2606

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

___________

FIFTY ‑ FIRST DAY

MONTGOMERY, ALA., 

Monday, July 22, 1901.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment, was called to order by the President, and opened with prayer by Rev. Dr. A. L. Andrews, as follows:

We give Thee thanks, O Lord God, our Father, for Thy watchful care which Thou hast exercised over us since we last met together. We thank Thee that all the days of our lives have been attended with Thy kindness and mercy and love. We thank Thee that, with a Father's care, Thou has ever been watchful of us, and Thou hast ever provided for our every want, and we praise Thee this morning that during all the days of our past Thy mercy


2607

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

and Thy love have been boundless and free; and we are before Thee this morning, O Lord, with our hearts filled with gratitude for Thy fatherly care and for Thy tender mercies. We do sincerely relent of all of our sins. Forgive us, O Lord, that we have grieved Thy Holy Spirit, or that we have gone aside from Thy Holy Word, and grant that we may each in our hearts this morning repent of our sins, and feel the presence of God's Holy Spirit bearing witness with ours that we are His children. Impress upon us, O Lord, that there is no safe course in life, in any department of our great life, save in the Lord, our Master, and that if the will trust Him and be guided by Him in all things, then we shall make life a success in whatever sphere we live and move; but that with God out of our lives, ignoring Him in all we do, and in all that we plan, our lives, in the end, can but result in failure. Help us, therefore, O Lord, to realize this dependence upon Thee, and this morning to consecrate ourselves anew, soul and body, to Thy service. We pray that Thou wilt especially bless this assembly, O Lord. We thank Thee that the health and strength of Thy servants was been dead in Thy sight. No death, no disaster, has befallen and, and we pray Thee this morning as they assemble for another week's duties, that Thou wilt be with them and direct them in all that they say, in all that they do, in all that they plan, and may their work, O Father, redound to Thine everlasting glory, and to the good of our entire people. May the Lord bless their families at home, and keep them from harm of every kind and may our Father greatly bless our State; bless our Nation; bless those who are in authority over us, and may the Lord help us in all of the walks of life, to honor God, and to live worthy of our divine origin, and of the great calling wherewith we have been called, in Christ Jesus, our Lord. We pray, again, our Father for this Convention. May it be a day of great good; may the results accomplished be acceptable unto Thee, and to the people, and may the Lord be with His servants in all the work that lies before them, and when Thy work is completed, may they have the approval of a good conscience, the approval of a Heavenly Father, and hear the plaudits of a grateful people, saying “well done, good and faithful servants.” Hear us, O Lord, in these, our prayers; answer us in great mercy and when we are done serving Thee below, and sleep with our fathers, gather us to Thyself in heaven, and there we will praise Thee forever, through Christ our Redeemer. Amen.

Upon the call of the roll 80 delegates responded to their names.

Leaves of absence were granted as follows:

To Mr. Cardon, called home on account of sickness; Mr. Burnett for today; to Mr. Jackson of Lee, for today; to Mr. Henderson of Pike for today.

MR. BROOKS ‑ I want to call attention to an error in the stenographic report in relation to the amendment I offered to the


2608

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

ordinance as amended which I submitted on the question of free passes.

It contains eight lines which does not belong to the amendment at all. The stenographic reporter came to me Saturday night and said that the clerk's office was locked up and he had gotten all the papers from him except that particular amendment, and asked for a copy of it, and I happened to have the original from which the copy was taken and on that amendment was eight lines which I had erased in his presence. By mistake of the printer, I suppose, that is incorporated as a part of the amendment, and I wish to have that corrected by the reporter.

There is another matter in quoting from the statement of Mr. Smith, the president of the L. & N. R. R. Co., where I made one or two remarks, by way of parenthis, or by way of comment, and it is put down as a part of the quotations. I desire to have that also corrected.

(Mr. Brook's correction appear at the close of today's report).

The Committee on Journal reported that they had examined the Journal for the fiftieth day of the Convention, and found the same to be correct, and upon motion it was adopted.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Secretary will call the roll on Standing Committees. The roll of delegates will not be called for ordinances, resolutions, etc. the time of 10:30 has expired.

MR. TAYLOR ‑ I ask unanimous consent to have a petition read and have it referred.

Unanimous consent was given, and the clerk read the petition as follows:

To the Honorable President and Members of the Constitution Convention, now in session at Montgomery, Ala.:

Gentlemen ‑ We, the business men and citizens of the city of Uniontown, do most respectfully petition your honorable body to insert in the new Constitution a clause giving plenary powers to the Railroad Commission, and having them elected by the people and not appointed by the Governor, as the law, now exists.

Signed by the Mayor, Councilmen, and many others.

Referred to Committee on Corporations.

MR. REYNOLDS (Chilton) ‑ I ask unanimous consent to introduce an ordinance.

Unanimous consent was given and the Clerk read as follows:

Ordinance No. 430, by Mr. Reynolds of Chilton.


2609

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Be it ordained by the people in Convention assembled.

In case of the insolvency of any incorporated bank, the stockholders therein shall be liable for the full amount of the stock held by each of them respectively, in addition to the amount originally subscribed for said stock.

Referred to Committee on Banks and Banking.

MR. KYLE– I ask unanimous consent to introduce a resolution.

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

Resolution No. 263 by Mr. Kyle:

Resolved that after the expiration of the fifty day limit fixed by the Legislature in calling this Convention, no member shall receive per diem, except for such time as the Journal shows him to have been present, and that the Secretary of this Convention be instructed that this provision applies to all officers and employes as well as to members of this Convention.

MR. KYLE ‑ I ask that that resolution be referred to the Committee on Rules, and ask a report not later than Wednesday.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Does the gentleman move that the committee be instructed to report?

MR. KYLE ‑ Yes, sir.

A vote being taken, the motion to instruct the committee to report on Wednesday was lost, and the resolution was referred to the Committee on Rules.

MR. ROGERS (Lowndes) ‑ I ask unanimous consent to introduce a resolution.

Unanimous consent was given, and the resolution was read by the Secretary as follows:

Resolution No. 264 by Mr. Rogers of Lowndes:

Resolution to change Rule 36.

Resolved. That ayes and noes shall only be ordered when the call therefor is sustained by forty delegates.

Referred to Committee on Rules.

MR. BULGER ‑ I ask unanimous consent to introduce a resolution.

There being no objection, the Secretary read the resolution as follows:


2610

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Resolution No. 265 by Mr. Bulger:

That whereas this Convention  has been in session fifty days,

That whereas during said time the weather has been oppressively hot, and many confusions and complications have arisen, which were calculated to confuse and entangle, not only the Secretary in making his Journal, but the reading clerk in taking the vote and calculating the same.

That whereas, during all this confusion and complications, both the Secretary and Reading Clerk, by their energy, industry and honesty of purpose, have kept not only the Journal, but the official call and count absolutely correct,

That whereas, in every test of the journal and in every verification of the vote, perfect accuracy has been demonstrated.

Therefore, be it resolved by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, that commendation and thanks are hereby tendered to both the Secretary and Reading Clerk of the of the Convention, for the faithful, energetic and accurate manner in which they have and are discharging the duties of their respective offices.

Referred to the Committee on Rules.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The special order for this morning is the report of the Committee on Legislative Department The Secretary will read Section 42.

The Secretary read Section 42 as follows:

Sec. 44. In all elections by the Legislature the members shall vote viva voce, and the votes shall be entered on the Journals.

MR. OATES ‑ I move its adoption.

A vote being taken, the section was adopted.

The Secretary read Section 43 as follows:        

Sec. 43. It shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary and proper to decide differences by arbitrators, to be appointed by the parties, who may choose that mode of adjustment.

MR. OATES ‑ It is the same as in the present Constitution. I move its adoption.

A vote being taken, the section was adopted.

The Secretary read Section 44, as follows:

Sec. 44. It shall be the duty of the Legislature, at its first session after the ratification of this Constitution, and within every subsequent period of twelve years, to make provision by law for


2611

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

the revision, digestion and promulgation of the public statutes of this State, of a general nature, both civil and criminal.

MR. OATES– The only change made in that from the present section is by inserting twelve instead of ten. Ten is the present provision, but as the Convention has provided for legislative sessions once in four years, it is made twelve. We thought that would be frequent enough to make codifications of the laws.

MR. ASHCRAFT ‑ I desire to ask the chairman of the committee for information. It provides at the first session after the ratification of this Constitution, and every twelve years thereafter. Are we to understand the laws are to be codified again immediately after the ratification of this Constitution?

MR. OATES– Not at all ; it makes a law or codification, instead of ten years apart, it will be twelve.

MR. ASHCRAFT– Ought it not to be  twelve years after the last?

MR. OATES– I think that is left to the Legislature. I think it would be instead of providing for it to be ten years from that time.  That it left, however, with the Legislature.

MR. ASHCRAFT ‑ It seems, Mr. President, that the provision  here is mandatory that it should be made immediately after the ratification and twelve years thereafter, not twelve years after 1896, but twelve years after the meeting of the Legislature ‑ after the ratification of this Constitution.

MR. OATES– It does not matter that a law be made in advance– this is simply to regulate the period of time that should elapse between the different codifications of statutes.  The first Legislature after the ratification of this Constitution passes a law and fixes a time.

MR. COLEMAN (Greene) ‑ May I ask the gentleman a question?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Will the gentleman permit an interruption ?

MR. OATES ‑ Certainly.

MR. COLEMAN ‑ Suppose it read this way : It shall be the duty of the Legislature after a period of twelve years to make provision by law for the revision, digesting and promulgation of the public statutes of this State. What would you say that meant?

MR. OATES ‑ I would say that would mean they could not make provisions until twelve years after the ratification of this Constitution‑

MR. COLEMAN ‑ And then it must do it?


2612

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. OATES ‑ Yes, sir.

MR. COLEMAN ‑ If that construction is correct, it necessarily follows that at the first session after the ratification of this Constitution, the Legislature is compelled to do precisely what it says; it must do twelve years after, because it says “At its first session after the ratification of this Constitution,” the very thing which you say it should do twelve years afterwards.

MR. OATES ‑ The Legislature should provide for the codification twelve years apart. I have no objection to striking out. “At its first session after the ratification of this Constitution.”

MR. COLEMAN ‑ I think perhaps if it would say that it is the duty of the Legislature that it shall make provision for the revision, digesting and promulgation of the public statutes every twelve years, it would be all right.

MR. OATES ‑ I have no objection; that is what is aimed at; it is a copy of the present Constitution.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The chair will ask the gentleman to reduce his amendment to writing.

MR. HARRISON ‑ I would ask the chairman of the committee if the amendment should read such codification be made in 1906 and every twelve years thereafter would it meet his approval?

MR. OATES ‑ It would, but is unnecessarily long. The idea of the committee was to change the length of time to elapse between codifications. I am willing for it to be changed so as to meet the views of the gentleman, preserving, of course, that one object.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ Is not this section in the exact language of the Constitution of 1875 ?

MR. OATES ‑ I think it is, with the exception of striking out ten and inserting twelve.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ Did that section ever give any trouble?

MR. OATES ‑ Not at all; but when we changed the time of the Legislature to once in four years, we thought it best to lengthen the time for the codification of the statutes.

Amendment by Mr. Walker (Madison): “It shall be the duty of the Legislature to make provision by law for the revision, digesting and promulgation of the public statutes of the State of a general nature, both civic and criminal, every twelve years.”

MR. WATTS ‑ I wish to offer a substitute.

The Secretary read the substitute as follows:


2613

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

“It shall be the duty of the Legislature in 1906, and within every subsequent period of twelve years, to make provision by law for the revision, digesting and promulgation of the public statutes of this State of a general nature both civil and criminal.”

THE PRESIDENT– The question will be upon the adoption of the substitute by amendment of the gentleman from the gentleman from Montgomery to the Madison.

MR. ASHCRAFT– The objection to the substitute is that it requires the Legislature to make that provision in 1906, whereas there may not be a session of the Legislature in that particular year.

MR. WATTS– There is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Madison will leave it elastic, so that within a period of twelve years from 1896 they make the codification and adjust it to the particular year in which the Legislature may meet.  The last codification of the laws of this State was in 1896.  The Legislature will meet in 1906, which will be ten years from the last, and the Legislature will thereafter meet every four years.  It thus provides for a codification in 1906, ten years from the last order of codification; thereafter it will be twelve years.

THE PRESIDENT– The question is on the substitute of the gentleman from Montgomery.

MR. SENTELL– I do not know what the purpose of the Committee was, but it strikes me that it would be very necessary after the adoption of this Constitution to have a revision and a codification of the laws, for certainly this Constitution is going to change a good many laws, and if that is so, it don’t matter whether ten years has elapsed since the last revision or not.  It would be a very proper thing, it seems to me, for the first legislature after the adoption of this Constitution, to do that work, and then every twelve years, if necessary, thereafter.  This Constitution is going to make a good many changes in the laws of Alabama, new laws will be made and old ones changed to fit this Constitution, and it would be very inconvenient if we had to wait until 1906 before we got the benefit of that in the new code, so I think it would be eminently proper that the very first legislature after the ratification of this Constitution, should attend to this matter and then let us have the benefit of it in the new code, and every twelve years thereafter.

MR. EYSTER– I move the previous question upon the section and amendments.

THE PRESIDENT– The gentleman from Morgan moves the previous question upon the pending amendment and substitute. The question is, shall the main question be now put?


2614

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

The main question was ordered.

MR. OATES ‑ I only wish to add to what I have said a correction of the apprehension of some of the delegates. Now, my colleague from Montgomery speaks of the meeting of the legislature in1906, and having a new code right away. That is impracticable. It takes after the act is passed through the General Assembly, a good active years work, and it is frequently extended to two years, and I know that under the last act of 1894 ‑ 1895, just after I had the honor of being installed as Governor, the duty devolved upon me to name a codifier, and I named, I am glad to say, a very efficient one, who did his work thoroughly, but though he worked faithfully. and had efficient assistants, it was only ready to be passed upon, and accepted by the next legislature. If we wait until 1906, and the legislature then passes an act, as it would under this substitute, why it would be later and it would take a special session of the legislature ‑ and with four years sessions, before the new code could go into operation and therefore I am inclined to think that the section had better remain as reported.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ Allow me to ask a question?

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Will the gentleman yield?

MR. OATES ‑ Certainly.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ Isn't there really more necessity for codification after the ratification of the present Constitution than there was after the ratification of the Constitution of 1875?

MR. OATES ‑ I don't think there is, but there may be necessity, it is true.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ Isn't it a fact we are making more changes in this Constitution than that made in the Constitution of 1875?

MR. OATES ‑ Yes. Greater number.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ And if a necessity existed then, I see no reason why the necessity is not greater now than it was then.

MR. OATES ‑ In view of the fact that it will take probably two years, or the better part of it, to complete the work after the act is passed. I think that delegates need not apprehend a two speedy production of the codification under this section as reported. and therefore I am inclined to think that it is better to report it, although I am not wedded to it, to any particular idea except to carry out the main one, which is that once in every twelve years, there shall be a codification of the statutes. It was thought by your Committee that with that simple amendment, striking out ten, and substituting twelve, that the object would be accomplished.

MR. O'NEAL ‑ I move to lay both the amendment and substitute on the table.


2615

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

THE PRESIDENT– The gentleman is not in order, the previous question has been ordered.

MR. HARRISON– I wish to ask the Chairman of the Committee one question.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Will the gentleman yield?

MR.  OATES– Certainly.

MR. HARRISON– You provide in this, at its first session after the ratification of this Constitution, will there be a session of the legislature just twelve years from then?

MR. OATES ‑ There certainly would not be if the Constitution stands as so far adopted.

MR. HARRISON– Then your proposition would not work.

MR. OATES– It would work very well in this way.  The legislature to be elected next year would make provision for the work to be done, and I presume as now, that the Governor would appoint a codifier, and he would go on with his work. It would take four years before it would be ratified, and promulgated, that would reach 1906, unless an extra session of the legislature was called, it would reach the very time that my colleague from Montgomery endeavors to effect, by postponing until 1906.

THE  PRESIDENT ‑ The question will be upon the adoption of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Montgomery for the gentleman from Montgomery for the section reported by the Committee and the pending amendments.

