*1 268 So.2d
Hoyt Association B. HAMILTON Commissions Alabama et al. COUNTY
AUTAUGA
Supreme Court of Alabama.
Sept. 28, 1972.
Rehearing Denied Nov. *2 Melton, Montgomery, Jr.,
Oakley W. Ashville, Swann, appellants. Gerald C. 42X *3 Baxley, Atty. Gen., William and Leslie J. Hall, Gen., Atty. appellees. Asst. BLOODWORTH, Justice. appeal The in this case from a final a declaratory judgment decree in proceed- ing act, providing wherein an that sheriffs compensated by salary, be an annual was held to be constitutional when freed its exceptions. unconstitutional complaint sought The bill of a declara- tory judgment constitutionality as to the Alabama, p. Act No. Acts of prayed appvd. Sept. permanently the counties of Alabama provi- complying of the enjoined from and shall be in such amount as Act. pre- sions of the hereinafter : scribed complaint brought by was bill having ‘In counties Hamilton, resident, Hoyt taxpayer, B. 12,400 less, salary the annual probate judge St. Clair and former $10,000. shall having sheriff In counties County, the Association populations 20,000 more than nor Alabama, unincorpo- an Commissions of 12,400, less than the annual composed rated members association $12,000, except sheriff shall be in all county governing bodies various having a population of not less original respondents were the State. The 15,000 15,300, than nor more than all of all of sheriffs counties and annual $8,400. the sheriff shall *4 of the of Alabama. sheriff of “ party as County was dismissed a Greene populations having ‘In counties not of counties, only respondent, and of the Ge- 20,000 30,000 less than nor more than neva, Bullock, Blount, and Tal- Jefferson salary annual of the sheriff be shall respondents.1 lapoosa in remain the suit $13,000, except having in all counties population 24,800 a of not less than nor understanding of For the issues a better 25,400, salary more than the annual of herein out presented, No. set Act $12,000, shall be and in coun- sheriff full, in viz: having population ties a of not less than 16,150 17,350 nor more than the annual “AN ACT salary county set by governing shall be body by properly adopted resolution an in regulate “To further the office of sheriff $12,000. amount not to exceed State; prescribe in this to the annual sal- “ aries of sheriffs of the several counties having populations ‘In counties not of basis; population 30,000 classified 96,000 state on a less than nor more than provide operation to for of- sheriff’s be salary annual of the sheriff shall provide salary basis; fice $15,000, having on a to for except in all counties regulate the collection sheriffs’ fees and 50,000 of population a than nor of not less payment county 51,000 thereof into the treas- salary more than the annual of ury; laws, general, repeal conflicting to $12,000, except sheriff shall be in counties special. 48,500 local and having population less a of not than 49,500 salary nor more than of by “Be Legislature It Enacted of Ala- except $16,000, in counties sheriff shall be bama: 31,000 population a less having of not than 32,000, salary nor “Section 1. more than the annual Sheriffs several compensated $12,000, except in in shall counties this State shall be sheriff be by having not less salary pay- their services annual counties a an 61,000 62,000, county the an- equal able than nor more than installments out of the $13,500, treasury county salary nual shall be as the salaries of other sheriff employees salary except having a paid. counties are The annual 65,000 70,000, depend not more than the sheriff shall on the less than nor number salary shall annual of the sheriff county inhabitants of as shown $14,000, popu- except having counties decennial most recent federal census friendly County com- filed Counties answers Greene and its sheriff were dis- plainants parties ; neu- and Bullock filed their Geneva missed on own motion answers; Blount, respondents 23C, “appearance” Jef- tral because of Amendment Tallapoosa allied ferson Counties Pike Constitution Alabama and, respondent sheriffs; motion, changed, its own themselves was on against respondent party pro party taken were confesso from a to a com- decrees fifty-seven plainant ; Butler, Dale, counties. the other Crenshaw 48,000 prisoners, nor more less than than shall be allowed to not continue lation of 49,000, salary of sheriff the annual collect and retain said amounts and allow- except having in counties $12,000, feeding prison- he ances shall received from the 41,000 nor of not less than populations ers. 45,000 annual than more county governing body “Section 3. The govern- be set sheriff shall shall also furnish the sheriff with the nec- duly adopted in ing body by a resolution quarters, books, essary stationery, office $15,000; provid- amount not exceed an equipment, supplies, postage and other con- ed, however, apply not shall including veniences and equipment, auto- less having population of not counties necessary repairs, mobiles and maintenance 41,000. 