THE CLERK ‑ I thought the word "inhabitants" was amended by the word "residents" as amended by Mr. Rogers.

MR. OATES ‑ That is all right, I move the adoption of the section.

(Mr. Knox here took the chair.)

The Clerk then read amendment as follows: "Amend by adding after the word "citizens" in line two "and residents of this State three years."

And upon a vote being taken the amendment was adopted.

MR. BURNS ‑ I would like to inquire what became of the amendment I sent up?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Secretary will read the amendment offered by the gentleman from Dallas.

The Clerk then read the amendment offered by Mr. Burns as follows : "By striking out residents and citizens and insert ‘qualified electors.'

MR BURNS ‑ I want to ask the distinguished Chairman–

A DELEGATE ‑ I move to lay the amendment on the table.


2268

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. REESE ‑ I rise to a point of order. The gentleman from Dallas had the floor. The Chair recognized him, and a motion to table his amendment is out of order while the gentleman has the floor. It is discourteous on the part of the gentleman to make a motion to table his amendment.

MR. OATES ‑ I do not understand who was making the motion to table.

MR. BURNS ‑ Do not the words "qualified elector" cover both "residents and citizens?"

MR. OATES ‑ It is wholly unnecessary. The section is just as it has been in the Constitution for twenty ‑ five years, except the change in the age of the Senator and the change of the one word that has been made.

MR. BURNS ‑ I want to ask one question: Don’t the words "qualified electors" mean as much and embrace "citizens and residents?" Can he be a qualified elector without being a citizen and a resident ?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Has the gentleman from Dallas the gentleman from Montgomery under cross ‑ examination?

MR. BURNS ‑ I want him to answer that question.

MR. OATES ‑ The only reply I have to that is to move to lay the amendment of the gentleman from Dallas on the table.

On a vote being taken upon a division it resulted in 55 ayes and 39 noes and the motion to table the amendment was carried.

MR. OATES ‑ I move the previous question upon the adoption of the section as amended.

And upon a vote being taken the section as amended was adopted.

Section 5 was then read as follows:

Section 5. The legislature shall meet quadrennially, at the Capitol in the Senate chamber and in the hall of the House of Representatives (except, in cases of the destruction of the Capitol, or epidemics, when the Governor may convene them at such place in the State as he may deem best) on the day specified in this Constitution, or on such other day as may be prescribed by law; and shall not remain in session longer than sixty days at the first session held under this Constitution, nor longer than fifty days at any subsequent session.

MR. WILLIAMS (Barbour) ‑ I have an amendment to Section 5.

The Clerk then read the amendment as follows:


2269

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

To amend Section 5 by striking out the word “quadrennial” and inserting in place of the same the word “biennially.”

MR. WILLIAMS (Barbour) ‑ I have only a few words to submit on the amendment. It will be seen it refers only to the sessions of the Legislature, and not to the election of the members. It seems to me, sir, that four years is too long a period in which there will be no session of the Legislature. I care nothing about how long a member of the Legislature may be chosen for; but I do think that the Legislature ought to meet oftener than once in four years. I believe that the elections ought to be oftener than once in four years, but that is not the question now. It is a question of the matter of sessions. A legislator is the nearest man to his people, and when they are in session they represent the body of the sovereignty of the State of Alabaina. We profess to be a progressive people, keeping up with the changes and requirements of the times. At least it is our wish to do so. I don't know what the custom may be in other States, nor do I care. I was born and reared in the State of Alabama and my familiarity with political policies is confined to this State. All of my information as to proper policies and procedure is with reference to my own State. It would be an experiment to keep our Legislature silent for four years. We would almost forget we had a Legislature. It is too long a period for a bad law to run or to wait for the enactment of a good one. Legislatures sometimes make unwise laws, and if the people can't be rid of such laws short of a period of four years, they  will get to indulging the feeling akin to revolution and almost equally so will their sentiment extend when they want a new law which they cannot get short of such a period. We would forget the acquaintance of our members, sir, and they would forget the business of legislation if they could not meet oftener than every four years. What is the good of it? I take the liberty of saying that the best system I ever saw was in my youth in the State of South Carolina, the Legislature met every winter and stayed in session only thirty days. The members are accountable to the people. They make their changes with the people. They get their directions from the people who give them their commissions. It is not my purpose toy make a regular speech, because I do not believe it would be welcomed, and I have no disposition to undertake it. I say it is an untried thing for the Legislature of the State of Alabama to sit only once in every four years. I would be an untried situation to the people who could hardly become familiar with their Representatives if they did not see them in official session oftener than once in every four year. It would be an untried condition of the affairs of the State if they could not have an examination into the weak places and remedy them by fit legislation injected oftener than once in four years. It is too long a dearth, sir. There is unwise legislation perhaps at every session of the Legislature and at every session something is left out that ought


2270

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

to go in. I am not undertaking to interfere with the period for which you elect the members. Let theta ho to the people and council with them, and learn not only their duty but how to do it at least once in every two years. Without saying more I respectfully insist upon the amendment.