 A vote being taken the substitute was lost, and the question then recurred upon the amendment, and a vote being taken, it also was lost, and the question then recurring upon the section as reported by the Committee, the same was adopted.

            The Secretary read Section 45 as follows:

Sec. 45. The legislature shall pass such penal laws as they may deem expedient to suppress the evil practice of duelling.

MR. MURPHREE– I desire to offer an amendment.

The Secretary read the amendment as follows:

“Add at the end of the section, the words ‘and carrying concealed pistols.’

MR. MURPHREE– I do not propose to make a speech, but I hope the amendment will be adopted. All the delegates to this Convention know that the carrying of concealed pistols is a great evil, and gives to our courts more trouble than any other crime known to our land.


2616

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. CARMICHAEL (Colbert) ‑ I move to lay the amendment on the table.

A vote being taken, the amendment was tabled by a vote of 52 ayes and 21 noes, on a division.

The question then recurred on the Section as reported by the Committee, and a vote being taken the same was adopted.

The Secretary read Section 46 as follows,

Sec. 46. It shall be the duty of the Legislature to regulate by law the cases in which deduction shall be made from the salaries of public officers for neglect of duty in their official capacities, and the amount of such deduction.

MR. OATES ‑ I move the adoption of the Section.

A vote being taken the Section was adopted.

The Secretary read Section 47 as follows:

Sec. 47. It shall be the duty of the Legislature to require the several counties of this State to make adequate provision for the maintenance of the poor indigent idiots and insane persons.

MR. SAMFORD (Pike) ‑ I have an amendment I desire to offer, by striking out all after the word “poor’ in the second line of the Section.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question will be upon the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pike.

MR. SAMFORD ‑ The Section as amended, or as I offer to amend the Section, would leave it just as it is in the old Constitution, which would require the counties to make adequate provision for the poor of the county. As it is reported by the Committee, it has the effect to require the different counties in the State to make adequate provision for all the insane persons, whereas the burden is now borne by the State, and we have adequate provision. as I understand, for that at the insane hospital at Tuscaloosa.

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

THE PRESIDENT ‑ Will the gentleman consent to the interruption ?

MR. SAMFORD ‑ Yes sir.

MR. FOSTER ‑ I was going to ask the gentleman if it would not be well to amend his amendment by leaving it so that counties would be required to make provision for the care of idiots, they are not received in the hospital.

MR. SAMFORD ‑ I have no objection.


2617

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

MR. FOSTER – With that addition, I think the amendment is good.

MR. SAMFORD ‑ I will ask the gentleman to prepare an amendment to the amendment so it will have in the word “idiots.”

THE  PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman asks unanimous consent to add the word “idiots.”

MR. SAMFORD ‑ In order to get it in better shape, I will ask unanimous consent for the gentleman from Tuscaloosa to frame an amendment, while I am making my remarks that will meet that part of it.

MR. OATES ‑ The gentleman from Pike took the floor away from me before I had an opportunity of explaining the action of the Committee, which I intended to do, and intended to ask for the elimination from this proposition of insane and indigent idiots. There is no law, as I understand it, for them to be sent to the Lunatic Asylum, whereas, there is a law for the insane persons to be sent there, and indigent idiots should be provided for in the counties as well as poor people.

MR. SAMFORD ‑ Indigent Idiots?

MR. OATES– And indigent idiots, by striking out insane persons.

MR. SAMFORD ‑ I will ask unanimous consent to introduce this amendment : “It shall be the duty of the Legislature to require the several counties in this State to make adequate provision for the maintenance of the poor and indigent idiots?

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

MR. SAMFORD ‑ Yes.

MR. DUKE ‑ What is the necessity of putting in the Section “indigent idiots?”  Does not poor cover idiots as well as insane persons?

MR. SAMFORD ‑ Poor does not cover it. I have known some people who were poor and not idiots. (Laughter.)

MR. DUKE ‑ Perhaps so, but I will ask the gentleman if an indigent idiot is not a poor person?

MR. SAMFORD ‑ Yes sir, I think so.

MR. DUKE ‑ Would not poor cover indigent idiots?

MR. SAMFORD ‑ The word poor is a relative term, as I understand it, and it has not the same meaning or the same effect as the word indigent.

MR. DUKE ‑ Would it not cover the word indigent?


2618

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. SAMFORD ‑ I don't think it would, and if it did, I don't see the objection to having both in there.

MR. DUKE ‑ Don't you think poor would cover indigent?

MR. SAMFORD ‑ I think an indigent person is poor ordinarily.

MR. HARRISON ‑ I will ask the gentleman from Pike if his amendment would include any person except poor and indigent persons?

MR. SAMFORD ‑ Yes, I think it would.

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

MR. OATES ‑ The question propounded by the delegate from Chambers is easily answered. The poor are spoken of in this Section meaning the poor people of the county who have to be provided for by the county. That is well understood in our laws, and practice now. There are idiots in the State who are not indigent, or who have property in the hands of guardians, etc., and could not be considered indigent, but where an idiot is indigent, and has no property, that is the class intended to be provided for.

MR. DUKE ‑ I will ask the gentleman if that word idiot would not be provided for under the Section that says the poor shall be provided for?

MR. OATES ‑ My answer to that is, that they have not been, and, furthermore, I am informed that a good many idiots have been sent to the insane asylum where there is no law for it, and they ought to be provided for by the county.

MR. DUKE ‑ Isn't it your construction of the law that they ought to be provided for, where it says the poor, and that would. under the law, include indigent idiots?

MR. OATES ‑ It is susceptible of such construction, but it has not received it, and it makes clear the intention of the Constitution, when we make use of the words “Poor and indigent idiots.”

MR. O'NEAL– I desire to offer a substitute.

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The Chair has already recognized the gentleman from Lee.

MR. HARRISON ‑ If I understand the intent of the committee, and that clause, wouldn't it be better expressed so as to have it read for the maintenance of the poor and idiots who are indigent.

MR. OATES ‑ It means the same thing, putting in that word afterwards and I am pleased to say in this connection, in justice


2619

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

to the committee, the way it came to be reported as it is, “insane persons,”  was a knowledge upon the part of some of the delegates composing that committee that insane persons were sometimes incarcerated in a jail, and during the delay, incident to obtaining the proper papers, sent them to the lunatic asylum for they intended to provide for, but it seems to me that if idiots of the indigent character, are provided for as well as the poor, that it sufficiently meets the evil now. It will largely relieve, as I am informed, the lunatic asylum of these people, who are sent there as idiots, and give more room: for insane, requiring the counties to provide for indigent idiots.

MR. FOSTER ‑ I was going to suggest that the suggestion I made in line with the amendment of the gentleman from Pike, was that it provide for the poor, and also for idiots without regard to whether indigent or not.

MR. OATES ‑ I do not understand.

MR. FOSTER ‑ To provide for the poor, and also idiots without regard to whether they are indigent or not.

MR. OATES ‑ That would be objectionable.

MR. FOSTER ‑ The reason is that there might be a class of persons who are not indigent, but the care of an idiot member of a family is a great burden, and tends to produce pauperism among them. There is no provision as the gentleman stated, for the care of idiots in the Insane Hospitals. Now, there will be ample provision as the gentleman stated, for the care of idiots in the Insane Hospital. Now, there will be ample provision for the insane, just as soon as the property at Mount Vernon is put in shape to receive patients, there will be no trouble, but under the law, the hospital cannot take idiots although there is always applications for them. The point I make is this, that the county ought to provide the place where the idiots can be taken care of. You take a family of ordinary circumstances, the care of an idiot member of a family is a very great burden to them, and just as insane are received in a hospital, there ought to be some provision for the idiots, and that was the reason I made the suggestion to the gentleman from Pike.

MR. OATES ‑ I do not know just how the amendment reads, but I think that this should be made to read “the poor and indigent idiots,” and striking out “and insane persons.”

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

MR. O'NEAL (Lauderdale) ‑ I offer a substitute for the amendment.

The Clerk read the substitute as follows:


2620

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

“It shall be the duty of the Legislature to require the several counties of the State to make adequate provision for the maintenance of poor and indigent idiots.  The Legislature shall also make adequate provision for the care and maintenance by the State of insane persons.

MR. O'NEAL– My reason for doing that was the information that I had that in almost every jail in the State insane persons are confined on account of the fact that accommodations cannot be secured at the asylum.  If that is true, the State ought to be required to make ample provision for all insane persons.

MR. OATES– It is doing the proceedings to secure an order to have them admitted into the asylum that they have been incarcerated in the jails.  The asylum, however, is the proper place for them, and the laws provide for that now, but I am informed there are a good many idiots there who, as soon as the Legislature could act under this provision would require the counties to provided for the maintenance and the care of indigent idiots as well as of the poor.  I suppose they would be transferred from the Insane Hospital to the counties.

MR. O'NEAL– Will the gentleman call my attention to the section which provides for the maintenance of insane by the State?

MR. OATES ‑ It is in every piece of legislation touching the Bryce Insane Hospital.

MR. O'NEAL– It is in the code, but not in the Constitution.

MR. OATES ‑ You don't want to put it in the Constitution any further than that.  I have no objection, however, if the Convention sees proper to put it in.

MR. SMITH (Mobile) ‑ As I understand it, there is no ample provision for taking care of the insane at the Insane Asylum. As I understand it. When an application is made to the asylum, they are admitted whenever there is accommodation for them  and they are admitted in a certain order and it very frequently occurs that there is no accommodation and that an insane patient is not received, and they must be either taken care of by the county or by their families for very considerable period of time.  I know as a fact that there are quite a number of insane patients today in the poorhouse of the county of Mobile, and have been there for a very considerable period.   I do not remember any period when there were not quite a number of insane patients in the poor house, being cared for in our county, and in each and every instance application has been made for admittance of those patients into the asylum and they have failed of admittance.

It seems to me that there ought to be some provision requiring the counties under some limitation to take care of these people.


2621

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Now, there are in addition to these in the poor house some few insane person, palpably so, anyone meeting them can see it, who are not confined in the poor house or the asylum and I suppose the same conditions prevail elsewhere, it is certainly so in our county and it looks to me that there should be provision to remedy it.  I suppose sometimes they could be forced upon the asylum, but as a matter of fact they are very frequently declined.

Mr. Lomax here took the Chair.

MR. O’NEAL– The purpose of my substitute was to require the counties to take care of the poor, and of indigent idiots, but to require the State to make provision for the care and maintenance of insane persons.  It would then be the duty of the Legislature to provide that, pending admission into the asylum at Tuscaloosa, the State should provide for the care and maintenance of insane persons, but the duty of the county, under this substitute, is confined to the maintenance of the poor of the county and of indigent idiots. I think the State itself ought to care for the insane.  The burden ought not to be imposed upon counties to keep insane people in the county jail at the expense of the county.

MR. OATES ‑ I have not prepared any amendment, but your amendment  goes to the extent of authorizing, the Legislature or requiring them to make provision for the care of indigent idiots at the State Asylum. If it required an additional building and the Legislature  would leave the power to require the parents of such, or the guardians, wherever they owned any property, to pay for it, some provision of that kind, I think a very humane one.

MR. O’NEAL– My amendment followed the Section as offered by you to require the county to provide for poor and indigent idiots.  Is it your idea now that the State should care for idiots in each county that are indigent?

MR. OATES– No, the county.

MR. O’NEAL– Well, that is the substitute that I offered, but I go farther than vote by providing that the State shall take care of all insane people, whether before their admission to the asylum or after their admission. As the gentleman from Mobile has correctly stated nearly every jail in this State has indigent insane people who are poor who are kept there because there is no room in the asylum for them, and I think it the duty of the State to build additional accommodations if necessary.

MR. OATES – The provision make by the last Legislature converting, Mount Vernon into an insane hospital for the negro insane will give much more room, I am told, and greatly relieve the pressure upon the asylum, but what the Committee wanted to do was to relieve the State of the temporary care of the insane, if that could be provided for by requiring the counties to do it.


2622

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. O’NEAL– I think the State ought to do it even temporarily.

MR. FOSTER– I want to ask this question, if indigent idiots would not come within the class of poor without stating indigent?

MR. O'NEAL ‑ I don't think they would, because every county has a poor house for the poor and needy, but it doesn't follow, as the gentleman from Pike stated, that every poor man is an idiot.

MR. FOSTER– But it follows in most cases that every idiot is poor and indigent.

MR. ASHCRAFT– The amendment offered by the gentleman from Lauderdale to the Section as reported by the Committee, would require the State of Alabama to care for insane persons evidently at the expense of the State, no matter what estate those insane persons might possess.  The Section as reported by the Committee provides that it shall be the duty of the Legislature to require the several counties of this State to make adequate provision for the maintenance fo poor and insane persons. It does not say “temporarily;” it does not say “for one year;” it does not say for “poor insane persons,” it says the county shall be required to make adequate provision for the maintenance of insane persons, and I am quite sure we don’t want to impose any such burden as that upon the counties.  Now, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lauderdale provides that the State shall make adequate provision for the maintenance of insane persons.  It does not say that the State shall require insane persons to have property to contribute to the expenses of their maintenance at all, and I am quite sure this Convention does not want to adopt either of these provisions, and I think the amendment offered originally by the gentleman from Pike, striking out the words “indigent idiots and insane persons” is the thing we ought to adopt.  It leaves it clear, and the Legislature will still have authority to provide for insane persons under such rules and regulations as it may from time to time think respond to the demands that humanity made upon the State of Alabama.

MR. COLEMAN (Greene)– I prefer the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pike to any amendment that has been suggested.  It seems to me, however , that we should keep the Legislature in full authority over this question so far as it is limited by the Constitution.  If any gentleman will consult his Code lying before him, Sections 2549 and 2550 he will see that there have been regular provisions made not only for the insane, but for idiots also, and the order in which they shall be received.  Now, it seems to me, if you insert a provision here imposing the duty upon the county, you will relieve the authorities at Tuscaloosa, Mr. Vernon, or elsewhere, from a great deal of the duty imposed upon them by the law already, and which they ought to bear. When we leave the


2623

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

organic law and enter the domain of legislation, we should be very careful. I am sure if you will consult the sections to which I have referred, you will see that the whole question has been covered, and the only reasons why the insane persons are not received is because of want of provision or appropriation already made. At this time, with the additional provision which the State would enjoy at Mt. Vernon, there is no necessity, and it would be a manifest injustice. as pointed out by the gentleman who last addressed you, to impose this burden upon the counties, when we are making large appropriations every year for the protection of this class of people by the asylum at Tuscaloosa and Mt. Vernon. I have been requested to read Section 2550.

     Section 2550: In order of admission into the hospital, when its means of accommodation are crowded, preference shall be given the recent curable cases over chronic or incurable. Among those to whom preference shall be last given, shall be idiots, or any who have been imbecile and weak ‑ minded from childhood; to those who are subject to epileptic convulsions; and to those who temporary insanity is produced by the injurious use of alcoholic drinks car opiates.

     I, therefore, move to lay the aniendinent offered by the gentleman from in Lauderdale on the table.

     MR. FOSTER ‑ Will the gentleman withdraw his motion for a moment?

     MR. COLEMAN ‑ Yes, sir.

      MR. FOSTER‑-It is true, as the gentleman from Greene has said, that that section does make provision for the acceptance into the insane hospitals of idiots, but practically it is of no value. There are at present about 1,600 patients in the Alabama Hospital. The superintendent of the hospital estimates that there are over 3,000 persons in the State of Alabama who ought to be cared for either as insane or idiots. It is true that it is a mere matter of appropriation ‑ a mere matter of providing means for taking these people in, but the means now provided do not admit of taking all those people who ought to be under the care of experts in that line of business into the Alabama hospital as the law now is.

     MR. SOLLIE- ‑ Is it not a fact that the Legislature now has ample authority to deal with the proposition and to make all necessary provisions ?

     MR. FOSTER ‑ I think that is unquestionable.

     MR. SOLLIE- ‑ Have they been so derelict in their duty as to make it necessary for us to go aside in the Constitution to direct their actions in the matter ?