37,000 than than nor more thereto, expenses and all incidental as are “ having populations ‘In counties reasonably proper effi- needed for the 125,000, 96,000 nor than less than more cient conduct of the affairs the sheriff’s salary of the sheriff the annual shall office. $16,500; provisions “Section 4. The of this Act having populations ‘In of not part severable. If of the Act is 500,000 125,000 less than more than nor unconstitutional, declared invalid such annual the sheriff shall declaration shall not affect *5 $18,000; remains. “ population having ‘In all counties a laws, parts “Section 5. All laws 500,000 salary the annual more than general, special, local or in conflict here- $19,000. sheriff shall repealed. hereby are fees, 'Such shall be lieu “Section ef- 6. This Act shall become compensation, allowances, percentages, upon expiration fective term of of the charges costs, except and herein other- office the sheriffs incumbents who are provided. depu- and wise The sheriff his of such office this Act law.” when becomes however, shall, ties be entitled collect to Section 1 divides the counties mileage expense such and retain and al- population State into seven classifications payable according may lowances to prescribes the salaries those sheriffs prisoners returning transferring law for classi- whose counties fall into of such each persons points to or from out- insane fications. Section 1 also contains eleven county.’ side the population excepted categories which are commissions, fees, per- general population "Section All from three of classi- allowances, centages, charges prescribed and court fications. Different salaries are costs heretofore the use of collectible for those counties fall whose within deputies including excepted categories. the sheriff and his When the Act was Legis-* allowances and amounts received for feed- the Regular at Session ing prisoners, paid excepted shall collected and lature in each of the cate- general except gories into county applied only county. fund one How- population ever, that in having all counties population because of the narrow lim- 50,000 51,000 not less than excepted category, than nor more itation contained in each having population counties of not population county because the of each 56,000 60,000 less than nor more by than both is determined the most recent decennial census, as shown cen- most recent decennial the 1970 census altered the number paid sus of said falling category. counties shall be the al- of counties into each feeding lowances authorized for excepted categories After five of the prisoners and in sher- county, those counties where were found apply iff’s office categories now authorized law to five excepted applied collect feeding the allowances county, for the of more than one while one cate- brackets, salary prescribed county, for each only one and a gory applied to county excepted category, and the or coun- that.2
different at excepted category each ties which fall into (It following table are under both the 1960 and 1970 census. Set out purpose to general population classifications and would serve no useful indicate seven shown the various which fall each prescribed for each. Also into categories general ex- which are seven classifica- cepted tions.) of the seven from three Only Counties
Excepted Range 1960 Census 1970 Census Salary Population (1) 1-12,400 $10,000 (2) 12,400-20,000 12,000
Except: 8,400 15,000 15,300 Henry — 12,000 or Cherokee 16,150-17,350 Choctaw, Fayette, less Washington, Sumter, Wilcox, Winston (3) $13,000 20,000-30,000 Except: St. 24,800-25,400 Chilton, Macon, Clair 12,000 Pike
(4) 30,000-96,000 15,000 Except: 32,000 Dale 12,000 31.000- Not 41,000 apply Jackson, Shelby Chambers 37.000- 45,000 DeKalb, or less DeKalb 41.000- 15.000 Limestone *6 49,000 Marshall 12.000 48.000- 48,500-49,500 16,000 Baldwin 51,000 Houston 12,000 50.000- 62,000 13,500 Lauderdale Lee 61.000- Talladega 65,000-70,000 14,000 Lauderdale, Talladega
(5) 96,000-125,000 16,000 (6) 125,000-500,000 18,000 (7) 500,000 over 19,000 and provides by Act County 2 of the that the Houston the 1960 census and Section fees, allowances, commissions, percentages, applies county by no to the 1970 census. formerly charges (which and court costs population from (2) Counties with of use sheriffs), collected the were 56,000 only to 60,000, applied to which paid general shall into the fund each be of ap- by County Dallas the 1960 census and However, county. contains Section also Baldwin, plies Houston and Walker to exceptions three which allow sheriffs by the census. Counties excepted to those counties to continue allowances authorized for feed- collect sheriff, where the at (3) All counties ing prisoners. exceptions These are: passed, was the time Act was author- allowances for population by ized to collect the from law (1) Counties feeding 50,000 51,000, only prisoners. to applied which to July judicially herein, one which deleted 2. wo not an issue While exceptions. Regular Legislature This is eleven at know change 77, appvd. this Act made. Session 1971 No. unconstitutional, part court held tional and in and The decree trial final wholly independent exceptions parts all of that if the inclusion of these other, unconstitution- each which is constitution- in the Act rendered the Act only- may exception pertained al is un- stand that which because each while al ” * * * rejected. pass- time the Act’s constitutional county (at one will laws, local age), these constituted and by required not which were advertised may it be deter by The test which of the Alabama Constitution Section 106 act, which