MR. LONG—I offer a substitute for the original section, and the amendment offered by the delegate from Barbour.

The substitute was read as follows:

Amend Section 5 by striking out the word "quadrennial" in the first line and insert "biennial." Also by inserting in lieu of the word "sixty" in the third line "thirty," and also strike out the word "fifty" and insert the word "twenty ‑ five" in lieu thereof.

MR. LONG ‑ I shall not attempt to make a speech. That amendment allows the Legislature to meet every two years and instead of being an additional expense as it is claimed, it will be a saving. The committee’s report fixes the length of the first session at sixty days and I reduce that to thirty days. Then instead of fifty days as in the other part of the Section, I make it twenty ‑ five days.

MR. HARRISON ‑ Do you think the next Legislature could discharge its duties under this Constitution in thirty days.

MR. LONG (Walker) ‑ Yes, I think they could.

MR. FOSTER ‑ Will the gentleman yield to me for a question ?

MR. LONG (Walker) ‑ If not taken out of my time I will, but if it is to be taken out of my time I cannot yield.

THE PRESIDE NT ‑ It certainly will be taken out of the gentleman's time.

MR. LONG (Walker) ‑ Then I do not yield. Under this Section the Governor can call the Legislature in extra session and the effect of having the sessions of the Legislature four years apart will be that that will have to be done frequently and that will be an additional expense. Everybody familiar with Legislatures know that they draw two mileages anyhow. This amendment of mine fixes the session of the Legislature so that it meets every two years and can only stay in session 25 days after the first Legislature following this Constitution. If the distinguished gentleman from Lee or the members on this floor wish the Legislature first in session after the adoption of this Constitution to sit for forty, or fifty, or sixty days. that can be left as in the section and I will limit the sessions thereafter to twenty ‑ five days. I am perfectly willing to let the matter stand that way.


2271

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

MR. HARRISON ‑ I suggest not to strike out the sixty.

MR. LONG (Walker) ‑ Then let the sixty stand in the place of the thirty.

THE  PRESIDENT The delegate from Walker  asks unanimous consent to strike out that portion of his amendment. Is there objection? The Chair hears none and it may be done.

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ I had risen for the purpose of introducing the amendment which was offered by the delegate from Barbour. The proposition suggested by the committee is an innovation upon the custom which has prevailed in Alabama since it was admitted to the Union. It is more than that, it is a radical innovation, at variance with the customs of all the governments in the world having representative form of Government that I know of.  Have we gotten to be afraid of the people? Have we gotten to be afraid to trust them to hold an election? Have the people become tired of electing their officers and representatives? Why, you propose for the first time in the history of the State that the immediate representatives of the people, the law ‑ making power, shall be elected for four years. The theory of representativ government is that the law ‑ making ‑ body must be in immediate contact with the people, and come fresh to the Legislature from the body of the people. What motive can inspire this change? I beg of you before you tear down the old Constitution, before you change the old law and the old rule to ask why the change should be made, what good reasons can be assigned for it? Is it caprice, is it a fad with this Convention or is there a motive behind it? I would rather believe it was a mere fad than to recognize, as I do recognize, that there is a motive behind it. The people have a right to be heard in the legislative halls by their representatives coming fresh from the homes of the people. They say we have too many elections and yet the men who complain of elections are the men who raise their voices for education and for the barefooted boys. What better system of education can prevail in any country than frequent elections and discussions of public questions  before the people. How many voting men in America have gotten their first inspiration from discussions  upon the pubic stump of public matters? Why should we fear to have frequent elections: It does not disturb the people so much. No man has to go to a public discussion who does not want to go and yet we find the people corning to public meetings when public matters are to be debated and discussed. I say it is a better system of education than you can find in any ordinary system of text books. It tends to inspire the old men and the youth of the land.

I am in favor of concentrating our elections. I see no reason why the State elections should not be held on the same day that the Federal elections are held. I can see good reasons why it


2272

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

should have been changed when there were Federal election laws which would have controlled our elections if held on the same day; but now that those laws have been wiped from the statute books, I can see no reason why the elections should not be held on the same day. Always conferring on the Legislature the power to change the date of the election if the occasion should ever arise justifying or demanding the change.