2624                                

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. FOSTER ‑ My view of these mandatory provisions as to legislation is this: That if the framers of the Constitution think it is so important, they ought to make it incumbent upon the Legislature ‑ make it their duty to provide for this: then it is for the Legislature, and, so far as I am concerned I do not care whether that provision is here or not. I think the Legislature will always take care of these people to the best of their ability, but when we attempted to put the provision in there in its present shape, I was opposed to it, because I did not want to see a road house established in each count), in this State, without the means of caring for them. That would create in a few years the greatest scandal the State of Alabama has ever heard. I believe if the true history of the poor houses of this State was made public today, that the facts would shock the State of Alabama from one end to the other. I do not believe in counties caring for any class except the poor, and I think there ought to be a State officer ‑ not a county officer, but a State officer ‑ whose duty it would be to go around and inspect these poor houses. My objection to that section was that it would be an attempt to establish road houses in each county, but I am willing to see the whole thing stricken out and leave it with the Legislature.

    MR. OATES The statute provides for idiots as well as insane. I had not examined it and I was under the impression it did not and I am very willing to see the addition proposed by the committee stricken out.

     A vote being taken upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Lauderdale, the same was lost.

     MR. LONG (Walker) ‑ I have a substitute.

     The substitute was read as follows: "Amend Section 47 by striking out all the words after the word `poor' in the second line."

     MR. LONG (Walker) ‑ That leaves the section just exactly as it was in the old Constitution, under Section 49, and I think that is far enough to go. I think it is a good compromise to leave it like it is in the old Constitution.

     MR. OATES ‑ That is acceptable.

     Upon a vote being taken, the substitute of the gentleman from Walker was adopted, and by a further vote the amendment as amended by the substitute was adopted. A vote being taken, the section as amended was thereupon adopted.

      Section 48 was read as follows:

      Sec. 48. The Legislature shall not have power to authorize any municipal corporations to pass any laws inconsisent with the general laws of this State.

      MR. OATES ‑ I move its adoption.


             2625

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

    MR. WATTS – I would like to ask the chairman of the committee a question. Does this language as used here prevent the Legislature from granting municipalities the right to pass laws for the local government of such municipalities?

      MR. OATES ‑ It is just as it has been in the Constitution of 1875 ‑ all the time.

     MR. OATES ‑ I  understand that.

     MR. OATES ‑ It certainly would not, then. It has never been so construed.

     MR. WATTS ‑ But we have passed a lot of provisions in reference to local legislation, and I call attention to that and ask whether or not it will interfere with those provisions.

      MR. OATES ‑ I do not think there would be and conflict. I move the adoption of the section.

      And upon a vote being taken the section was adopted.

      Section 49 was read as follows:

      Sec. 49. In the event of annexation of any foreign territory to this State the Legislature shall enact laws extending to the inhabitants of the acquired territory, all the rights and privileges which may be required by the terms of the acquisition, anything in this Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding.

      MR. JONES (Wilcox) ‑ I have an amendment.

      The amendment was read as follows:

      Amend Section 48 by striking out in lines three and four "anything in this Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding" and add "should the State purchase such foreign territory, the legislature, with the approval of the Governor, shall be authorized to expend any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, and if necessary to provide also for the issuance of State bonds to pay for the purchase of said foreign territory. anything in this Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding."

     MR. JONES (Wilcox) ‑ The last legislature passed an act in reference to the annexation of West Florida to the State of Alabama.

      I examined the Constitution of 1875, and I saw that there was no provision made in that Constitution for the payment for any territory that might be annexed to the State of Alabama. I found the identical provision that appears in the report of the Committee in all the Constitutions of this State, 1819, '61, '56, '68 and 1873, but in none of those Constitutions is there anything said about how such territory shall be paid for if annexed.


2626

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

      Now I offered an ordinance about ten or twelve days ago in reference to this matter, and the Committee on Legislation did not succeed in getting a quorum, and this amendment is offered at the instance of the members of the Committee who were present and at the suggestion of the Chairman, so that if we find it possible, which is very remote to annex territory to the State of Alabama during the existence of the Constitution which we are now framing, that the legislature will have the right to provide for the payment of the foreign territory that may be annexed. It is for that purpose that I offer the amendment.

      MR. OATES ‑ There is a remote probability I will say, of the annexation of West Florida to the State of Alabama, I do not think that there is any very great probability of it at an early date, but in the event that it should be done, this provision may be quite necessary and if such annexation is not accomplished the provision will hurt nothing. It is harmless, and therefore it seems to me that the amendment ought to be adopted. It is quite true that the ordinance was referred to the Committee on Legislative Department, but not succeeding in getting a quorum the delegate from Wilcox was informed of that fact and advised he had better present it as an amendment in the shape in which it is now presented. Unless some gentleman desires to discuss it further, I move the previous question on the adoption of the section and amendment.

    MR. SMITH (Mobile) ‑ I would like to ask the gentleman‑--

    THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ Does the gentleman yield ?

     MR. OATES- ‑ Yes, sir.

     MR. SMITH (Mobile) ‑ What is your construction of the provision as to rights and privileges? Is it not intended to extend to citizens brought in by annexation, privileges and rights different from those which other citizens of Alabama enjoy?

     MR. OATES ‑ I think not. I think it is intended to extend to them any rights they may have under the law as it existed when citizens of another State, but all of that would be adjustable by the legislature. It is intended to authorize the protection of the inhabitants of such acquired territory in all the rights and privileges which they have in respect to contracts and otherwise, while in another State and under the laws of that State.

     MR. SMITH (Mobile) ‑ It seems to me that under the Federal Constitution, as well as under the provisions of our own Constitution all of the contract and property rights of those who may become citizens of Alabama by annexation of territory, are fully and entirely preserved. I do not know what authority the legislature would have to annex territory to the State of Alabama and stipu‑


                   2627

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

late for any special right or special privileges to the citizens brought in by annexation,

      MR. COLEMAN (Greene) ‑ I would like to ask the gentleman whether in his opinion, in the event Alabama acquires territory, the Constitution of the State follows the flag?

       MR. SMITH (Mobile) ‑ I am not as familiar with the flag of the State, and do not know where the flag of the State may go, but I believe the constitutional provisions of the State of Alabama would apply to anybody who became a citizen of the State of Alabama, whether by annexation or otherwise.

      Now, Mr. President, as I was saying, this provision, it seems to me, authorizes the legislature to acquire territory and stipulate in that acquisition for rights and privileges that are forbidden to the citizens of Alabama by this Constitution. It expressly provides that the legislature "shall extend to the inhabitants of the acquired territory all the rights and privileges which may he required by the terms of the acquisition, anything in this Constitution. to the contrary notwithstanding." Now, I do not know what the purpose of that is, but it is certainly broad enough to justify the legislature in stipulating in the articles of acquisition that persons may have superior rights and privileges, and different from other citizens of this State. That seems to me to he the effect of it, and unless there is some other explanation of it that can be made, and maintained I shall he opposed to it. I am opposed to putting any class of citizenship upon a different basis and to be governed by a different law and different Constitution from the balance of the citizens of the State.

     MR. OATES ‑ I should think that is intended to maintain rights and privileges which are in the nature of vested rights. Of course if they become citizens of Alabama, they would have to conform to the laws of Alabama, and they would not have any extra rights or privileges extended to them. It would be only such as they had up to the time of the acquisition just like any other law that is declared not to be retroactive. It is for the preservation of the rights and privileges they had up to the time of the acquisition. I do not see anything in conflict, and this section is in the present Constitution, and was adopted no doubt in view of the same thing that is now spoken of, the probable acquisition of West Florida. It was deemed by that Convention to be sufficiently broad, and not to present the difficulty referred to, and I cannot see that it does now. The inquiry of the delegate from Mobile is not positively asserted, but he is rather speculative in his argument. He says nothing against the amendment offered by the delegate from Wilcox, and I move the previous question on the section and amendment.


2628                      OFFICIAL  PROCEEDINGS

     I will withdraw that for a moment, for the gentleman from Barbour.

     MR. DENT-- ‑ It seems to me there is something in the criticism made by the gentleman from Mobile, and I propose to strike out the latter part of the Section the following words: "Anything in this Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding" and add the following in their place: "Not inconsistent with this Constitution."

      THE PRESIDENT – The gentleman from Barbour will please send up the amendment.

      The Secretary read the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Dent: "Strike out all the words in this Section after the word "acquisition," and add the following: ‘Not inconsistent with the Constitution.’”

     MR. SOLLIE (Dale) ‑ Mr. President, I think. too, there is a great deal in the suggestion of the gentleman front Mobile, and that in the language to which he objects there is the possibility of a condition arising which might lead to considerable difficulty.

     MR. OATES ‑ Will the gentleman allow an interruption?

      THE PRESIDENT ‑ Does the gentleman consent to be interrupted ?

      MR. SOLLIE ‑ Yes sir.

      MR. OATES ‑ The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wilcox strikes out these words of the Section as reported, and adds them at the end, and I presume that the amendment offered here will strike them out at the end and insert the words suggested at the end of the amendment.

     THE PRESIDENT ‑ At the end of the amendment of the gentleman from Wilcox?

      MR. OATES ‑ Yes sir.

      MR. SOLLIE, ‑ And in either case, Mr. President, it still occurs to me that now is a good time to cure the defect and avoid any possible difficulty which might arise under the Section as it stands in the present Constitution. and is proposed in the one we are making. While it is true that any arrangement which might be made between Alabama and any other State in ceding to us territory by which some of the citizens would enjoy any civil rights not enjoyed by all the other citizens of the state would be unconstitutional and void under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which specifically protects all the privileges and immunities of the citizens and secures to them the equal benefits of the laws, we are acting here in several matters upon the assumption that the political rights of citizens are not thus secured and


             2629

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

protected by the Federal Constitution, and it is my opinion that they are not. And, if not, it is possible, and might come about that in the great eagerness to acquire new territory in some cases the Legislature would enter into arrangement in its acquisition by which the equal political rights of all the people would be overlooked and special privileges given. I admit that it is not probable that such would be the case; but it might happen. Political rights might be claimed and all attempt made to preserve them to persons coming in with new territory, as a part of the arrangement by which the territory would be ceded, which all the other people would not have, and which would be very objectionable and hurtful to us as a people. I admit that it is not very probable; but if there is no probability whatever of it, if there is no danger of it, and it cannot arise, or if it could not be lawfully done, and there can be no political privileges enjoyed by a portion of our people which all the others do not enjoy, and if such an attempt in practice or such a provision in our Constitution would be unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution then we are remitted to the other proposition that there is no need or use for the provision leaving the suggestion open to invite action. Being a thing which cannot be done it simply cumbers our Constitution and should be stricken from it. Let's strike it from it and not leave to our Legislature an invitation to attempt to do something which under the Federal Constitution they cannot do, and not seem to make way for the conferring on any part of the people any privileges or immunities of any kind which all the others do not enjoy.

     It occurs to me that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Barbour is timely and good, and will take from the Constitution as it now stands a provision which is very useless, because it cannot be executed, or, if it can he executed, might become harmful and hurtful. I, therefore, support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Barbour.

     MR. OATES ‑ I now move the previous question on the section and the amendment.

      The main question was ordered.

      MR. SANFORD (Montgomery) ‑ I call for the reading of the amendment.

      The Secretary read the amendment as follows: "Strike out the amendment submitted by the delegate from Wilcox the word ‘anything in this Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding' and add the following : `Not inconsistent with this Constitution.,’ "

     Upon a vote being taken the amendment was adopted.

      The question recurring upon the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wilcox, as amended, the same was adopted.


2630             

 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     The question recurred upon the adoption of the section as amended.

      MR. SANDERS (Limestone) ‑ I ask that the section be read as amended.

     The Secretary read Section 49 as amended as follows: “In the event of annexation of any foreign territory to this State the legislature shall enact laws extending to) the inhabitants of the acquired. territory, all the rights and privileges may be re- quired by the terms of acquisition not  inconsistent with this Con- stitution. Should the State purchase ,such foreign territory, the legislature, with the approval of the Governor shall be authorized to expend any money in the treasury not Otherwise appropriated, and if necessary, to provide also for the issuance of State bonds to pay for the purchase of such foreign territory  anything in this Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding.”

      A vote being taken, the section as amended was adopted.

      Section 50 was read as follows:

      Sec. 50. The legislature shall not tax the property, real or personal, of the State, counties or other municipal corporations, or cemeteries ; nor lots in incorporated cities or towns, or within one mile of any city or town to the extent of one acre, nor lots one mile or more distant from such cities or towns to the extent of five acres, with the buildings thereon, when the same are used exclusively for religious worship, for public schools or for purposes purely charitable.

      MR. WATTS – I offer an amendment to Section 50.  "Strike out all after 'cemeteries' in the second line."

     THE PRESIDENT- ‑ The question is upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montgomery to Section 50.

      MR. WATTS ‑ The object of the amendment is because in the taxation report, there is a provision the as contained in the old Constitution: "Provided this section shall not apply to institutions or enterprise, devoted exclusively to religious, educational or charitable purposes, and  the provision I propose to strike out seems to be inconsistent with our former action, and therefore I move to strike the words out of this section. It seems to be inconsistent with our former action.

     MR. OATES ‑ This section is reported by your Committee just as it exists in the present Constitution with one exception. The exemptions from taxation are of certain institutions, fair grounds, fair associations and property used for private schools, stricken out of this section and otherwise reported as it stands in the present Constitution. They are stricken out so that the legislature may deal with them and subject them to taxation as it sees


   2631

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

proper. I think, sir, this section as reported, is right and the amendment offered by my colleague, to strike all of the latter part, because he thinks that it has been provided for in some other section, I do not thing it necessary.  If  there should be a conflict between them, that is reconcilable hereafter, we have a Committee to pass on such natters and I hole, therefore, that the amendment will be voted down. I  move  the previous question on the section and the amendment.

     The main question was ordered and upon a vote being taken, the amendment offered lay the gentleman from Montgomery was lost, and the section as reported by the Committee was adopted.

     The Secretary read Section 51 as follows:

     Sec. 51. The legislature shall, by law, prescribe such rules and regulations as may he necessary to ascertain the value of personal and real property, exempted from sale under legal process by this Constitution, and to secure the same to the claimant thereof as selected.

    MR. OATES ‑ That is the same as in the present Constitution, and I move its adoption.

    Upon a vote being taken, the section was adopted.

     The Secretary read Section 52 as follows:

     Sec. 52. The State may construct and own works of internal improvement, having for their object the conveyance or transportation of passengers and freight, but shall not sell or mortgage such improvement, nor lend its money or credit in aid of such; nor shall the State be interested in any private or corporate enterprise, or lend money or its credit to any individual, association or corporation,

     MR. HANDLEY (Randolph) ‑ I have a substitute for this Section 52. "The State of Alabama shall not enrage in internal improvements nor be interested in any private or corporate enterprise, nor lend its money or credit to any individual. association or corporation.

     THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question is upon the adoption of the substitute offered by the gentleman froth Randolph.

     MR. HANDLEY ‑ Mr. President and gentleman of the Convention. I regard this section the most dangerous; section that I have met during this Convention. What do we propose to do in this section? We propose to go into internal improvements, and that means, sir, to build street railways. to construct narrowgauge railways, to construct, erect and build standard gauge railways, steamboats, clean out rivers, navigate rivers, build canals, and a whole lot of internal improvements that I think are unwise. I have


2632

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

been thinking over the matter, and I do not see how this Constitution can afford to spend the people's money by going into internal improvements ‑ a subject that has been laid upon the table for fifty years. Now, Mr. President, we have it grand State, and to have a section in this clew Constitution  to build public works, and to go into internal improvements, will he it great mistake, in my opinion. We do not need ‑ the State of Alabama does not need, to go into any business. We have been in business a few times, during her existence, and we always lost money. Now, Mr.. President, suppose that we go into this business and spend the taxes collected from the people, to build these various enterprises in Alabama, and to have it in their Constitution that will perhaps stand for twenty ‑ five or fifty years, or perhaps a hundred years. Why, sir, it would be it very dangerous enterprise for the State of Alabama to go into. I trust this Convention will not undertake this job. It is the most objectionable section that I have met during our session here. What we need is to collect enough from the people to defray the expenses of this government, and I want to do that, and if necessary have a hundred thousand dollars in the treasury in case of emergency,. but to collect any more money from the people of A1abama is unnecessary and undemocratic .I trust this Convention will consider this matter. Now, sir, we have a  grand State that is divided into three subdivisions, you might say ‑ the lumber region, the agricultural region and the mineral region. But it few years ago lumber was down to five or six dollars it thousand ; today it is worth from nine to twelve dollars a thousand. The State is prosperous, the agricultural region is prosperous, and the mineral region is prosperous, but at no time is it necessary  for this Constitution to have a section in it for the State of Alabama to go into internal improvements. Now, that means a great deal.