of an mined whether However, the court further trial 1901. unconstitutional remains after severance of that, by the severabil- held the exercise of provisions, given and be should survive Act, ity clause in the these unconstitutional legal frequently been stated effect has exceptions and could be severed the re- court, viz: constitutional, maining con- Act would ** * if after deletion of the did, salary taining, it seven brackets portions part, remaining invalid applied the counties themselves, complete an Act are within State, “reasonably and which related were execution, sensible, capable population.” to the difference in notwithstanding partial Act will stand its decree, complainants From this Hamil- invalidity. Springer v. ex rel. ton and the Association of Commis- Williams, 219.” So. appeal. sions Woolf, Wilkins v. Statutes, 18 Ala.Digest, So.2d Act, parties agree Both when Key 64(1). passed, exceptions contained which were clearly which, having local laws object The real dominant required by been advertised as Section purpose of place this Act tois each sheriff Constitution of were unconsti- of Alabama salary on an annual pre and to questions tutional. ap- raised on this him, scribe paid according peal I. Whether the trial court erred are: into bracket which his deleting these exercise of county falls. This is in lieu of all clause; the severance and II. Whether fees, commissions, etc., except as other that, trial court holding erred in after re- provided wise fees, in the Act. Such com moval of these exceptions, unconstitutional missions, etc., heretofore collectible for the remaining provisions Act were sheriffs, paid shall be into the constitutional given and should be effect. *7 county. fund of the This is clear both caption from the and the
I. contents of Severability the Act itself. Appellants-complainants Hamilton and the Association of Commissions Severed of excep- its unconstitutional argue that the severing tions, trial court erred in places the Act all the the
the exceptions local excep- because these State into seven brackets and tions integral part are too much an of the prescribes the the sheriff of each Act to be deleted by exercise of sever- the county according the classifi- ance clause and that therefore the entire cation into which each falls. These Act must be declared unconstitutional. classifications bear a substan- rational and legislation. tial objects relation to the of the Louisiana, 80, In Allen v. 103 U.S. 26 provisions, severance, remaining after L.Ed. (1880), Supreme 318 the Court complete themselves, the within un- the United respect held with States exceptions nothing constitutional add question, this viz: scope sensible, the of the Act. The Act is “It is an elementary principle reasonably that the the being difference in same may part statute be in constitu- population. related to the in difference 426 capable
And, straying conjecture,” of execution. the the Act is We “into mazes of therefore, conclude, provisions inquiring that the re- “into the which motives influenc- Legislature” maining legisla- as a val- ed passing after severance can stand the in this attempted if legislative id enactment. we tion to determine whether it would had have the unconstitu- the Appellants, however, insist that tional not been included. We defeats clause exercise of severance legisla- must determine intent of the intent; in legislative that the clear “by ture it has said” and what that exempt legislature tention was to “expressed it which in has the statute.” provi certain counties from Todd, supra; Long, Holt v. v. su- James Act, excep sions of the these had pra. Act, prob it tions not into been written provisions specific One Act ably passed. would not have is severability providing that, “If that, It is established in our law well any part is invalid or declared unconstitutional, such declaration shall not interpretation statutes, the “In the affect that which remains.” legislative important is the will factor, controlling and it been fre has recently expressed has This court stated, effect, quently intent separability the rule as to clauses in Allen legislature constitutes law. ” 162, 156, County, v. * * * 281 Ala. 199 Walker Gaillard, State, rel. v. ex Weill 854, (1967): So.2d 34 So.2d Statutes, Key 181 (1948). Ala.Digest, separability recognize that “We (1). given pos- effect, clause shall be where sible, legislative (Ala- to save enactment And, that, held i court has also McAdory, Fed. bama State of Labor v. “ * ** learn what We can /- p. 25, 810), Ala. at 18 So.2d said, has what it Legislature intended portion if the not intertwined invalid so right stray into the ‘to have no portions remaining such for an conjecture or search mazes remaining portions are rendered mean- ” Long, 234 Holt imaginary purpose.’ ingless by extirpation, in which event (1937). So. legislature it must be assumed passed the enactment would not have Legislature, ‘The intention of meaningless. thus rendered Ward v. is that given, effect must which Lea, ex rel. So. statute, and the courts expressed 416.” inquire not into motives will individual Legislature or influenced por invalid do think the We nor passage, its voting for members in intertwined with tions of the Act were so drafts- intention to the indeed as remain remaining portion “that such so it far as Legislature so man or of meaningless by ing portions are rendered expressed in the act. So has not been * * extirpation *8 meaning of a statute ascertaining the son.’ legislative committees court will not 103 So.2d the views or members ” James 19, 28-29 of the v. be opinions Todd, governed (1958). Legislature, or its or of any or any influenced other 495, 506, or all per- of mind the the severable partly ** We “ [*] * further infected * legislature intended * recognize persuasive to the [Wjhere or saving invalidity that, a statute that should * * judicial thereof is thus * portion stricken, valid the invalid pronounce light these In the of ex Clarke survive. State rel. should ments, us we would it seems to