But I believe we can illy defend the proposition when we go back to the people that we have taken from them the right to select fresh representatives from their own midst to the Legislature.

Everybody recognizes the influences that mould legislation. All of us know that the special interests that seek their own aggrandizement from the General Assembly are more influential than the mere desire for the public good. The great mass of the people have no influence here representing them except the fresh impulse their representatives bring here; but all the special interests are represented around the halls and doors and in the Capitol itself. And they want long terms. They say the people want to be relieved of the necessity of electing their representatives. Have the people ever said so? Has there ever been a public meeting in Alabama in which the people said they did not want the opportunity to elect their representatives every two years? In many States they have it every year and I think it would be better to have it every year in Alabama. I think it would be better to have more frequent elections than to go to this extreme of elections every four years. I shall always vote against the proposition to take from the people the right to elect representatives except once every four years. I think it preferable to have elections more often. They are the greatest inspiration to the young men of this country and whenever we come to believe that we cannot trust of electing their officer, whenever we come to believe that we cannot trust the people to elect their officers, then we should, as they did of old, cry for a King.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ I rise to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Barbour and also the substitute offered by the gentleman from Walker.

 It is with a great deal of regret that I stand here in opposition to the distinguished gentleman from Barbour, whose gray hairs and long years of service and whose busy life stand as a monument to his rectitude of character.

But upon a grave proposition like this. I feel that every man should accord to his neighbor that same honesty of purpose which he asks to be accorded to him.

I believe I stand here representing every class of citizens in the State of Alabama except perhaps the youthful legislator


2273

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

and the professional politician. I believe I stand upon this floor representing the great mass of the people of the State of Alabama who wish to be let alone and freed from the annoyance placed upon them by biennial sessions of the Legislature.

I heard this morning with one single exception the most remarkable reason given by a distinguished ex ‑ Governor for holding biennial sessions. He gave as a reason in favor of that proposition that the Legislature was a training school for the youth of the State. Is it a fact that we must turn loose upon the people of Alabama the young men of the State of Alabama to tamper with the liberties and rights of the people, because the Legislature is a training school? That is one of the strangest propositions I ever heard in my life. If that is true it would be infinitely letter to institute another training school for the youth to teach them the difference between an amendment and a substitute, for I submit it is a great thing to know when the previous question should be put.

The other remarkable reason on a par with the one assigned this morning by the distinguished ex ‑ Governor was in the city of Tuscaloosa in 1884, when a candidate for Treasurer asked the people to vote for hint because he used to sell watermelons from a wagon. These are the two remarkable reasons that I have heard given, and I think they stand unique in the history of Alabama.

Now, Mr. President, after long and careful consideration, your Committee on Legislative Department have reported this ordinance. The first time this matter was brought up by myself in that committee, I could scarcely get a respectful hearing. The second time it was voted down by a majority of four, but upon the last time the committee report it almost unanimously. The reason for this was because it was so clear. Gentlemen speak of it as an innovation. Now, I am not answering the gentleman from Jefferson now because if the gentleman had been here this morning and had been participating in the proceedings of this house, he would know that the question he is raising was settled on Section 3.

MR. LOWE ‑ I was here this morning.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ Were you here when Section 3 was adopted ?

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ I was.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ Section 3 settled the question of elections, and that was all you addressed your remarks to, and as that was settled this morning, your remarks, I believe, were entirely out of order.

Now, the reasons why we should have the sessions of the Legislature only once every four years are these. First, it will save


2274

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

the State of Alabama every four years more than $100,000. Gentlemen speak of this sum of money as if it were a bagatelle ‑ mere pocket money. But in twenty years it amounts to a great deal to the people of the State of Alabama. The second reason for the four years' session is that it secures certainty and fixidity of the law. As it is now, you can hardly know from time to time as the Legislature meets what the laws are. It takes such a length of time to get the laws printed that lawyers can hardly keep up with them, and the common people are unable to do it at all. We never know when a law is going to be changed.

Another reason is, we can hardly find out the operations of a law in less than four years. A good law has to run that long before the people can learn its advantages, and when we adopt this we will be in line with the States of Mississippi and Louisiana. The ordinance in the Constitution of Mississippi which is the pioneer State in this matter, is drawn by one of the greatest Southerners that ever lived.