     Internal improvements, public works. To belong to the State of Alabama? Why solve wise men, some great men, some enterprising citizens might say that we will turn the Tennessee River through Alabama, that we will build a canal that will bring it by Birmingham and by Montgomery and put it into our rivers here and carry it on to Mobile, and I will tell you, Mr. President, it would be a grand enterprise, and would have a great many friends in Birmingham, Montgomery and Mobile and all along the route, and you might destroy the credit of the State by going into some of these grand enterprises, which has been done. Alabama loaned her credit a few years ago and she came out minus by many millions of dollars, and she opened the State treasury was  back yonder, and went into the banking business and came out minus agian, and I tell you, it is bad policy. it is bad judgment for this Convention to insert a clause in the Constitution of the State of Alabama that the State officers may go into internal improvements.


2633

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

The question, sir, was settled in Henry Clay's day and time. Now, sir, I have been somewhat enterprising myself, and I have struck a great many enterprises that did not pay worth a cent, and I tell you it is dangerous for the State of Alabama to undertake a thing of this sort, and I trust that my amendment, where it says the State of Alabama shall not go into any of these enterprises, will be adopted, and that she shall not loan her credit, nor open the vaults of her treasury to anybody. She has enough business to attend to in looking after her own interests, and hence it is dangerous ‑ it is wild cat ‑ to go into business of this character by this State. Why, it a very dangerous thing, in my opinion, and hence I trust this section will not be adopted. I have never been able to find out who the author was. (Laughter).

MR. SANFORD (Montgomery)– I am the author of it.

MR. HANDLEY ‑ And you want to go into internal improvements.

MR. SANFORD ‑ I do.

MR. HANDLEY ‑ Why, that is a question passed years ago, and it is a thing that Alabama will never do, in my opinion, establish public works and improvements, by the State; spend the people's money to build canals and to build railroads, and to build furnaces. Why, I would not be surprised if you should go on into the milling business, and into the furnace business, and into the cotton mill business, and bore for oil. (Great laughter).

It is a dangerous precedent. Let individuals do all this sort of work. Keep your State clean and let her have a credit that is unimpeachable by anybody. That is my doctrine, and I think it is the doctrine of the Democratic party, that we leave out internal improvements by this State. It was set aside fifty years ago, in a national election for President, and I trust that my distinguished friend will not urge this matter, and if it is urged, I trust the Convention will vote it down.

MR. SANFORD ‑ When I introduced that section, I had in my memory the great works and internal improvements in other States, that have been of great benefit to the people. My long time and much esteemed friend from Randolph was entirely mistaken in his history. Alabama never entered into a scheme of internal improvements since it was a State of this Union. It did indorse bonds under the radical rule and administration, which did plunge it into large indebtedness ‑ thirty millions of dollars, nearly– but no where in the United States has any party ever said that a State could not go make internal improvements. My friend says it was settled in the days of Henry Clay. He is entirely mistaken. The question did arise in the general parties of America, but it was internal improvements by the general government, to which I am


2634                         

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

most strenuously opposed, and to which the people of America have been opposed, except in making navigable streams more navigable by removing obstructions. It is opposed to canals being constructed by the general government, but I never heard of the people of a State being against the construction of canals by itself. Who does not remember the famous canal in New York, built by one of the Clintons, to develop the State, so as to make it the empire ‑ common wealth of the Union, and decrease the taxes of the people by the income derived from it? No man except inv friend from Randolph ever thought internal improvements would mean a steamboat or an ox cart. No man ever thought it meant mines, because Alabama owns no mines. It owns nothing except this square upon which this Capitol is built, and the asylum and one or two elymosynary establishments. It owns no mines, no marble quarries, nor granite ledges nor coal measures, nor iron fields nor furnaces. It would be absolutely absurd for such a construction of the proposition to be made. But that it should have the right of constructing roads, within its own dominion, is another question. As I have just mentioned, the Erie Canal of New York State ‑ that glorified that State, and placed it in advance of all in this confederation. Look at Georgia with 138 miles of Western and Atlantic Road running from Atlanta to Chattanooga, that for years and years contributed to the support of the State of Georgia by its income ‑ one of the most prosperous States in all of this Southern country-----

     THE PRESIDENT ‑ Will the gentleman please suspend for a moment?

    MR. SANFORD ‑ Certainly.

    THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman from Montgomery will be entitled to the floor on the afternoon session. He has consumed one ‑ half of his time.

     Leaves of absence were granted as follows: Mr. Kirk of Colbert ; Mr. Searcy for today; Mr. Stoddard for today.

    The Convention adjourned until 3:30 p. m.                                           

 ___________                                                                 

AFTERNOON  SESSION.

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

     MR. HANDLEY ‑ I rise for the purpose of offering a substitute for my substitute, which is the wording of the old Constitution, and I have left out a few words in my other substitute.

    The Secretary read the substitute as follows:


                        2635

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     "The State shall not engage in works of internal improvement nor lend money nor its credit in aid of such, nor shall the State be interested in any, private or corporate enterprise or lend money to any individual, association or corporation."

     THE PRESIDENT ‑ The gentleman asks unanimous consent to amend his substitute. Is there objection? The Chair hears one. It is so ordered.

     MR. HARRISON ‑ Before proceeding with the regular order, I desire unanimous consent of the Convention for the Committee on Corporations to sit during the afternoon session.

     Consent was given.

    MR. BROOKS ‑ I wish to move to reconsider the vote by which Section 47 was passed. Let it go over until tomorrow morning.

    THE PRESIDENT ‑ The special order for this afternoon is consideration of the report of the Legislative Department.

    MR. SANFORD (Montgomery) ‑ Mr. President, when I announced that I had prepared an ordinance containing the substance of this and more besides, my estimable friend from Randolph was very much shocked. He knew that I was, if I had any distinction, a thorough ‑ going States rights man, an Arab of the Arabs on this subject. and be therefore could not understand how I should favor internal improvements. The error was in my friend's confusion of the two systems. One is by the general government and the other is by the States. I am utterly opposed to internal improvements by the Federal, and I am just as earnestly in favor of it by the State Government. If my friend will take the pains to read Monroe's veto message upon the Cumberland Road in 1822, he will see the two systems of internal improvement thoroughly discussed; he will see why the general government has no power to make improvements in the State, and why the State has that power. To go forward. Mr. President, with this argument. I  was about saying that the benefit to the people of Alabama will be almost incalculable. I had called attention to the great benefits of the Erie Canal to the people of New York, and suggested the number of towns that had come out of the woods and stood by its banks, full of enterprise, intelligence and thrift and prosperity. Now, Mr. President, the same remarks would apply to the State of Georgia. Many years ago Georgia built a road known as the Western and Atlantic Road, a distance of 138 miles from Atlanta towards Chattanooga in Tennessee. For many years it paid a very large part of the expenses of the State Government of Georgia, and even in 1899 its income was $582,732.33, clear of all expenses, that is quite onefourth of the income which Alabama derived from its taxes. Such a road as that would greatly relieve the people of Alabama from


2636       

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

burdens. Has she not persons convicted of crime? We have today 1,763 convicts. Why could they not be so employed ?  If the great corporations of Alabama can hire them at an average of $9 per month, feed, clothe, shelter, guard them and give medical attendance and still make it profitable, could not Alabama do the same thing when it has no hire to pay, which would amount to one hundred and eighty odd thousand dollars; and if that is so, why not employ them in works of internal improvement.  The treatment of them would be more humane.  From time to time reports of your examiners show the utmost cruelty in some prison camps where they are hired, that might be compared to Siberia.  Mr. President, were this system to be adopted, the camps in Alabama would be as clean as an icicle as compared to those prison camps, and as innocent and harmless as a dove cots.  To adopt this policy is a matter of humanity, and see the advantage of it.  For instance, you employ them for the construction of a railroad running north from this point to Chattanooga on the eastern bank of the Coosa River, which runs through a country of great fertility, of marvelous variety of productions, both vegetable and mineral.  It is estimated that 100,000,000 feet of longleaf pine could be supplied for 100 years, annually, and not exhaust the forests.  It would open mines of coal, iron, limestone, marble and all the other products that contribute to the wealth of a state.  You would find little towns growing along its line as it rushed from here northward just as you have seen foam balls lodge by the side of rapid flowing streams.  They would be full of intelligence and thrift, and of every kind of useful employment.  What objection can be made to it?  Let me revert to the fact that Alabama has no property expect this square, where the State House rests, and some eleemosynary institutions.  It holds property as a trustee, and what would prevent it then, paying so much royalty to the University of Alabama, for its coal mines, and after it paid 5 or 10 cents or whatever the Legislature might have determined upon, for digging coal to put the residue, after the royalty was paid, into the Treasury of the State, and thereby relieve the people of Alabama of taxes.

     THE PRESIDENT – The time of the gentleman has expired.

      MR. SANFORD – I thought I had half an hour from the beginning, expecting on an amendment.  I am not speaking on the amendment, but on the article itself.  I offered no amendment.       THE PRESIDENTS – There is an amendment pending, and the gentleman is supposed to be speaking to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Randolph.

      MR. SANFORD – I was speaking upon the original.  I don’t care about the amendment because that is in the old Constitution. I was only showing why this section should be adopted.


                 2637

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

      MR. O’NEAL‑‑.I was going to suggest as the Chairinan yielded his time to the gentleman, would be not be entitled to thirty minutes?

     THE PRESIDENT---The Chairman himself would not be entitled to but ten minutes under discussion of the amendment..

     MR. BROOKS – I move that the gentleman be allowed ten minutes more.

    THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question will be upon the suspension of the rules.

     MR. SANFORD ‑ I only want to say that we could build a canal from Birmingham to the Warrior River  and from Gadsden to the Tennessee.

      THE PRESIDENT- ‑ Possibly the gentleman from Macon might yield a minute to the gentleman from Montgomery.

     MR. COBB ‑ I will yield five minutes to the gentleman.

      MR. SANFORD ‑ I am very much obliged to you, it accords with your chivalrous character. I was going on to say you could build the canal from Birmingham to the Warrior River and the tolls upon the canal as the fare upon the railroad would abundantly pay all expenses and contribute to the welfare and wealth of the State. You could dig this canal from Gadsden across to the Tennessee River, a project that has been agitating Alabama for more than forty years. It would bring water into the Coosa that would hear all of its freight over the many shoals and obstructions in that river, bring down iron, timber, marble to Montgomery and on to Mobile and thus enable our people to compete still more successfully with the iron foundries in Pittsburg, Ohio, Illinois and other portions of the United States. It would be a great blessing to our people, it would give employment to them, it would increase the value of taxable property along the country through which these rivers flow, it would help in every particular, and enable the schools to be more prosperous by the greater income of the State. Take it all in all the wisest thing for Alabama today, imitating New York many years ago, in its great achievement of the Eric Canal, which vvas opened in 1823 ; and imitating Georgia, which built its railway many years ago, and thus became one of the leading States is to adopt this section proposed by the Committee of able men.

      MR. COBB ‑ I suppose the gentlemen present have made up their minds, and I therefore move the previous question on the original proposition and amendments.

     MR. OATES ‑ I hope the gentleman will not do that because the Committee has not been heard from.


2638                        

OFFICIAL  PROCEEDINGS

       THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The question is on the previous question, the original section of the Committee and amendment. Shall the main question be now put?

      A vote being taken, the previous question was ordered.

     MR. OATES ‑ I yield my time to the delegate from Sumter, a member of the Committee, to speak for the Committee.

     MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention, I ask your indulgence this evening, because I feel that I am speaking in favor of a proposition to many who are prejudiced against its adoption. It will be sneered at and laughed at as being mothered in the Ocala platform by men who have been closer to it and therefore have more reason to be familiar with the Ocala platform than the speaker, but Mr. President, I want to say to you that the truth is always true and falsehood always false, no matter whether it be spoken by the President of the United States or by the sorriest tramp within the confines of its territory. The words spoken upon the Sea of Gennessaret by the Man of Calvary, would have been no less true had they been spoken by the lowliest fisherman who ever cast a net into the sea of Galilee. We are here to propose to you what is supposed to be an innovation. The doctrine of internal improvement has been sneered at by the gentleman from Roanoke, who. I am told, has the reputation of having made some money. The man who has made money is entitled to that consideration, which the possession of money gives him, but against that opinion I want to hold aloft the colossal figure in the United States Senate from Alabama, the Hon. John T. Morgan, who is as poor today as when he entered the service of his State forty years ago, and whose opinion on matters of that sort are entitled to as much consideration as that of Croesus. What would we do with the question of internal improvement if we denied this to the United States Government? What would become of appropriations for the opening of harbors and ports in the United States? That is simply one form of internal improvement. Another question, Mr. President, what would we do about the Nicaragua Canal, if we denied the right of internal improvement?- ‑ a right so ably fought for on the floor of the Senate of the United States that the Government has the right to own and build without the consent of any nation on earth.

     MR. VAUGHN- ‑ Where are you going to get the money to do all that business?

     MR. ROGERS‑-I will answer that remark. A few days ago there was an ordinance introduced looking to the convict system of Alabama. We will take the convicts of the State of Alabama and will prepare roads throughout the State; we will dig canals throughout the State, that will stand for future prosperity of our


              2639

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

people, and in that way, and only that way, can you use the Convicts of the State of Alabama and not come in conflict with free labor. It would be one of the greatest movements ever made in this State. I want to call attention to an evil that is growing in this country, and which if not stopped is going to result in one of the greatest oppressions that has ever been placed upon any people. The greatest consolidation of transportation companies is going to result in less than thirty years from now, in the ownership throughout the United States by not more than four men, of all the transportation companies in the United States. This power placed in the hands of one President, consolidating this immense influencethis President appointing sub ‑ Presidents and managers throughout the United States, and the thousands and thousands of employes employed, will dominate legislation. The power of the President of the United States in comparison with this vast patronage will sink into utter significance. The way of that syndicate is being pointed out by J. Pierpont Morgan in the purchase of shipping lines across the sea and the buying or breaking down of railroad competitors. Mr. President, later on in this Convention, there will be introduced here ineffectual, faulty and vicious legislation against trusts, but this ordinance, which will be rejected, is the one way in which we can confront trusts. No matter what sort of law you may place upon the statute books, unless you give power to the State to enforce the statute, it is absolutely worthless. You may place all the law you wish on the statute book to suppress crime, and with no officer there to enforce the law, it falls to the ground. We may never have to use this power, but it will stand in the Constitution of Alabama as a menace to those corporations who may attempt to coerce the people of the State of Alabama. They will know that the people of the State of Alabama can engage in the building of railroads to thwart their efforts. This is not dangerous legislation, except to greedy corporations. The gentleman from Roanoke says it is dangerous, but so is a mule, but we don't dispense with a mule because be is dangerous. We do not propose to put men in charge of the affairs of the State of Alabama whom we cannot trust. We do not propose to put fools in charge of Alabama, and we expect some times that the wise men of Alabama will be in control of its affairs.  I have heard no argument urged against this measure, except that it is undemocratic and except that it is dangerous. Let us take up the undemocratic part of it. The word "democrat" or "democracy" is a relative term. It gets its life and definition every four years in this country. When we meet in national convention that which we put in our platform is democracy. I have heard men talking about Thomas Jefferson, and I wondered if his bomes did not turn over and rattle in his grave. Why, Mr. President, the power of the Democratic party and the duty of the party is to rise up in its might and majesty and meet issues as they come, and not be circumscribed by what


2640

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

some man said one hundred or two hundred years ago. If there is a fundamental principle in the Democratic party it is that people should rule, and it is the only fundamental principle at the foundation of any party in a fair government; the right of the majority to rule. I knew that we were going to be met on this floor by the argument that it is undemocratic and dangerous. Now, why dangerous? Because the gentleman from Roanoke says so? He says this State has been in business and lost money. I want to say that individuals at that tune in business in Alabama lost money. There was at that time a financial crisis that rocked this country from California to New York and prostrated every bank in the State of Alabama except one bank in Mobile.