427 974; 266, Amendment to the Carter, Ala. 56 So. 92 Aabama 174 Constitu- v. basically 1901, provides Montgomery, tion Crumpton] v. same re- rel. State [ex striction, 212, 294]; Opin 59 So. viz: supra Ala. [177 “ 195, 23 So. Justices, 247 Ala. of the ion * * * legislature, either the nor [N] Co. v. Standard Oil 2d Williams any county shall, by of the state the im- 235, 115, Louisiana, 49 S.Ct. 73 U.S. 278 position new, different, and additional 287, Newton A.L.R. 596.” L.Ed. increase, duties or otherwise, or author- Tuscaloosa, 218, City 209, of, ize the salary, increase fees or (1948). 36 So.2d compensation any other officer any county state, or of state who unquestionably the inten- it was While term, is elected or appointed fixed for a exempt legislature certain tion of during the term for which he is elected general provisions of from the appointed or ***.***’’ Act, unambiguous plain lan- Since the does prescribe Act different itself con- guage (to of the Act which our salaries, based on clearly restricted) sideration is indicates counties, various as determined each suc- legislature Act also intended the ceeding census, appellants decennial con- we Therefore, to be severable. we think tend that the salaries of the sheriffs are may logically legislature conclude that subject to change during term their of- that, provisions intended in the event those fice each time a new census classification (exempting counties) might be certain occurs.3 they stricken Act from the because were
unconstitutional, remaining por- valid unquestionably subject No. given legal should ef- tions and be survive to the restrictions 281 and Amendment § fect. 92, supra, agree but cannot we that these provisions
constitutional impair the consti- tutionality provisions of the Act. These Constitutionality II. changes serve fix the date on which Appellants, however, further insist that sheriffs’ (resulting popula- salaries from general provisions even if the survive sev- tion changes) put into can effect. exceptions, erance the local isAct State, In State Docks Commission v. unconstitutional, still given cannot be So. 542-543 effect because it is violative 281 and § this court held (1933), 281 did not § Amendment 92 of Alabama Constitu- the constitutionality affect a bill to re- tion of 1901. duce superintendent Section Alabama Docks, Constitution simply pre- but § provides, as follows: vented the taking Act from effect until the superintendent completed had his then salary, “Sec. fees, 281. The or com- present term. After setting out § pensation any holding any officer civil (along with other similarly various sections profit office of any under this state or restricting specific public officers), .this thereof, municipality or shall not concluded, court viz: be increased during diminished * * * for term which he shall been have elected limitations the sec- appointed.” quoted tions Constitution above 3. See Title 1 follows: ninetieth first after the amended, *9 “§ 14. regular legislative publication by day § Reclassification after Code of Alabama provides, the first session held next the federal date. —The day part, gov- tion fixed as the tion under ernment of the [*] [*] based *» census any date on regular law for such requiring Alabama is federal decennial said reclassifica- classifica- census. hereby any way prevent Legisla- Docks not in under the Constitution. do ture, any State, it fit 521(3), in manner sees proper Commission 227 Ala. time, passing a or any 537; from law and at So. State ex rel. Thomas v. Gun- diminishing ter, increasing or 165(3), either So. 46 Cor- laws any salaries, pus of- pay, compensation Juris, of not or note. The act was a employee or the state. With void for that reason when it was enact- ficer expressed ed, clearly in proper subject but its effect would limited no reason act, not immediate title of the we know Constitution so as to have why operation.” emphasis.] it fix in act the sala- could not one [Our compensation of all officers ries provisions of account On § any de- or employees of the state there 281 and Amendment we hold any partment any num- thereof, or one or salary any sher change can be no in the employees of the ber of the officers and iff, in on the reclassification who is office any department The state or thereof. any county which, date,4 in because in would limits set forth said sections is in a different changes, placed validity impair in no of such sense Salary classification bracket. They an act. affect would resulting population fluctua changes from provisions date at the