MR. BROOKS ‑ The gentleman stated that we are in line with Mississippi and Louisiana. I would like for the gentleman to show where quadrennial sessions are held in the State of Louisiana.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ I certainly understand that quadrennial sessions have been held in Louisiana.

MR. BROOKS ‑ The Louisiana Convention of 1898 adopted biennial sessions of the Legislature, and biennial elections.

MR. LONG (Walker) ‑ You have stated that it costs a great deal to hold elections every two years; why is not my amendment cutting the sessions down to twenty ‑ five a great saving, and what is your objection to it?

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ The objection is when you limit the Legislature to twenty ‑ five days they are apt to act hastily, and without well considering. When they come here and know they only have twenty ‑ five days within which to do their work they cannot properly consider it, and I object to it on that ground.

Now so far as the motives behind this measure; the only motice I know of is the desire to protect the interests of the people of Alabama.

MR. BOONE ‑ Is it not your experience that the mass of people throughout the State with whom you have talked on the subject heartily endorse the committee's report?

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ I will state without hesitation that nine ‑ tenths of the people of the county of Sumter with whom I am as close as any man is with his constituents, meant this done. Every man who approached me asked me for God's sake to relieve


2275

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

them from the biennial sessions of the Legislature. They said, "We cannot tell whether a law is a law or not. It takes nearly two years before it is printed and then the Legislature repeals it. We want certainty. We want to know that a law is going to run a certain length of time and we, therefore. object to biennial sessions of the Legislature."

Now, there is ample provision made whenever the interests of Alabama are menaced in any way ; the Governor can call a special session.

MR. FOSTER ‑ Do you think the Representatives of the people ought to be at the will of the Governor?

MR. ROGERS ‑ I do not. I do not think the Legislature ought to meet at the will of the Governor, but when we put this provision in for the four years, we are representing the people and not the Governor of the State of Alabama. The people of the State of Alabama is speaking through us as to make the change.

MR. FOSTER ‑ I understood the gentleman to say whenever there was a need, the Governor could call the Legislature into session.

MR. ROGERS ‑ That was the provision when it was two years.

MR. FOSTER ‑ If sessions of the Legislature at wide intervals are the proper thing, why not make it ten years instead of four ?

MR. ROGERS ‑ It would perhaps be better if we could have it ten years; but we live in a great State, where changes may come in a time shorter than that, and in reply to the intimated suggestion of the gentleman, if two years is a good to me to hold it, why not hold it all the time?

MR. FOSTER – That is not an answer to my question at all.

MR. ROGERS ‑ I will allow the Convention to judge between my friend and me as to whether my answer was not pertinent. Now, I move the previous question on the amendment and the section.

MR. SAMFORD ‑ I ask that they be divided.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ They certainly will be divided; they are separate questions. Where a committee reports a section and an amendment is offered to the section and an amendment to that amendment they are separate questions and it is impossible to join them. The question will first be submitted on the amendment to the amendment and then on the amendment and then on the section.


2276

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

A vote being taken the main question was ordered.

THE PRESIDENT ‑‑ The question recurs on the amendment–

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ A division of the question was demanded. The amendment of the delegate from Walker embraces three changes in the section and certainly there can be a division of that question. I ask for a reading of the amendment of the delegate from Walker.

The amendment of the delegate from Walker was read as follows: "Amend Section 5 by striking out the word 'quadrennially' in the first line and inserting 'biennially' instead, also by striking out the word 'fifty' in the sixth line rind inserting 'twenty-five' in lieu thereof.

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ I make the point of order and submit that is easily, susceptible of a division.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The point of order is overruled.

MR. LONG (Walker) ‑ I would ask the Chairman of the Committee that if the legislature only meets every four years might not it happen that a United States Senator would have to be elected when there was no legislature in session and would not you be without a Senator elected by the legislature for possibly two years or more.

MR. OATES ‑ All of those things are possible, but not likely to occur.

The yeas and nays on the amendment of the delegate from Walker were called for by Mr. O'Neal and the call was sustained.

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ I dislike to be insistent but I desire to demand a division of the question. The question involved in the amendment of the delegate from Walker is in the first place to strike out the word "quadrennially" and insert the word "biennially."

MR. BULGER ‑ I rise to a point of order.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman will please state the point of order.

MR. BULGER ‑ I understand the question has been ruled upon by the Chair to which the gentleman is now speaking and that is settled.

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ I was in hopes that the Chair had not understood the point of order and that thereby I should not need to take an appeal. The first proposition is to strike out "quadriennially"–


2277

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

MR. FITTS ‑ I rise to a point of order.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman will state the point.