     Suppose a man said, I was in business once and lost my money and therefore, I am not going back into business any more. What sort of a man would you consider him to be? Mr. President and gentlemen, we must profit by the mistake; we have made, not that we should confine ourselves to legitimate rules of business. I cannot see why men should object to this provision unless they are afraid to trust the people of the State of Alabama.

     MR. VAUGHAN ‑ Suppose the State should build a railroad and it proved a bad investment, under the section "but shall not sell or ‑ mortgage such improvement" ‑ then what becomes of the investment?

    MR. ROGERS ‑ The State of Alabama would own the investment. Did you ever buy a mule that was a losing investment? That provision is put in there for the purpose of preventing the State from selling it or mortgaging it to outside parties, lending its aid to outside individuals. The argument, because a man might go into a business; and find it a losing one might apply to any business on earth. How can you tell whether you will win or lose until you go into it.

     MR. DUKE ‑ I would ask the gentleman if this does not prevent the selling of the improvement?

     MR. ROGERS ‑ As a matter of course yes, sir.

     MR. DUKE ‑ If the State owned a road under this provision, it could not sell it.

     MR. ROGERS ‑ It could not sell it, no sir.

     MR. DUKE ‑ Even if it had an opportunity to sell it, so as to get out of a bad investment it could not sell it.

    MR. ROGERS ‑ It can lease it, but not sell it. The reason is whenever there is a necessity to build a line of this sort it is for the purpose of meeting competition, for the purpose of keeping down freight rates, and even if the State should run it at a loss it


2641

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

would be great benefit to the state of Alabama in keeping down freight charges and unjust discriminations.

MR. KYLE

MR. ROGERS-Such is my information.

MR. KYLE–And is it not a fact that the Cincinnati southern was built by a city of 250,000 people at an expense of $20,000,000 and it has done more to develop that city than anything in the world.

MR. ROGERS—I am much obliged to the gentleman for calling my attention to this further argument in favor of internal improvements. We grant to the counties of the State the right to make internal improvement. They tell me the right of internal improvement is undemocratic–tell me that it is foolish to grant to the greatest political division the right which is given to the smallest subdivisions of it. Tell me why the father should not have the right to do the thing that he permits to his daughter or to his son, and then I will tell you why the State of Alabama should not go into a business which is permitted to the counties and to the cities of the State of Alabama. We should not prevent the people of the State defending themselves against the unjust aggression of corporate greed in the only possible manner in which it is practicable; combining the whole resources of the State in a common defense. We should not put foolish laws upon our statue books against monopolies and throw away the one weapon which we have to enforce justice at the hands of the transportation companies.

Mr. Pettus took the chair.

MR. EYSTER–I call for the ayes and noes.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM,-The ayes and noes are demanded on the substitute. Is the call sustained.

The call was sustained.

MR. WILSON (Washington)–I was absent from the hall when the substitute was offered. I would like to hear it read.

MR. SPEARS–I move to lay the substitute on the table.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM—The previous question has been ordered and a motion to table is out of order.

The substitute was read and upon call of the roll the vote resulted as follows:


2642

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

AYES.

Almon,

Harrison,

Opp,

Altman,

Heflin, of Chambers,

Palmer,

Banks,

Heflin, of Randolph,

Parker (Cullman),

Barefield,

Hodges,

Pitts,

Bethune,

Hood,

Rogers (Lowndes),

Blackwell,

Howell,

Samford,

Brooks,

Howze,

Sanders,

Carmichael, of Colbert,

Inge,

Smith (Mobile),

Chapman,

Jenkins,

Smith, Mac. A.,

Cobb,

Jones of Wilcox,

Smith, Morgan Al.,

Gofer,

Ledbetter,

Sollie,

Coleman, of Greene,

Locklin,

Sorrell,

Craig,

Lowe of Jefferson,

Spragins,

Davis, of DeKalb,

McMillan, of Baldwin,

Stewart,

Davis, of Etowah,

McMillan (Wilcox),

Tayloe,

deGraffenreid,

Malone,

Vaughan,

Duke,

Martin,

Waddell,

Eley,

Maxwell,

Walker,

Eyster,

Merrill,

Watts,

Espy,

Moody,

Weatherly,

Foster,

Murphree,

Williams (Barbour),

Glover,

Norman,

Williams (Marengo),

Graham. of Montgomery,

Norwood,

Handley,

O'Neal (Lauderdale),

Total ‑ 70.

NOES.

Ashcraft,

Kyle,

Sanford,

Beddow,

Macdonald,

Sloan,

Dent,

Mulkey,

Spears,

Foshee,

Oates,

White,

Freeman,

Pettus,

Wilson (Wash’gton).

Grant,

Reynolds (Chilton),

Knight,

Rogers (Sumter),

Total ‑ 19.

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING.

Messrs. President,

Carmichael, of Coffee,

Graham, of Talladega,

Bartlett,

Carnathon,

Grayson,

Beavers,

Case,

Greer, of Calhoun,

Boone,

Coleman, of Walker,

Greer, of Perry,

Browne,

Cornwall,

Haley,

Bulger,

Cunningham,

Henderson,

Burnett,

Ferguson,

Hinson,

Burns,

Fitts,

Jackson,

Byars,

Fletcher,

Jones, of Bibb,

Cardon

GilmoreJones,of Hale,


2643

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Jones, of Montgomery,

NeSmith,

Robinson,

King

O'Neill, of Jefferson,

Searcy.

Kirk,

O' Rear,

Selheimer,

Kirkland.

Parker (Elmore)

Sentell,

Leigh

Pearce

Stoddard,

Lomax

Phillips

Thompson,

Long, of Butler,

Pillans,

Weakley,

Long, of Walker,

Porter,

Whiteside,

Lowe, of Lawrence,

Proctor,

Willet,

Miller (Marengo),

Reese,

Williams(Elmore),

Miller (Wilcox),

Renfro,

Wilson (Clarke),

Morrisette,

Reynolds, of Henry,

Winn,

      So the substitute was adopted. The question then recurred upon the adoption of Section 52 as amended, and the same was adopted.

     The Secretary read Section 53 as follows:

     Sec. 53. The Legislature shall have no power to authorize any county, city, town or other subdivision of this State to lend its credit, or to grant public money or thing of value, in aid of or to any individual, association, or corporation whatever ; or to become a stockholder in any such corporation, association or company by issuing bonds or otherwise.

    MR.. OATES ‑ I move its adoption. It is the same as in the present Constitution.

    A vote being taken, Section 53 was adopted.

     The Secretary read Section 54 as follows

     Sec. 54. There can be no law of this State impairing the obligations of contracts by destroying or impairing the remedy for their enforcement; and the legislature shall have no power to revive any right or remedy which may have become barred by lapse of time, or by any statute of this State.

     MR. OATES ‑ There is no change in that section except in the number. It is as in the present Constitution, and I move its adoption.

      A vote being taken, the section was adopted.

      The Secretary read Section 55 as follows:

       Sec. 55. The legislature shall not enact any law for one or more counties not applicable to all the counties in the State, increasing the uniform charge for the registration of deeds and conveyances or regulating costs and charges of courts, or fees, commissions or allowances of public officers.


2644

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. OATES ‑ Mr. President, I think that the sense of that section which is new would be greatly improved by amending it in the first line, and I make that motion. After the word "law" to strike out the words "for one or more counties" and in the second line after the word "State" strike out the words increasing the uniform charge for this registration of deeds."

    THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The gentleman from Montgomery is requested to reduce the amendment to writing.

    MR. WEATHERLY ‑ Is not that section covered by a provision in the ordinance reported by the Committee on Local Legislation.

    MR. OATES ‑ I don't know, I am not sure, I scarcely think it is.

     MR. WEATHERLY ‑ I am under the impression that it is, and if it is, I don't see the necessity for this provision.

     MR. OATES ‑ That is striking it out by guess. Have you the section ?

     MR. WEATHERLY ‑ I have not, I thought you were familiar with it.

     MR. OATES ‑ I am not familiar enough to say, we have adopted so many I can't say.

     MR. WALKER (Madison) ‑ The 26th section on Article of Local Legislation provides against any special or local act creating, increasing or decreasing the fees, percentage, or allowance of public officers.

     MR. WEATHERLY ‑ That is the one I refer to.

     MR. WATTS ‑ The article adopted by the Committee on Local Legislation does not prescribe as much.

     MR. OATES ‑ No, sir.

     MR. WATTS ‑ Therefore, if this is adopted the Committee on Harmony can reconcile the two?

    MR. OATES ‑ Yes, I think so. I think the two may be properly put together.

    MR. OATES ‑ I offer this amendment in writing:

    "Amend Section 55 by striking out in line one, after the word "law" the words "for one or more counties" and in lines two and three the words "increasing the uniform charge for the registration of deeds and conveyances."

     THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery.


                       2645

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     MR. CHAPMAN ‑ Do you mean to strike out "or" at the end of conveyances on the third line?

    MR. OATES ‑ Yes.

    PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The gentleman asks unanimous consent to strike out the word "or."

    Unanimous consent was given.

    MR. JENKINS ‑ In the last line the word "allowances of public officers." Here is the proposition I want to submit to the gentleman from Montgomery. Suppose the legislature should desire to enact a law saying that the cost of feeding the prisoners in the larger counties, Jefferson, Montgomery and Mobile, should be less than in the smaller counties, could they pass a law with this provision in the Constitution, in other words is feeding prisoners covered by the term allowance?

   MR. OATES ‑ I think in the general law they can regulate that and make provision, in counties where it is more expensive. but not by a special local act.

   MR. JENKINS ‑ They can do it by general law?

   MR. OATS ‑ Yes, no doubt about that. I ask that a vote be taken on the adoption of the amendment.

    MR. MALONE ‑ I want to ask my same old question: Would this be construed as prohibiting a local law on the whiskey question?

    MR. OATES ‑ Oh, no, I do not think it has anything to do with that at all.

    A vote being taken, the amendment was adopted.

    A further vote being taken the original Section as amended was adopted.

    The Secretary read Section 56 as follows:

    Sec. 56. The Legislature shall not authorize payment to any person of the salary of a deceased officer beyond the date of his death.

    MR. OATES ‑ That is entirely new but plain, and entirely proper. I move its adoption.

     A vote being taken, the Section was adopted.

     The Secretary read Section 57 as follows:

     Sec. 57. The Legislature shall not retire any officer on pay or part pay, or make any grant to such retiring officer.


2646

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

     MR. OATES ‑ It prevents any civil pension list. I move its adoption.

     A vote being taken, the Section was adopted.

    The Secretary read Section 58 as follows :

     Sec. 58. Lands belonging to or under the control of the State, shall never be donated directly or indirectly, to private corporations or individuals, or railroad companies; nor shall such lands be sold to corporations or associations for a less price than that for which it is subject to sale to individuals; provided, that nothing contained in this Section shall prevent the Legislature from granting aright of way, not exceeding 100 feet in width, as a mere easement, to railroads across State lands, and the Legislature shall never dispose of the land covered by said rights of way except subject to said easement.

     Mr. Lowe (Jefferson) offered the following amendment : "By inserting on the sixth line thereof, immediately after the word ‘railroad' the words `telegraph or telephone lines.' "

     THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question is on the adoption of the amendment.

     MR. OATES ‑ So far as I am concerned I am willing to accept that amendment.

      A vote being taken, the amendment was adopted.

     MR. SAMFORD (Pike) ‑ I have an amendment: "Amend by making `one hundred feet' read `one hundred and fifty feet.' "

      THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The question is on the adoption of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Pike.

     MR. SAMFORD ‑ I desire simply to state to the Convention that there are cases where in the construction of a railroad on account of the height of an embankment or the depth of a cut, that more than 100 feet is absolutely required for the cut or the fill. I have known that to be the case in several instances. If you put this clause limiting this to 100 feet, a grant of the State land could never be made in excess of 100 feet, an easement on it, and I make it 150 feet because it is sometimes absolutely necessary that a railroad company in constructing its line should have more than 100 feet.

     MR. CHAPMAN ‑ Can you limit that 150 feet to the special case in your amendment?

     MR. SAMFORD (Pike) ‑ I don't see how you well could, because it says not in excess, and they have got a mere easement in the property and the property that is not used remains the property of the State anyway.


        2647

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

     MR. CHAPMAN ‑ Wouldn't the railroads always get 150 feet then?

     MR. SAMFORD – Not necessarily so.

     MR. CHAPMAN – Not necessarily, but practically wouldn’t the railroads always get 150 feet?

      MR. SAMFORD ‑ No; as a matter of fact a railroad company does not want more than is actually necessary for the operation of its road, because it requires time and money to keep up the right of way of a road as well as the roadbed, and the law charges them with the duty of keeping up the right of way as well as the roadbed ‑ not in the same condition, perhaps, but it costs something to keep up the right of way. There are instances in my knowledge where serious complications have arisen with regard to obtaining the right of way can account of the fact that they required actually more than 100 feet in order to dig their cut or to build their embankment. I will ask unanimous consent to make it 125 instead of 150 feet.

    There being no objection the leave was granted.

     MR. O’NEAL (Lauderdale) ‑ You have amended this section by adding the words "telegraph or telephone lines." Would it not be proper to grant a right ‑ of ‑ way to telegraph and telephone lines as well as to railroads?

    MR. OATES ‑ It is not necessary when it is allowed already in the next.

     MR. O’NEAL-Why not grant it to telephone and telegraph lines, too?  My contention is that I did not see any justice in excluding one and not the other.

     The amendment was again read.

     MR. O'NEAL ‑ I misunderstood the amendment offered by the gentleman from Jefferson.

     MR. OATES ‑ That is all right; I have no objection of the section as amended.

     MR. SOLLIE. ‑ I offer this amendment :

     The amendment was read as follows: "To amend the section as amended by inserting in the fifth line after the word `way' the words `on payment of just compensation therefor.' "

     MR. SOLLIE ‑ I simply offer that amendment on this proposition, that I can see no reason why the State of Alabama should donate to railroad companies or other public enterprises a right ‑ ofway over its lands more than individuals should. I admit the amendment is in the nature of a negative of the original section


2648                    

 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

rather than an amendment of it. If it is the sense of the Convention that we should give rights ‑ of ‑ way over lines belonging to the State, then I have no objection. I have no serious insistence to make in regard to the amendment. I simply offer it as my idea that we should not give rights ‑ of ‑ way ‑ over our lands any more than individuals should.

    MR. FOSTER ‑ I want to ask the gentleman if it would be a donation if paid for ?

      MR. SOLLIE ‑ I think not. And in the hurry of drawing the amendment, without having carefully read the section, I have failed to catch the connection and the thought has occurred to me just as I undertook to send up the amendment that it is in the nature of an objection to the section, as drawn rather than in the nature of a proper amendment to it, and after thinking of it, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

     Consent was given to withdraw and the amendment withdrawn.           MR. SOLLIE ‑ Then I have this to say: So far as I am individually concerned, I object to giving railroads rights ‑ of ‑ way. That simply amounts to the proposition that I object to the section.

     Upon a vote being taken, the amendment was adopted.

      MR. OATES ‑ I see an error next to the last word. It reads, “except subject to said easement" strike out "said" and insert "such."

     Upon unanimous consent being given, the alteration as suggested by Mr. Oates was made.

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

     Upon a vote being taken, the section as amended was adopted.

     Section 59 was read as follows:

    Sec. 59. No obligation or liability of any person, asssociation or corporation held or owned by this State, or by any county, or other municipality thereof, shall ever be remitted, released or postponed or in any way diminished, by the Legislature; nor shall such liability or obligation be extinguished except by payment thereof into the proper treasury; nor shall such liability, or obligation be exchanged or transferred except upon payment of its face value; provided, that this section shall not prevent the Legislature from providing by general law for the compromise of doubtful claims.

     MR. OATES ‑ I move the adoption of that section.

      Upon a vote being taken, the section was adopted.


                      2649

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

    Sec. 60 was read as follows:

    Sec. 60. The Legislature shall provide, by general laws, for the location or removal of county scats by a vote of the people of the county to he affected.