MR. FITTS ‑ The gentleman made his point of order and the Chair ruled against it and the gentleman did not appeal and the roll call was begun and the President had voted.

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ If the gentleman had been paying attention he would have seen‑

THE PRESIDENT ‑ In the opinion of the Chair the point of order is well taken. The gentleman from Jefferson is out of order.

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ The Chair refuses to allow my appeal?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Chair has heard no appeal from the gentleman from Jefferson. If the gentleman appeals the Chair will submit the appeal to the house.

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ I want the Chair‑

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Does the gentleman appeal?

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ I do appeal.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ We are not voting on all the amendments. Are we not voting only on the amendment of the delegate from Walker?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Only on the amendment of the gentleman from Walker. The Chair has ruled on the point of order. The roll call had commenced, and the gentleman interrupts the roll call. The gentleman from Tallapoosa makes the point of order and the point of order is sustained. The gentleman from Jefferson appeals from the ruling of the Chair and the question is, shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

MR. LOWE ‑ I rise to a question of privilege. I hope it will not go out from the Chair that pending a roll call I interrupted. I was on my feet demanding recognition and the Chair deliberately turned and recognized some other delegate.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Chair would state that the gentleman from Jefferson is not entitled to the undivided attention of the Chair of this Convention.

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ When a gentleman arises–

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman from Jefferson is out of order and will please be seated.

MR. LOWE ‑ The Chair understands that I am appealing from the decision of the Chair.


2278

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

THE PRESIDENT– The question is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.

A vote being taken viva voce  the Chair was sustained.

THE PRESIDENT– The question recurs upon the amendment of the delegate from Walker which is offered as an amendment to the amendment of the delegate from Barbour to the section as reported by the Committee.  As many as favor the adoption of the amendment will say aye and those contrary will say no.  It seems to the Chair–

MR. BULGER ‑ The ayes and noes were called for, Mr. President, and the call was sustained.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The interruption and the appeal diverted the attention of the Chair and the Chair had forgotten. The Clerk will call the roll.

The result of the roll call was as  follows:

AYES.

Bartlett,

Harrison,

Long (Walker),

Beddow,

Henderson,

O'Neill (Jefferson),

Carmichael, of Coffee,

Hinson,

Sanford,

Grayson,

Jones, of Bibb,

Waddell,

Haley,

Ledbetter,

Winn,

 Total ‑ 15. NOES.

Messrs. President,

Eyster,

Jones, of Hale

Banks,

Espy,

Jones, of Montgomery,

Barefield,

Ferguson,

Kirk,

Bethune,

Fitts,

Knight,

Blackwell,

Fletcher,

Leigh,

Boone,

Foshee,

Locklin,

Brooks,

Foster,

Long (Butler),

Browne,

Freeman,

Lowe (Jefferson),

Bulger,

Gilmore,

McMillan (Baldwin),

Byars,

Glover,

M alone,

Carnathon,

Graham, of Montgomery,

Martin,

Case,

Greer, of Calhoun,

Maxwell,

Chapman,

Greer, of Perry,

Merrill,

Cobb,

Handley.

Miller (Marengo),

Cofer,

Heflin, of Chambers,

Miller (Wilcox),

Coleman, of Greene,

Heflin, of Randolph,

Moody,

Cornwall,

Hodges.

Murphree,

Davis, of DeKalb,

Hood,

NeSmith,

Davis, of Etowah,

Howell,

Norman,

Duke,

Howze,

Norwood,

Eley,

Inge,

Oates,


2279

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

O'Neal (Lauderdale),

Rogers (Lowndes),

Studdard,

O'Rear,

Rogers (Sumter),

Tayloe,

Palmer,

Samford,

Thompson,

Parker (Elmore),

Sanders,

Vaughan,

Pearce,

Searcy,

Walker,

Pettus,

Selheimer.

Watts,

Phillips,

Sentell,

Weakly,

Pillans,

Sloan,

Weatherly,

Pitts,

Smith (Mobile),

White,

Porter,

Smith, Morgan M

Whiteside,

Proctor,

Sorrell,

Williams (Barbour),

Reese,

Spears,

Williams (Marengo),

Reynolds (Henry),

Spragins,

Wilson (Clarke),

Robinson,

Stewart,

Wilson (Wash'gton ),

Total ‑ 105.

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING.