     MR. OATES ‑ A similar section was adopted, I think, in the Article on State and County Boundaries, but I presume there will be no difficulty in it if this be adopted, too, and reconciled, and, therefore. I move its adoption.

     Upon a vote being taken, the section was adopted.

     Section 01 was then read as follows:

     Sec. 61. No State or county official shall at any time, during his term of office, accept, either directly or indirectly, any fee, money, office, appointment, employment. reward or thing of value, or of personal advantage, or the promise thereof, lobby for or against measure pending before the Legislature, or to give or withhold his influence to secure the passage or defeat of any such measure.

      MR. OATES- ‑ I move the adoption of the section.

      Upon a vote being taken, the section was adopted.

       MR. COLEMAN (Greene) ‑ I rise to move the reconsideration of Section 60, which was just adopted.

     THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM. ‑ Does the gentleman desire immediate reconsideration?

      MR. COLEMAN ‑ If the Convention desires to act on it at once, they can do so, I simply wish to point out an objection.

        THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM. ‑ Under the rule, the motion will go over until tomorrow morning.

       MR. SAMFORD (Pike) ‑ I move that the rules be suspended.

       THE PRESIDENT  PRO TEM. ‑ The gentleman from Greene has the floor. Does the gentleman from Greene move the suspension of the rules?

       MR. COLEMAN ‑ Yes, sir.

      Upon a vote being taken, the rules were suspended.

       MR. COLEMAN ‑ Mr. President and delegates of the Convention. it says "the Legislature shall provide, by general laws, for the location car removal of county seats by a vote of the people. That ought to be by a "vote of the qualified voters." "People" embraces more than "voters." It ought to be qualified electors. It ought to read so as to be consistent with what we have adopted


2650

 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

already. This says by a vote of the people," and it ought to be by a "vote of the qualified electors." That is the purpose of my calling attention to it. You can remedy it in a minute if you want it done.

     MR. OATES ‑ When it was adopted just now, I called attention to the fact, as I thought, that some provision of the kind had been adopted elsewhere, but as it was not before me I moved the adoption of this. If you have the other and will read it, there will probably be do trouble at all about knocking this out.

     MR. COLEMAN ‑ The provision already adopted says "a majority of the qualified electors," this says "by a vote of the people." They are not in harmony with each other, and I don’t know that the Committee on Harmony really would be authorized to do any thing but to bring in the two and let you vote over again, and let you select which you will have. We can remedy it at once.

     MR. OATES ‑ We might do it, but I am opposed to the change unless I knew what the Convention had already adopted.

     MR. PARKER (Cullman) ‑ I can read what the Convention had already adopted: "No county site shall he removed except by a majority vote of the qualified electors of such county voting at an election to be held for such purpose, and when an election has once been held for such purpose, no other election can be held for such purpose until the expiration of four years."

    MR. COLEMAN (Greene)-- I moved that it be considered right now.

     Upon a vote being taken the motion to reconsider was carried.

    MR. COLEMAN ‑ I move to strike out Section 60.

     Upon a vote being taken Section 60 was stricken out.

    Section 62 was read as follows:

    Sec. 62. The Legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage of any white person and negro, or the descendant of a negro, to the third generation inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation be a white person.

     MR. VAUGHAN ‑ I have an amendment to offer.

     The amendment was read as follows:

     "To amend Section 62 by striking cut all words after the word ‘negro' where it occurs the second time in the second line."

     MR. VAUGHAN ‑ The amendment is simply to prevent negroes and white people from marrying at all. A negro as defined in the Code, the term negro within the meaning of this Code includes mulatto. The term mulatto. a person of color, within the


              2651

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

meaning of this Code is a person of mixed blood descended on the part of the father or mother from negro ancestry to the third generation inclusive, so one ancestor the third generation be a white person.

      MR. COLEMAN ‑ What would be the effect of  amendment?

     THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM. ‑ The effect of the amendment is to strike out everything after the word negro where it occurs, the second time in the second line of Section 62. The Secretary will read the Section as it would read if amended.

      The Secretary read the Section as follows:

      “The Legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage of any white person and a negro, or descendant of a negro.”

        MR. OATES – The Section as reported by the Committee is the language employed in the penal Code. It is the law of the State and I think that it is proper. The putting of it into the Constitution can have but one operation or effect and that is for all future time to prevent any  Legislature from authorizing or legalizing any marriage between the white and negro races or the descendants of the negro, to the third generation inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation be a white person. Now, that is the penal statute of the State and has been for a long time. Why go beyond it in the Constitution? If it is properly in the Constitution and I think it is and it may be of use possibly some time in the future. It is a declaration of the policy against miscegenation and in favor of race separateness, and ought we to go further in this Constitution than our penal laws have ever gone? Or why not go the same length? You see if you leave it as it would be with the amendment adopted, it is an open question then as to how far the descendents  might be traced, and how many generations. Leaving the thing in a state of uncertainty, as it is an inhibition upon the Legislature from authorizing marriage or legalizing marriage between these races and is in my judgment ample in its provision and as far as we ought to go.   It is the law we have lived by for many years.

      MR. COLEMAN (Greene)–With the amendment, does not the law provide that there shall never be a legal marriage between a white person and the descendant of a negro? Without the amendment you could legalize a marriage between a white person and the descendant of a negro of the fourth generation..

      MR. OATES ‑ Exactly. I am in favor of the statute as it has been ever since it was enacted soon after the ratification of the present Constitution. We have lived by it about a quarter of a century. I haven't known or heard of any marriages in this State


2652                                

OFFICIAL  PROCEEDINGS

between a white person and a descendant of a negro, and if the principles of the law were enforced I believe it would be better for the community. But this is going far enough. There is no use in going wild upon a proposition. We have the people among us here, an inferior race, and the laws we have had for a quarter of a century and lived under, I think is going, far enough in our Constitution, and I therefore move to lay the amendment on the table.

    MR. SAMFORD ‑ I cal! for the aver and noes.

    The call was not sustained.

     A vote being taken upon the motion to table the amendment, a division was called for, and by a vote of 11 ayes and 51 noes the motion to table was lost.

     Upon a vote being taken as to the adoption of the amendment the amendment was adopted.

     MR. LONG (Walker) ‑ I have an amendment to offer.

     Amendment by Mr. Long was read as follows: “To amend Section 62 by adding after the word `negro' in the second line the words "Chinese and Indian.'"

     MR. LONG ‑ I don't desire to make a speech on that, I think Indians and Chinese are sorrier than negroes, and I think they ought to be included in there.

    MR. JENKINS (Wilcox) ‑ The proudest blood that flows in white veins in Alabama is Indian blood, and if we adopt that amendment we would insult some of the proudest and best people of the State. I move to lay on the table the amendment offered by Mr. Long of Walker.

      Upon a vote being taken the amendment was laid on the table.

     THE CHAIR ‑ The question recurs on the adoption of Section 62 as amended.

     MR. CHAPMAN ‑ I have an amendment to offer.

     The amendment by Mr. Chapman was read as follows: "To amend Section 62 by striking out the word `of' at the end of the first line and in lieu thereof insert the word `between.' "

    MR. CHAPMAN ‑ It reads then instead of "legalizing any marriage of any white person and negro," legalizing any marriage between any white person and negro."

    Upon a vote being taken the amendment was adopted.

    On further vote the section as amended was adopted.


                2653

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901       

      Section 63 was read as follows:

      Sec. 63. The legislature shall provide by law for the regulation and reasonable restraint of trusts, monopolies and combinations of capital so as to prevent them from making, by such artificial means articles of necessity, trade or commerce scarce, or by increasing the cost thereof to the consumer, or by preventing reasonable competition in any calling, trade or business.

     MR. OATES – I desire to make a statement.  I want to state the reason for the action of the Committee on this is substantially as I stated.  At the time the report was submitted i think it but just to myself and the delegate from Mobile (Mr. Brooks) that I make this statement.  He had offered an ordinance which appears printed right after the report along with it and that was by the action of the Committee on Legislative Department adopted as a section, but it was tentative, and at a subsequent meeting it was allowed to be reconsidered.  We had a rule which did not require any particular form for the reconsideration of any matter but any matter which had been passed upon might be called up at a subsequent stage and reconsidered.  That was the case with respect to the ordinance offered by the delegate from Mobile, and which had been adopted.  At that meeting it met with considerable opposition.  Some other gentleman moved a reconsideration of it and after it was discussed for a time a vote was taken and the Committee was very much divided upon it.  I made a statement to the delegate from Mobile that it was not in such form that I could support it, but I was not disposed to vote against this proposition and would vote for it provided I could be allowed to restate it or reduce it, to such language as I thought would be proper to go into the Constitution.  That was agreed to and I voted against striking it out.  I afterwards, in a hurry, did not draft this section until the evening before the report was mad the next morning.  While hurrying to get the report  in I failed of the opportunity to present it to the delegate from Mobile for him to confirm it before the re- port was made.  The gentleman will see that it is not near so broad as his proposition, and when I came to examine it I could not go further in substance than the one I drafted as a substitute, but I do not wish my action which was not acceptable to the delegate from Mobile, to prejudice him at all, and i hope that the Convention will allow him to offer his proposition as a substitute for this and give him a full and fair hearing upon it.

      MR. BROOKS – Mr. President, the accoustic properties of this hall are not what they are in the winter time, when for the most part the windows are closed and the doors are closed, and the atmosphere is not disturbed and whipped into eddies by these electric fans, and I find it very difficult to be heard here, a thing I never found before in my experience in this Legislative Hall. I

 


2654                             

 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

find also that on this side of the house it is a very difficult matter to hear gentlemen on the other side whom I have heard repeatedly in halls with great ease. I am suffering this afternoon with hoarseness, and I therefore ask the indulgence of the delegates and ask them to keep quiet so that I may be heard.

     I am much obliged to my friend from Montgomery, Governor Oates, the chairman of the committee, for the kind permission that he has given for me to introduce my ordinance, or the ordinance introduced by me as a substitute. I would have that right any way. It, however, puts me to this disadvantage and it puts to disadvantage the friends of the measure that they are supporting an amendment instead of the original proposition which was adopted by the committee. If the Convention will remember I felt called upon when the chairman of the committee made his report to challenge the correctness of this Article 63 as the work of the committee. The gentleman explained then as he does now that he said something about offering a substitute because he said he thought he could improve it. But I could not agree to his offering a substitute as the work of the committee. Nor could I speak for the committee on that subject. A vote was taken after considerable discussion, as the chairman of the committee has very well said, and the result was a vote of nine to six in favor of what I have been graciously permitted to have as a part of this report a printed copy of what was actually the work of the committee.

      Now. sir, I am reminded of a story of ancient history, because I cannot very well help looking at the humorous phase of it somewhat. In olden times the Grecian philosophers worried themselves a great deal to formulate a scientific definition of man. After a great deal of trouble old Plato finally formulated a definition of man, which seemed to satisfy him. He defined man to lie a biped without feathers. A few clays afterward old Diogenes appeared among the school of philosophers with an old rooster in his arms with all the feathers plucked out and he threw it on the floor and said "behold Plato's man," and that was the finishing of the definition Plato had given. And so the chairman of the committee comes in here with a substitute without head or tail or feather, and says "behold my improvement on the ordinance, adopted by the committee; it is so much briefer," and so. Mr. President, it is so much briefer, and the great objection that I have to the substitute the gentleman brings in as the report of the committee is that it is colorless and inconsequential. It is very difficult to tell from the construction of it exactly what it means, but there is no doubt about it that the effect is simply to perpetuate trusts in this State.

      Now the ordinance which I had the honor to submit to this Convention, and which was adopted even without the vote of the chairman of the committee, by a vote of eight to seven, is taken from an Ohio statute and is one of the best pieces of definition


2655

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

which I have read. The very object I had was to define in the Constitution what was meant by a trust.

MR. WALKER (Madison) ‑ I will ask you if a definition of that kind has operated to stop trusts in Ohio?

MR. BROOKS ‑ I will come to that in a moment. That law has been passed upon by the Supreme Court of Ohio. I read it some time ago rather cursorily, I haven't got it now. It did not go to the whole extent but it did decide that it was constitutional and that there were no obiter dicta against its constitutionality in any respect. It was reported in the papers not long ago where a case arose under that very statute and one plaintiff in the case, a woman, got all the damages and satisfaction she wanted. It had the effect of driving out from the State of Ohio the Standard Oil Company, having that as its place of business, and it is asserted, and I have heard it from a gentleman who got it from Mr. Monnette, the Attorney General himself, that that corporation offered him $300,000 to stop his prosecution.

I have been very much amused at the criticisms that have been passed on this ordinance. Why, I heard that a banker said that you could not have any bank clearances ‑ that you could not have such a thing as a clearing house. It has no more to do with a bank clearing house than with the diurnal revolution of the earth. It would have no more power to affect hank clearances than it would have to "bind the sweet influences of the pleides, or loose the bands of Orion." One gentleman said it would break up labor organizations. It has nothing in the world to do with labor organizations.

The whole essence of the thing is directed to affecting prices of articles or commodity of trade or manufacture or production. A man's skill or a man's labor comes under neither head.

MR. WEATHERLY ‑ I do not know whether I ought to rise to a point of order or not. The gentleman is addressing himself apparently to the ordinance which he introduced and which is not a part of the report. He has not offered it as a substitute. I would like to know the parliamentary status of this ordinance.

THE  PRESIDENT ‑ The pending question is on Section 63, as reported by the committee, and the chair understood the gentleman from Mobile to be addressing himself to that question.

MR. WEATHERLY ‑ I understood he was addressing; himself to something else.

THE CHAIR ‑ That is the pending question. If the gentleman rises to a point of order that the gentleman is not confining himself to a reasonable limit of the debate, the chair will undertake to see that he does.


2656

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

MR. BROOKS ‑ I like a fair fight, Mr. President, and I don't think I am over ‑ stepping freedom of the debate. I confine myself to the questions involved both in tile substitute quoted by the chairman of the committee and the ordinance adopted by the committee ; both are on the same line. Then another gentleman made this objection. He said, "Suppose the lawyers in a given place were to enter into an agreement that they would charge so much?” I said, "I understand you ‑ you mean a fee bill ?" "Yes." Well, I said that it would not affect them at all. In the first place, there are not a dozen lawyers who will get together and formulate a fee bill they will stick up to, and, further, it does not affect the outside lawyers, not in the combine, and, therefore it will not destroy competition. Another objection is, that it will injure capital: that capital is timid. Well, Mr. President, I deny that capital is timid. That is one of these fallacies that have gained circulation, and almost belief, through time, and it ought to be among those popular fallacies that are treated of by Charles Lamb is one of his essays. They are popular fallacies arid that is a popular fallacy. Capital is not timid. It is cautious, but it is alert; it is remorseless, and it is untiring when it has the power. No man has any less desire to restrict capital, or to affect it injuriously in any way than myself. All of my lifetime and my manhood has been engaged in efforts to bring capital to this State, in efforts to encourage everything that capital entered into, and no mall would do more and go farther than I would to encourage it in legitimate enterprises and give to it all the protection it needs, but those are some of the arguments that are brought against the idea of incorporating a trust provision in this Constitution. Another gentleman says : "You cannot stop it. Three or four men might get together in a room at night and fix up a combination of which you will know nothing, and you cannot stop it." Mr. President, that is the gospel of despair, and those who preach the gospel of greed are men who use the gospel of despair most. They are trying to lull the people to apathy, and it is apathy that results from commercial greed and supremacy that has run riot over the land in the last few years that we are toy fear the most. Now, sir, I do not desire to go into any elaborate discussion of this thing. I can show you that if the platform of political parties is worth anything as the expression of public opinion. I can show you, by reading you short extracts from the platform of every party that took part in the last Presidential election, that the trust idea was condemned, and everyone of them promised that they would do what they could to stop it. Why, one gentleman I heard say he doubted very much whether there was stick a thing as trusts, and that is what Mark Hanna said for a long time, until he finally said they were a good thing. The Democratic party, the Republican party, the Silver ‑ Republican party and the Middle ‑ of ‑ the ‑ Road Populists everyone had a clause in its platform aganist trusts, and only the other party, the Democratic plat‑


2657

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

form in Ohio contained an anti ‑ trust platform. Attention has been called to that platform. The action of the Democratic Party has attracted a good deal of attention. They not only declared against free passes, but also against trusts. Now, I am going to offer, Mr. President, not the ordinance which I brought before the Committee, and which the Committee adopted, but I am going to offer a shorted ordinance, which I would like to read as part of my remarks. I have drawn an ordinance, at least an amendment on the line of that ordinance, which is more than half as short.

The substitute was read as follows:

It shall be the duty of the General Assembly by appropriate legislation, to prohibit combinations by two or more persons, corporations or associations to enter into or carry out any contract or agreement by which they shall bind or have bound themselves to fix the price, of any article, commodity or transportation between them, or between themselves and others, so as to directly or indirectly preclude a free anal unrestricted competition among themselves or the purchaser or consumer of any commodity in this State, or transportation of any such article or commodity, by which they shall agree to pool or combine directly or indirectly any interest  they may have connected with the sale or transportation of any such article or commodity that its price might in any manner be effected. Every such combination is a trust within the meaning Of the Constitution and is hereby declared to be in derogation of the rights of the people, unlawful, against public policy, and void and of no effect.

Now, Mr. President, I do not care about going into the hairsplitting interpretations, or substitutes of construction, but I wish to say that the object and purpose of that amendment is simply to provide against any combination that will affect the prices of any articles or commodity of commerce or production or manufacture. etc. That is the sole purpose, and now I offer this as a substitute for Section 63 reported by the Chairman of the Committee.

MR. EYSTER ‑ I have a substitute for that.

The Secretary read the substitute as follows:

"Amend line two of Section 63 by adding after the word "capital" and before the word "so" the words "or labor."

MR. MACDONALD (Montgomery) ‑ Mr. President, I was a member of the Committee on Legislative Department, and the occurrences in that Committee as stated by Mr. Brooks are absolutely correct. The ordinance which the Chairman of the Committee now kindly consents he shall offer as a substitute was adopted by a vote of 9 to 6 in that committee, and the distinguished Chairman voted for it. He stated after his vote that it was rath‑


2658

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

er broad and that he might have a substitute for it, but never suggested, as I understood it, to the committee or to Mr. Brooks that he should introduce this substitute himself in the Committee and adopt it himself.

So my, friend from Mobile has been put in a very unfortunate position. He was entitled, before this Convention, to have his substitute, his ordinance, come is as the ordinance approved of and favorably reported by the committee, but he is now put in a posiiton where it seems he will either have to amend the section by an independent amendment or introduce an ordinance which was the work of a majority of the committee, to this Convention, handicapped, apparently by an adverse vote, and I am not surprised that Mr. Brooks should have been somewhat taken aback when this Convention heard the majority report read, and I think his condition was somewhat similar to the old darkey who, the story says, caught a large channel cat, and, satisfied with the results of his fishing, went to sleep, and while slumbering, two or three small negro boys came along and substituted for that channel cat a little mud cat, and when he woke and went after the fish to carry it home and found that it was so small, he says, "O Lord, how this fish have shrunk," and it did shrink. Well, examine the ordinance introduced by the gentleman from Mobile and then the is reported by the committee ‑ let them examine the innocuous, meaningless statement of the committee. I won't read the ordinance of Mr. Brooks as I suppose the gentlemen on the floor have read it. Now, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention that is brutum fulmen of the first variety. What does it mean? Simply advice by the Convention to the Legislature to try and see if they cannot keep pace with the ingenuity of trusts, and we all know that it requires considerably more learning and experience and ability than one legislator or a hundred legislators have, to do it. It is wise and democratic, and in pursuance of what was always understood to be democratic principles, for every Democratic party, whenever it assembles, it endeavors to restrict, as far as possible, these unlawful combinations, and my friend from Mobile has done so, and perhaps has gone too far for the present day, but he has gone no further than a Democrat should go who is prepared to follow to its legitimate results the policies of his party. And Iand I suppose every other Democrat ‑ ain willing to do it. No man should adopt any principle, no man should elect to pursue any course, unless he is willing to go to the every farthest extreme, to the end of the row. My friend, Mr. Brooks, has said the expression was indulged in, and it was not to my surprise, in the committee that it was said and the argument used that there where no trusts, and there, before that committee, and here before this Convention, I express my surprise that any member of the Democracy should take it as the next of his remarks, a statement made by Mr.


2659

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Mark Hanna, and which, when made, excited comment from the Lakes to the Rio Grande. There are no trusts! What has the Democracy been fighting all this time? Is it a mere shadow? What have been the results? Let every men that has got a grocery bill to pay answer it, and we will see, from year to year, the necessities, of life increased in price, although we are always met by the statement that trusts are beneficial and that the cost of the necessities and luxuries of life are reduced by them. It occurs to me whenever a proposition is, submitted to Democratic party, they will carefully consider it and act as far as possible in restricting these unlawful combinations ‑ not saying generally that unlawful combinations shall be restricted ‑ everybody knows that ‑ but pointing out as far as possible by specific statements what trusts are unlawful, so that all contracts and actions they take in regard to consummating their nefarious designs are promptly met with by being stamped with illegality by the courts of the country. That is what Mr. Brooks asks for from this Convention, and that is what I ask for, and that is all any Democrat contended to follow ‑ one of the main principles of his party ‑ should ask for.

MR. LONG (Walker) ‑ I think that this is a mere legislative duty. It puts a new section into the Constitution, and I doubt the wisdom of it. I move to lay the original section and the pending amendment upon the table.

MR. BROOKS ‑ On that I call for the ayes and noes.

MR. deGRAFFENREID ‑ I ask for a division of the question.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM. ‑ In the opinion of the chair, the question can be divided. The question recurs on the motion to lay the amendment offered by the gentleman from Morgan on the table.

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

AYES

Almon,

Coleman, of Greene,

Heflin, of Chambers,

Ashcraft,

Craig,

Heflin, of Randolph,

Banks,

Davis, of DeKalb,

Hodges,

Barefield,

Davis, of Etowah,

Hood,

Beddow,

Dent,

Howell,

Bethune,

deGraffenreid,

Howze,

Blackwell,

Duke,

Inge,

Bulger,

Eley,

Jones, of Wilcox,

Brooks,

Espy,

Knight,

Burns,

Glover,

Kyle,

Carmichael, of Colbert,

Graham, of Montgomery,

Leigh,

Cobb,

Handley,

Locklin,

Cofer,

Harrison,

Long, of Walker,


2660

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Lowe, of Jefferson,

Opp,

Sollie,

Macdonald,

Palmer,

Spears,

McMillan (Baldwin)

Parker, of Cullman,

Spragins,

McMillan, of Wilcox,

Pettus,

Stewart,

Malone,

Pitts,

Tayloe,

Martin,

Reynolds, of Chilton,

Vaughan,

Maxwell,

Rogers of Lowndes,

Waddell,

Moody,

Rogers, of Sumter,

Walker

Mulkey,

Samford,

Watts,

Murphree,

Sanders,

Weatherly,

Mulkey,

Sloan,

White,

Murphree

Smith, of Mobile,

Williams, of Barbour,

Norwood,

Smith, Mac A.,

Wilson, of Marengo,

Oates,

Smith, Morgan M.,

Wilson, of Washington,

Total-81 NOES

Foshee,

Jenkins,

Total-2

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING

Messers. President,

Grant,

O’Rear,

Altman,

Grayson,

Parker, of Elmore,

Bartlett,

Greer, of Calhoun,

Pearce,

Beavers,

Greer, of Perry,

Phillips,

Boone,

Haley,

Pillans,

Browne,

Henderson,

Porter,

Burnett,

Hinson,

Proctor,

Byars,

Jackson,

Reese,

Cardon,

Jones, of Bibb,

Renfro,

Carmichael, of Coffee,

Jones, of Hale,

Reynolds ( Henry),

Carnathon,

Jones, of Montgomery,

Robinson,

Case,

King,

Sanford,

Chapman,

Kirk,

Searcy,

Coleman, of Walker

Kirkland,

Selheimer,

Cornwall,

Ledbetter,

Sentell,

Cunningham,

Lomax,

Sorrell,

Eyster,

Long, of Butler,

Studdard,

Ferguson,

Lowe, of Lawrence,

Thompson,

Fitts,

Miller of Marengo,

Weakley,

Fletcher,

Miller of Wilcox,

Whiteside,

Foster,

Morrissette,

Willet,

Freeman,

NeSmith,

Williams, of Elmore,

Gilmore,

Norman,

Wilson, of Clarke,

Graham, of Talladega,

O’Neill (Jefferson),

Winn.

And by a vote of 81 ayes to 2 noes the motion to table was carried.


2661

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

The question recurred upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Mobile (Mr. Brooks).

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

AYES

Altman,

Hood,

Palmer.

Almon,

Howze,

Parker (Cullman),

Ashcraft,

Inge,

Pitts,

Barefield,

Jenkins,

Rogers (Sumter),

Blackwell,

Jones, of Montgomery,

Samford,

Bulger,

Jones, of Wilcox,

Sanders,

Carmichael, of Colbert,

Knight,

Smith (Mobile),

Chapman,

Long (Walker),

Tayloe,

Coleman, of Greene,

Lowe (Jefferson),

Vaughan,

Dent,

Martin,

Waddell,

deGraffenreid,

Maxwell,

Walker,

Duke,

Mulkey,

Watts,

Eley,

Murphree,

Weatherly,

Eyster,

Norman,

Williams (Barbour),

Foshee,

Oates,

Williams (Marengo),

Graham, of Montgomery,

O’Neal (Lauderdale),

Wilson (Clarke),

Harrison,

Opp,

Wilson(Washington),

TOTAL ‑ 51 NOES

Banks,

Heflin, of Chambers,

Pettus,

Beddow,

Heflin of Randolph,

Reynolds (Chilton),

Bethune,

Howell,

Rogers (Lowndes),

Brooks,

Kyle,

Sloan

Burns,

Leigh,

Smith, Mac A.,

Cobb,

Locklin,

Smith, Morgan M.,

Cofer,

Macdonald,

Sollie,

Craig,

McMillan (Baldwin),

Spears,

Davis, of DeKalb,

McMillan (Wilcox),

Spragins.

Davis, of Etowah,

Malone,

Stewart,

Espy,

Merrill,

White

Glover,

Moody,

Handley,

Norwood,

 TOTAL ‑ 37

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING

Messrs. President,

Cardon,

Ferguson

Bartlett,

Carmichael, of Coffee,

Fitts,

Beavers,

Carnathon,

Fletcher

Boone,

Case,

Foster,

Browne,

Coleman, of Walker,

Freeman,

Burnett,

Cornwall,

Gilmore,

Byars,

Cunningham,

Graham, of Talladega,


2662

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Grant,

Long ( Butler),

Reynolds (Henry),

Grayson,

Lowe ( Lawrence ),

Robinson,

Greer, of Calhoun,

Miller (Marengo),

Sanford,

Greer, of Perry,

Miller (Wilcox),

Searcy,

Haley,

Morrisette,

Selheimer,

Henderson,

NeSmith,

Sentell,

Hinson,

O'Neill (Jefferson),

Sorrell,

Hodges,

O' Rear,

Studdard,

Jackson,

Parker (Elmore )

Thompson,

Jones, of Bibb,

Pearce,

Weakley.

Jones. of Hale,

Phillips,

Whiteside,

King,

Pillans,

Willet,

Kirk,

Porter,

Williams (Elmore),

Kirkland,

Proctor,

Winn.

Ledbetter,

Reese,

Lomax,

Renfro,

So the motion to table was carried.

MR. COLEMAN (Greene) ‑ I desire to offer an amendment to Section 63.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM. ‑ The gentleman is out of order. The question is upon the adoption of the section. The ayes and noes have been called for, and the call has been sustained.

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

AYES

Brooks,

Long (Walker),

Norman,

Foshee,

Mulkey,

Walker,

Hood,

 TOTAL ‑ 7 NOES

Ashcraft.

Davis, of Etowah,

Inge,

Almon,

Dent,

Jenkins,

Banks,

deGraffenreid,

Jones, of Montgomery,

Barefield,

Duke,

Jones, of Wilcox,

Beddow

Eley,

Knight,

Bethune,

Eyster,

Kyle,

Blackwell,

Espy,

Leigh,

Bulger,

Glover,

Lowe (Jefferson),

Carmichael, of Colbert,

Graham, of Montgomery,

Macdonald,

Chapman,

Handley,

McMillian (Baldwin),

Cobb,

Harrison,

McMillan (Wilcox),

Cofer,

Heflin, of Chambers,

Malone,

Coleman, of Greene,

Heflin, of Randolph,

Martin,

Craig,

Howell,

Maxwell,

Davis, of DeKalb,

Howze,

Merrill,


2663

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

Moody,

Rogers (Lowndes),

Stewart,

Murphree

Rogers (Sumter),

Tayloe,

Norwood,

Samford,

Vaughan.

Oates,

Sanders,

Waddell,

O’Neal (Lauderdale),

Sloan,

Watts.

Opp,

Smith (Mobile),

Weatherly,

Palmer,

Smith, Mac. A.,

White,

Parker (Cullman),

Smith, Morgan M.,

Williams (Barbour),

Pettus,

Sollie,

Williams (Marengo).

Pitts,

Spears,

Wilson (Clarke),

Reynolds (Chilton),

Spragins,

Wilson (Washington),

 TOTAL ‑ 79 ABSENT OR NOT VOTING

Messrs. President,

Grayson,

Parker (Elmore),

Altman,

Greer, of Calhoun,

Pearce,

Bartlett,

Greer, of Perry,

Phillips.

Beavers,

Haley,

Pillans,

Boone,

Henderson,

Porter.

Browne,

Hinson.

Proctor,

Burnett,

Hodges.

Reese,

Burns.

Jackson,

Renfro,

Byars,

Jones, of Bibb,

Reynolds (Henry).

Cardon,

Jones, of Hale,

Robinson,

Carmichael, of Coffee,

King.

Sanford.

Carnathon,

Kirk,

Searcy,

Case,

Kirkland,

Selheimer,

Coleman, of Walker,

Ledbetter,

Sentell,

Cornwall,

Locklin,

Sorrell,

Cunningham,

Lomax,

Studdard,

Ferguson,

Long (Butler),

Thompson.

Fitts,

Lowe (Lawrence).

Weakley.

Fletcher,

Miller (Marengo),

Whiteside,

Foster,

Miller (Wilcox).

Willet,

Freeman,

Morrisette,

Williams (Elmore),

Gilmore,

NeSmith,

Winn.

Graham, of Talladega,

O'Neill (Jefferson),

Grant.

O'Rear,

MR. COLEMAN (Greene)— If it is in order. I move that the Convention remain in session until we dispose of this argument.

Upon a vote being taken the rules Were suspended, and upon  a further vote the motion was carried.

MR. COLEMAN (Greene)‑---  I have an amendment which I desire to offer to Section 63.  The amendment was read as follows:

Move to amend Section 63 so that it shall read as follows:


2664

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

"The legislature shall provide by law for the regulation and reasonable restraint of common carriers, partnerships and associations, trusts, monopolies and combinations of capital, so as to prevent them or either of them front making the articles of necessity, trade or commerce scarce, or from increasing unreasonably the cost thereof to the consumer or preventing reasonable competition in any calling, trade or business.

MR. BROOKS ‑ I rise to a point of order. The previous question was called, upon the amendment, substitute and section.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The Chair's recollection is that the motion was to table the section and amendment, and the Convention has refused to table the section, and the amendment is therefore in order.

MR. COLEMAN (Greene) ‑ That amendment defines by setting out by names those subjects that should lie interfered with by legislation. So far as I am concerned I think all these matters belong to the legislature, but if the Convention is determined to adopt any provisions looking to the end sought to be obtained by Section 63, then I offer that as a substitute, or as all amendment to take the place of it. The difference between the original Section 63 and the amendment is that is the second line, after the words "of common carriers partnerships and associations" are inserted, then it includes "trusts, monopolies and combinations of capital." so as to prevent them from making in the original section it says by artificial means, and I do not know exactly what that is, but it reads so as to prevent them or either of them from making the articles of necessity, trade or commerce scarce. or prevent them from unreasonably increasing the cost thereof to the consumer, or to prevent reasonable competition in any trade or calling.  I used the word unreasonable, because articles of the character included here could not be transported without soiree cost, that is the purpose of using the word unreasonable. I think it meets the purpose intended by the gentleman of Mobile, and has none of these combinations and confusions. It is easily understood, if the Convention sees proper to adopt any amendment upon that line.