Almon,

deGraffenreid,

McMillan (Wilcox),

Altman,

Graham, of Talladega,

Morrisette,

Ashcraft,

Grant,

Mulkey,

Beavers,

Jackson,

Opp,

Burnett,

Jenkins,

Parker (Cullman),

Burns,

Jones, of Wilcox,

Renfro,

Cardon,

King,

Reynolds (Chilton),

Carmichael, of Coffee,

Kirkland,

Smith, Mac. A.,

Coleman, of Walker,

Kyle,

Sollie,

Craig,

Lomax,

W illet,

Cunningham,

Lowe (Lawrence),

Williams (Elmore),

Dent,

Macdonald,

So the amendment of the delegate from Walker was tabled.

During the roll call:

MR. CARDON – What are we voting on, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ On a motion to table the amendment offered by the delegate from Walker.

MR. CARDON ‑ Well, what is the amendment?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ It is changing the sessions of the legislature from quadrennial as reported by this Conimlttee to biennial.

MR. CARDON ‑ I am in favor of that.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ And in changing the length of the session from fifty days as reported by the Committee to twenty ‑ five days.

MR. CARDON ‑ I am against that.

How does the gentleman vote?


2280

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. CARDON– I am in favor of one and opposed to the other. I won’t vote.

After the roll call:

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question recurs  on the amendment of the delegate from Barbour.

The yeas and nays were demanded  by Mr. O'Neal, but the call was not sustained.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ I would like to ask a verification to see whether the call is sustained.

The call wits then sustained, and the result of the roll call was as follows:

AYES.

Banks,

Greer, of Perry,

Parker, of Elmore,

Beddow,

Haley,

Phillips,

Brooks,

Handley,

Proctor,

Bulger,

Heflin, of Chambers,

Robinson,

Burns,

Heflin, of Randolph,

Rogers, of Lowndes,

Byars,

Hood,

Samford,

Cardon,

Howell,

Sanford,

Carmichael, of Colbert,

Jones, of Montgomery,

Selheimer,

Case,

Jones, of Bibb,

Sollie,

Cobb,

Ledbetter.

Spears,

Duke,

Leigh,

Thompson,

Eyster,

Long, of Walker,

Watts,

Espy,

Lowe, of Jefferson,

Weakley,

Foshee,

Martin,

White,

Foster,

Moody,

Williams, of Barbour,

Grayson,

O'Neill (Jefferson ),

Winn,

 Total ‑ 48.

NOES.

Messrs. President,

Eley,

Inge,

Barefield,

Ferguson,

Jones, of Hale,

Bartlett,

Fitts,

Kirk,

Bethune,

Fletcher,

Knight,

Blackwell,

Freeman,

Locklin,

Boone,

Gilmore,

Long, of Butler,

Browne,

Glover,

McMillan (Baldwin),

Carnathon,

Graham, of Montgomery.

Malone,

Chapman,

Greer, of Calhoun,

Maxwell,

Cofer,

Harrison,

Merrill,

Coleman, of Greene,

Henderson,

Miller, of Marengo,

Cornwall,

Hinson,

Miller, of Wilcox,

Davis, of DeKalb,

Hodges,

Murphree,

Davis, of Etowah,

Howze,

NeSmith,


2281

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Norman,

Reese,

Studdard,

Norwood,

Reynolds (Henry),

Tayloe,

Oates,

Rogers, of Sumter,

Vaughan,

O'Neal, of Lauderdale,

Sanders,

Waddell,

Opp,

Searcy,

Walker,

O 'Rear,

Sentell,

Weatherly,

Palmer,

Sloan,

Whiteside,

Pearce,

Smith, of Mobile,

Williams, of Marengo,

Pettus,

Smith, Morgan M

Wilson, of Clarke,

Pillans,

Sorrell,

Wilson, of Washington,

Pitts,

Spragins,

Porter,

Stewart,

 Total. ‑ 76.

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING.

Almon,

Graham, of Talladega,

McMillan, of Wilcox,

Altman,

Grant,

Morrissette,

Ashcraft,

Jackson,

Mulkey,

Beavers,

Jenkins,

Parker, of Cullman,

Burnett,

Jones, of Wilcox,

Renfro,

Carmichael, of Coffee,

King,

Reynolds, of Chilton,

Coleman, of Walker,

Kirkland,

Smith, Mac

Craig,

Kyle,

Willet,

Cunningham,

Lomax,

Williams, of Elmore.

Dent,

Lowe, of Lawrence,

deGraffenreid,

MacDonald,

So the amendment was rejected.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ I move a reconsideration of the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ I make the point of order that that cannot be done without a suspension of the rules.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ Then I move a suspension of the rules that the reconsideration may be moved for now.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ On that I call for the ayes and noes.

The call was sustained, and the result of the roll call was as follows:

AYES.

Messrs. President,

Case,

Espy,

Bethune,

Cofer,

Ferguson,

Blackwell,

Coleman, of Greene,

Fitts,

Boone,

Cornwall,

Fletcher,

Browne,

Davis, of DeKalb,

Foshee,

Byars,

Davis, of Etowah,

Gilmore,

Carnathon,

Eley,

Glover,


2282

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Greer, of Calhoun,

Miller (Marengo)

Sanders,

Harrison,

Miller (Wilcox),

Searcy,

Hodges,

Murphree,

Sentell,

Howze,

Norman,

Sorrell,

Inge,

Norwood,

Spragins,

Jones, of Bibb,

Oates,

Stewart,

Jones, of Hale,

O'Rear,

Stoddard,

Kirk,

Palmer,

Vaughan,

Knight,

Pearce,

Waddell,

Leigh,

Phillips,

Walker,

Locklin,

Pillans,

Weatherly,

McMillan, of Baldwin,

Pitts,

Whiteside,

Malone,

Porter,

Williams (Marengo),

Maxwell,

Reynolds, of Henry,

Winn.

Merrill,

Rogers (Sumter),

 Total – 65. NOES.

Banks,

Heflin, of Randolph,

Reese,

Barefield,

Henderson,

Robinson,

Bartlett,

Hinson,

Rogers ( Lowndes) ,

Beddow,

Hood,

Samford,

Brooks,

Howell,

Sanford,

Bulger,

Jones, of Montgomery,

Selheimer,

Burns,

Ledbetter,

Smith (Mobile),

Cardon,

Long, of Butler,

Sollie,

Carmichael, of Colbert,

Long, of Walker,

Spears,

Cobb,

Lowe of Jefferson,

Tayloe,

Duke,

Martin,

Thompson,

Eyster,

Moody,

Watts,

Foster,

NeSmith,

Weakley,

Freeman,

O'Neal (Lauderdale),

White,

Graham, of Montgomery

O'Neill, of Jefferson,

Williams (Barbour),

Grayson,

Opp,

Wilson (Clarke),

Greer, of Perry,

Parker (Elmore),

Wilson (Wash'gton),

Haley,

Pettus,

Heflin, of Chambers,

Proctor,

 Total ‑ 55.

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING.

Almon,

Cunningham,

King,

Altman,

Dent,

Kirkland,

Ashcraft,

deGraffenreid,

Kyle,

Beavers,

Graham, of Talladega,

Lomax,

Burnett,

Grant,

Lowe, of Lawrence,

Carmichael, of Coffee,

Handley,

Macdonald,

Chapman,

Jackson,

McMillan (Wilcox),

Coleman, of Walker,

Jenkins,

Morrisette,

Craig,

Jones, of Wilcox,

Mulkey,


2283

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Parker (Cullman),

Sloan,

Willet,

Renfro,

Smith, Morgan M.,

Williams (Elmore),

Reynolds (Chilton),

Smith, Mac. A.,

MR. WILSON (Clarke) ‑ I rise to inquire for what purpose the motion to suspend has been made.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.

MR. WILSON (Clarke) ‑ What motion to reconsider.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ To reconsider the vote whereby the Convention refused to adopt the amendment of the delegate from Barbour.

MR. WILSON (Clarke) ‑ Then under the rules that motion would be forthwith considered and does not go over until tomorrow and I direct the attention of the Chair to the last clause of Rule 27. That is a mere incidental question and not the main question.

MR. WHITE ‑ I make the point of order that the gentleman's point of order came too late. The vote has been taken and the result announced.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ In the opinion of the Chair the point of order is not too late. The gentleman moved to reconsider, and then moved to suspend the rules, which as the gentleman calls to the attention of the Chair under the rule as to incidental or subsidiary questions was unnecessary. The motion to reconsider was in order.

MR. O'NEAL (Lauderdale) ‑ I rise to a point of order.

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ That was the position taken by the mover of this matter at first, but he yielded to the decision of the Chair. Now renewing my motion, I move the reconsideration of----

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The motion to reconsider is pending.

MR. O'NEAL (Lauderdale) ‑ I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman from Sumter moves to lay the motion to reconsider upon the table.

MR. O'NEAL (Lauderdale) again sought recognition.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman from Lauderdale will state the point of inquiry.