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ I have an amendment.

The amendment was read as follows:

Amend Section 63 of Article IV by inserting before the word “regulation" the words "prohibition or" and striking out the word “and" immediately after the word "regulation" in first line.

MR. LOWE (Jefferson)— If the members will consider the language that is employed in this provision as follows:  "The legislature shall provide by law for the regulation and reasonable restraint of trusts, monopolies and combinations of capital so as to prevent them, etc.   That provision would seem to take away from


2665

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

the General Assembly the power to prohibit the combination of capital for the purposes stated.  I do not believe that that was the purpose of the Committee.  I do not believe it was the intention of the Committee to take away from the legislature of Alabama the power to prohibit trusts and combinations of capital, and therefore I move the adoption of the amendment which has been sent to the desk.

MR. BROOKS ‑ I ask to have the section as amended by that substitute react so we may understand it.

The Secretary read as follows :

"'The legislature shall provide by 1aw for the prohibition or regulation or reasonable restraint of trusts. monopolies and com ‑ binations of capital, so as to prevent them from making by, such artificial means. articles of trade, or commerce scarce or by increasing the costs thereof to the consumer, or by preventing reasonable competition in any calling, trade or business.

Upon a vote being taken a division was called for.

MR. LOWE (Jefferson) ‑ If it is not too late I will call for the ayes and noes.

The call was not sustained.

MR. HOWZE ‑ What is the effect of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Jefferson upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Greene?

MR. COLEMAN (Greene) ‑ I will state that the gentleman from Greene is perfectly willing to accept that so far as he is concerned . MR. WATTS ‑ I withdraw my call for a division.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Jefferson by a viva voce vote was adopted

THE PRESIDENT ‑ The question recurs upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Greene.

MR. SOLLIE ‑ Before voting on the amendment I am not sure that I understand what the effect of the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Jefferson will be. I don't know whether the word "prohibit" was substituted for the word "regulation" or merely added to the Section.

A DELEGATE ‑ It was added to it.

A reading of the Section as amended was again called for, and upon a vote being taken the amendment offered by the gentleman from Greene as amended by the amendment of the gentleman from


2666

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Jefferson was adopted, thereupon Section 63 its amended was adopted

Section 64 was read as follows:

Sec. 64. The Senators, and Representatives shall, before entering on their official duties, take the following oath, to wit : "I, ----------------,do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Alabama, and particularly observe and obey all the provisions of the latter relating to the Legislative Department, to the best of my ability, so help me God.”

MR. BLACKWELL-I desire to offer an amendment.

The amendment was read as follows:

Amend Section 64, report of the Committee on legislative Department, by striking out all after the word "Alabama" in the fourth line

MR. BLACKWELL. ‑ That is merely for the purpose of striking out what seems to me to be a ridiculous statement. It reads as if we should observe one part of the oath more than the other, and it is simply to remove that apparent distinction which we appear to make in the observance of this oath.

MR. COLEMAN (Greene) ‑ I think I have an amendment which will meet our views, and some other defects.

The amendment was read as follows:

Amend Section 64, of the Legislative Department by inserting after the word "and" in the third line the words "the Constitution,” and to further amend said Section by striking out all of the fourth line after the word "Alabama," and strike out the words "Legislative Department" in the fifth line.

MR. COLEMAN (Greene)‑ The  Section would read, if the substitute was adopted : "Solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and of the State of Alabama to the best of my ability, so help me God."

Upon a vote being taken the substitute was adopted, and upon a further vote, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Morgan as amended by the substitute of the gentleman from Greene was adopted

Thereupon Section 64 as amended was adopted.

Mr. Burns sought recognition.

MR. WADDELL. ‑ I move that this Convention do now adjourn.


2667

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

THE  PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The Chair had recognized the gentleman from Dallas to offer an amendment to the Article.

MR. WEATHERLY- I  rise to a point of order.  The hour of adjournment has arrived.  The rules were suspended, and we determined to remain in session until this article was disposed of.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM- Until this article was completed, and the Chair would be disposed to hold that the Article is not complete while an amendment to it is in order, and an amendment is in order at this time.

MR. BURNS ‑ Read the amendment, and if there is any objection to it I will withdraw it.

The amendment was read as follows:

Strike out all of Section 64 and insert:

That the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House shall receive $6 per diem and 10 cents mileage.

MR. BURNS ‑ You will recollect that no salary has been fixed for the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House.  They ought to have more than four dollars per diem.

MR. ASHCRAFT ‑ I move that the amendment be laid upon the table.

Upon a vote being taken the amendment was laid upon the table.

MR. BROOKS ‑ I move we adjourn.

MR. SMITH ‑ I have an amendment I desire to offer to the article.

Amend the article reported by the Committee of Legislation by adding thereto the following, as a separate section:

If at any time it should become impossible or dangerous for the Legislature to meet or remain at the Capitol, or for the Senate to meet or remain in the Senate Chamber, or for the Representatives to meet or remain in the Hall of the Representatives, the Governor may convene the Legislature or remove it after it has convened, to some other place, or may designate some other place for the sitting of the respective houses or either of them, as necessity may require.

MR. OATES ‑ That is already provided for in the article.

MR. HEFLIN (Chambers) ‑ I understood the gentleman from Mobile was willing to withdraw the amendment if there was a section in the article which covered the point.


2668

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS  

MR. SMITH (Mobile) ‑ I don't know  where the gentleman got his understanding from. The gentleman from Mobile has not said a word about it.

MR. HEFLIN-I rise to a question of personal privilege.

THE  PRESIDENT  PRO TEM.‑ The gentleman from Mobile has the floor.

MR. SMITH (Mobile) ‑ When  we adopted Section 5, I tried to get in the amendment, and also  when Section 15 was under consideration.  This Convention has made the following provision, in Section 5, that the convention shall meet quadrennially at the Capitol in the Senate Chamber and in Hall of the House of  Representatives  except in the case of the destruction of the Capitol or epidemics.  Now it may be that this portion of the Capitol might become dangerous, so that it cannot be occupied, and yet it is not destroyed, or it may occur as it did in Kentucky that by riot or an armed force it would be impossible to sit at the Capitol, without there being an epidemic at all and there is no power in that section to permit the Legislature to sit elsewhere. The Chairman suggests that I read the balance of the section, "when the Governor may convene them at such place in the State as he may deem best oil the clay 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."

Then in Section 15 the Convention  will find this provision:

"Neither house shall without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which they may be sitting.  If anything should occur between  the adjournment and the time that they returned the Legislature would be broken up."

It seems to me therefore there ought to be a provision permitting them to sit elsewhere whenever it becomes impossible for them to sit in the Capitol, or is dangerous for them to do so, irrespective of what causes that impossibility, or what the causes of the danger may be. I add this as an additional section, in order that the Committee on Harmony may make the correction  in the proper section.

MR. BURNS ‑ I offer an amendment to the amendment.

"Amend Section 64:  The President of the Senate and Speaker of the House shall receive six dollars per diem."

MR. ROGERS (Sumter) ‑ That has just been voted down.

MR. BURNS ‑ I have the floor, and I will ask the distinguished Chairman if there is any provision for paying the Speaker of the


2669

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

House and the President of the Senate any more than an ordinary member.

MR. OATES ‑ Not in the Constitution, but the Legislature does that for their official services. In addition to their being members of the house and getting the regular pay as members, there is an additional allowance for their official work, and I think it best to leave it as it is.

MR. BURNS ‑ The Legislature might make it twenty ‑ five dollars or two dollars and a half. I insist on the amendment, and they may vote it down.

MR. ASHCRAFT ‑ I rise to the point of order that the same amendment has been voted on before and has been  tabled, and this amendment is not germane to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mobile.

THE  PRESIDENT PRO TEM. ‑ The point of order is sustained. The amendment is out of order.

MR. BURNS ‑ I rise to a point of order. The other article I sent up there, or instrument, was an independent section, and not an amendment, and this is not verbatim.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The Chair has ruled on the point of order.

MR. OATES ‑ The amendment offered by the delegate from Mobile, as a separate section, I think, might be well taken in connection with Section 5, which has already been passed upon, and I presume the Committee of Harmonics can do that.  It ought not to be scattered about, but ought to be a part of Section 5, if adopted at all.  I shall interpose no objection to it, if the Convention desires to adopt it.

MR. HEFLIN (Chambers) ‑ I  move its adoption, Mr. President.

Upon a vote being taken the amendment offered by the gentleman  from  Mobile (Mr. Smith) was adopted.

MR. SMITH (Mobile) ‑ I desire to move to reconsider the vote whereby Section 59 was adopted. I endeavored to offer an amendment to the section at the time as was under consideration, but did not catch the eye of the Chair.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ Under the rule of the Convention the motion will go over until tomorrow.

MR. BEDDOW ‑ I have an amendment.

MR. BURNS ‑ That motion to reconsider  will have to go over until tomorrow  morning.


2670

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

THE  PRESIDENT  PRO TEM ‑ The Chair has just made that announcement.

The amendment offered by Mr. Beddow  was read as follows:

Section 66. A11 printing and stationery, furnished under Section 28 of this article shall bear the union label of the Typographical Union, provided the printing establishment having in their employment union labor is the lowest responsible bidder, at the lowest prices.

MR. BEDDOW-- ‑ If the Convention desires to adjourn, I will address myself to that amendment in the morning.

MR. HEFLIN (Chambers) ‑ I move that we adjourn.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ The gentleman from Jefferson has the floor.

MR. BEDDOW ‑ That amendment is one that I have been making an effort to get before this Convention in some shape or other for the last twenty days. I offered a resolution on that subject, that was assigned to a certain hole, from  which it can never recover, if left to stand as it is. I did this at the request of numerous citizens and voters of the State of Alabama, those whose interests we were sent here to look after, and who are looking to this Convention for some aid and some support along the lines of union labor. We have had numerous petitions from the Typographical Unions of Huntsville, of Birmingham, of Mobile and of  Montgomery, from the United Iron Workers of America, the leading Trade Councils all over the State, and in the aggregate I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that this request comes from twenty ‑ five to thirty thousand white voters in the State of Alabama. Matters like this cannot be turned lightly down, and I must say that I have been surprised that on every occasion that I have attempted to get this question before this house, a manner little short of ridicule has met my effort, but I am glad to say that I have got it before the house at last, and if there are thirty men in this house who favor this class of our citizens, I want to call for an aye and no vote, to show how we stand upon this proposition. In every department of this life where success is attained, there must be a union of action. The great capitalists all over the country, when they seek to decrease their expenses and increase their field of operation, unite their capital and their intellect. All things are unsuccessful, unless they have a head under whom they can work together as one man. In other words in union there is strength, and in division there is weakness.

The leading newspapers of this State, with but one exception, I believe, carry at their mastheads the union label of the Typographical Union, The Age ‑ Herald at Birmingham, Birmingham News, Birmingham Ledger, The Mobile Register and The Mont‑


2671

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

gomery Journal, all carry at their mastheads this union label, and they, are the leading newspapers of the State of Alabama. The object of the organization is not for the purposes that some people charge to them. They  are not a set of  Nihilists, they are not a set of Anarchists. They are men that are bound together for upbuilding the rights of labor in this country, not by illegal  means, but just along the same lines that bind other organizations  together for the good off all.  You call look over the whole field, and among these men are not those who fill the poor houses and the jails of your country. They are the men who do the best  work along the lines of business that they are engaged in. In my county it has worked  wonders. Ten years ago in Jefferson County the man dared not let it be known that be belonged  to a union organization; today a mail is proud to say that he is a member of such an organization. They meet with their employers, and they consult with them, and they demand and command their respect. The result is that it has been proven to be for the benefit of the employer and employe.  It has brought them into closer relation with each other. It has decreased the number of strikes, and has benefited thousands of members in my county, and I have seen the good results of its work.

Now  we have tried this printing business outside of the State, and in every instance it has been a failure. The poorest look that I have in my library is 118 Alabama, which  was sent out of the State to be printed. It will be better to lay these men who are good  workmen, better prices, and keep it  within our State, and give the advantage to those who are banded together for the benefit of themselves and benefit of their families, than to go beyond the confines of the State and give it to other people. Now some people might say it would be wrong  to discriminate, that  there are others that do not belong  to unions, I can say of my personal knowledge that these men do not desire to break down the organization, but they work on the outside for they know there are those who will not give employment to men who belong to a labor organization. You pass this law, and those same parties  will be glad to employ the same class of men, and  those men who are non-union  men will be glad to join the ranks of union labor, and join in the effort for the upbuilding of the common good. At the opening of this session our President quoted a very beautiful piece of poetry about Adou Ben Adhem.  He  went on to speak of the angel writing in the book. And Abou  waked and asked what he was doing, and he said he was  writing the names of those who loved the Lord, and Abou asked if he is name was  written there, and the angel answered that is was not. Abou said write me as one who loves his fellowman. The angel wrote and vanished, and when he returned and read the names whom love of God had blessed, the poet says Lo, Be Adhem's name lead all the rest. Now let us not only adopt such grand lofty and ennobling sentiment for the embellishment


2672

OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS

of our speeches, but let us show by our actions that we are in deed and in truth men who love our fellow ‑ men.

MR. OATES ‑ The provision already adopted, and which has been in force for more than twenty ‑ five years, requires the printing to be let to the lowest responsible bidder, requiring that it should bear the stamp of a labor organization or a printers' union has no place in a Constitution. If any establishment in which labor union is employed should be the lowest responsible bidder for the work they ought to have it, and there is nothing in the provision already to exclude their froth it or discriminate against them. It is committed to the officers of the State to let out the printing to the lowest responsible bidder, without discrimination, sometimes it may be that the officer or officers whose duty it is may let out the printing, as has been alleged, to irresponsible parties outside of the State, but in that they do not discharge the trust committed to them properly. We cannot assume that it will be uniformly thus. If it should be the lowest responsible who will do the ,work well. I do not think that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Jefferson has any proper place at this time. I will say that I have, and no doubt the Convention has, as much respect for the honest labor of those in the union as those who are not. That is not the question. The printing of the State must be let out to the lowest responsible bidder, and it does not include any one who does not belong to a labor union or a printer's union, and therefore I move to lay the amendment upon the table.

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

The call was not sustained, and upon a viva voce vote the motion to table was carried.

THE PRESIDENT PRO TEM ‑ Under the suspension of the rules the Convention must remain in session until this Article is completed. The Article now having been completed, the Convention will stand adjourned until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.   

                     

CORRECTIONS

In proceedings of the forty ‑ ninth day, first column, second page, Mr. Foster is recorded as voting no on adoption of Article on Local Legislation. Mr. Poster was absent on that day, and consequently did not vote.             

                           

In proceedings of the fiftieth day Mr. Brook's amendment should read as follows:

No railroad or other transportation company shall grant free passes, or shall at reduced rates not common to the public, sell


2673

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1901

tickets for transportation to any person holding any office of honor, trust or profit in this State, and the acceptance of such pass or ticket by a member of the Legislature or any public officer shall work a forfeiture of his office, at the suit of the Attorney General.

Any railroad or other transportation company or officer or agent thereof who shall grant a free pass, or shall at reduced rates not common to the public, sell tickets for transportation to any such person, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and is liable to punishment, except as herein provided.

No person or officer or agent of a corporation who gives any such free pass, free transportation or sells tickets for transportation at reduced  rates hereby prohibited, shall be privileged from testifying in relation thereto, and he shall not be liable to civil or criminal prosecution therefor if he shall testify to the giving or selling of the smile. But this shall not prohibit the Legislature from authorizing the State to contract with any such railroad or other transportation company for the transportation at reduced rates of State officers while traveling in the discharge of their official duties.

And in the sixth column, thirty ‑ fourth line, should read "with damaging insinuations."

In column 6, page 3, should read: They may not ask directly for themselves, but may have some friend that does so (and that is the mode which is very frequently employed. Some friend does so. )

In column 6, page 3, should read: "I will have to refer you to our attorney (Judge Baxter of Nashville, one of the best lawyers the country has ever produced.)