MR. O'NEAL (Lauderdale) ‑ This rule says a motion to reconsider a vote upon any incidental or subsidiary question, but I insist that the amendment of the gentleman from Barbour was not


2284

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

an incidental question, but was really the main question. It went to the main question. That rule only applies to incidental questions, and certainly cannot mean a question of this kind, which goes to the merits of the controversy. The question was whether you changed quadrennial to biennial, and to give that construction to the rule

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman rises to a question of inquiry and desires to have a ruling from, the Chair?

MR. O’NEAL (Lauderdale) ‑ Yes, sir; on that point.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The chair is of the contrary opinion. The question is on the motion to table the motion to reconsider.

Upon a vote being taken, a division was called for, when the chair was requested to state the question.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Convention refused to adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Barbour. Thereupon the gentleman from Sumter moved to reconsider the vote whereby the Convention refused to adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Barbour, and thereupon be moved to lay that motion upon the table, and as many as favor tabling the motion to reconsider will please rise and remain standing until counted.

And by a vote of sixty ‑ six ayes and forty ‑ six noes, the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question now recurs upon the section as amended and upon that the previous question has been ordered.

MR. WHITE ‑ I rise to a point of order.

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

MR. WHITE ‑ That motion to table was not carried, because it takes a two ‑ thirds vote.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The chair will state, in the opinion of the chair—

MR. WHITE ‑ I was laboring under a misapprehension. I thought it was a motion to suspend the rules.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ It was a motion to lay upon the table and a majority vote is sufficient.

MR. JONES (Montgomery) ‑ I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. I called for the previous question on the two amendments. but the previous question, as I understand it, has never been called on the adoption of the section.


2285

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The previous question was ordered upon the adoption of the amendments and the section.

MR. JONES (Montgomery) ‑ Who made the motion?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman from Sumter.

MR. JONES (Montgomery) ‑ I hope the gentleman in charge of this won't choke us off in that way.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question is not debatable, after the previous question has been ordered.

MR. JONES (Montgomery) ‑ I am not debating it. I am simply making a parliamentary appeal to the gentleman on the other side not to choke us down.

MR. O'NEAL (Lauderdale) ‑ I second that appeal.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The delegates will please take their seats—

MR. O'NEAL (Lauderdale) ‑ I move to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was ordered.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question is upon the adoption of the amendment as amended.

MR. JONES (Montgomery) ‑ I move we adjourn.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The motion to reconsider is not in order where the previous question has been ordered. If the gentleman will refer to the rule on reconsideration, he will find that exception. Rule 27 provides, "When a vote has been passed except on the previous question, or on motion to lay on the table, a motion for reconsideration may be made." The question is upon the adoption of the section as amended and the previous question has been ordered.

Upon a vote being taken, the section was adopted.

MR. O'NEAL (Lauderdale) ‑ I vote aye for the purpose of moving a reconsideration.

MR. JONES (Montgomery) ‑ I voted aye, Mr. President, to move a reconsideration.

MR. SOLLIE ‑ I voted aye for the purpose of moving a reconsideration tomorrow of the vote whereby this section was passed.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Two other gentlemen have given the same notice to the chair.

MR. JONES (Montgomery) ‑ I move we adjourn.


2286

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. BURNS ‑ A point of information.

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

MR. BURNS ‑ I voted aye to adopt that section ; can I make a motion to reconsider?

THE PRESIDENT– The gentleman can make his motion.

MR. BURNS– I give notice, then, perhaps I might do so. ( Laughter).

THE PRESIDENT– The question is upon the motion of the gentleman  from Montgomery that the Convention do now adjourn.

Upon a vote being taken, a division was called for, pending the announcement of the result of which leave, of absence were granted to Mr. Ledbetter for the 17th and 18th. Mr. Phillips for Wednesday and Thursday, and Mr. Henderson for Wednesday and Thursday.

By a vote of sixty ‑ five ayes and fifty ‑ one noes, the Convention thereupon adjourned.             

___________

CORRECTIONS.

In proceedings of the forty ‑ fifth day, the answer of Mr. Browne to the question of Mr. Gilmore as to whether he was not the attorney for the Columbiana people, should be as follows:

MR. BROWNE– Yes, but an attorney without a fee, and I have sworn to do everything in my power to relieve my home county in this matter.  I am the kind of an attorney for the Columbiana people that before God in heaven I shall always be against the perpetration of a damnable fraud of any kind upon my native county, my friends and other citizens of the county that gave me birth.  I am the attorney for Columbiana people but an attorney without a fee.

Mr. Barefield, in forty ‑ fifth day's proceedings, voted no and not aye as reported, upon the motion of Mr. Browne to table the minority report on County and County Boundaries, relating to the Shelby County court house controversy.