various which * * * only when the sheriff tions can take effect . go law effect. would into has date in on the reclassification office provisions These constitutional must he, his either or his term and concluded every an enactment, and such read into successor, serving new term. begun has expressed enactment, unless otherwise itself, go effect at the act would into Thus, 1170 is conclude that Act No. we prescribed or at such as once times unconstitutional, violating not rendered employees act to all officers and or Amendment but either § protected by the above sections not any provisions prevent these constitutional Constitution, as to the officers begin- changes in until the sheriffs’ salaries it named in said sections employees succeeding follow- ning of the next term the term go during into would not effect ing the reclassification. they had been elected but Act, Appellants or to then contend that apply to their successors would severed, and when elected to succeed even with local them if emphasis.] unconstitutional as violative of 96 and themselves.” § § [Our of 1901. 104(24), Alabama Constitution County, 233 In Hawkins v. Jefferson These set out below. sections are 51-52, (1936), this 169 So. legislature shall not “Sec. 96. effect on the court considered the § any applicable to enact law not constitutionality reducing the of an act state, regulating costs and probate judge of Jefferson charges courts, fees, or commissions County and concluded as follows: public officers.” allowances “ * ** think be- do' not We to do so though decrease a cause of cannot for its at the end of that salary, it terms circumstance period may that its of a not be certain time that an act period, al- effect effective will pass “Sec. 104. The [*] following special, private, ‡ [*] cases: legislature shall not [*] or local law in [*] [*] “(24) Creating, increasing, or decreas- during prohibited That begin time. fees, percentages, suspend ing allowances of merely situation is to its effect officers; 'operative public it until such time as shall simply 4. do what ease. In note we called atten- We not decide this case provisions is, 1, § an issue in this tion tlie Title date since this
429 previous that while tion of 1901. This Appellants provides contend amendment as exempted have follows: amendments constitutional the strictures of from 27 counties § legislature may, “The from time to this statute to which there are 39 counties time, by general laws, or local to become applies, and that “the Act cannot ever still approved by effective majority if there apply in Alabama until to 39 counties qualified electors of St. Clair applicable is an 96 amendment Section county voting at a referendum election Appellants Opinion of the cite them.” held not less than three months after Justices, 255 Ala. So.2d adjournment the final legislative proposition that: (1951), for session at enacted, fix, which such is law " * * * alter, regulate and charges costs and A is local which statute of courts in St. Clair by and the counties creates a classification of commissions, fees, percentages, allow- apply to ever population, if it cannot ances, salary, and including the method an amend- some until there is or compensation, basis of their to be applicable to them ment of section 96 * * charged by or judge received pro- *'» bate, sheriff, assessor, collector, tax tax argument. see no merit in this Sec- We register, clerk, any circuit other of- prohibits “any applicable law not tion 96 ficer county, Clair St. including the prohibits to all the counties.” Section right place any of such officers on a “special, private or As we any local law.” provide charged the fees concluded, of the lo- have after severance or by collected paid them to be into the exceptions, cal is a Act No. 1170 treasury from which their salaries shall counties, applies law. It all the paid.” fall into one of the counties of the State is, gather appellants’ argument We designated population classifications.5 requires any gen- because Amendment 196 inap- Opinion Justices, supra, is (cid:127) fixing eral law the sheriff posite general, is a because No. 1170 County by approved of St. Clair to be local, applies rather than a to all law may voters that county, Act No. 1170 necessity counties without go anywhere into effect in the State amending 96. § by County until ratified Clair elec- St. repealer Act No. 1170 also contains agree torate. this inter- We cannot with Section 5 which has effect pretation. repealing the various local laws counties, previous under constitu- In State v. Calumet & Hecla amendments, permit payment tional Co., 225, 233-234, Copper Consol. of salaries to sheriffs of those counties. quoted (1953), So.2d this court approval
with holding the trial court’s respect that, statutory conclude interpretation We therefore that Act severed, applies No. to all the susceptible ‘If a statute is of two counties of the State and is not violation constructions,. one of which is workable of either 104. § § and fair and the other unworkable and Appellants finally unjust contend that Act the court No. will assume that violates, with, legislature is in conflict intended that is which work- * * * * Amendment able and 196 to the Alabama Constitu- fair. Except County, excepted 5. § Greene other from 96 and tbe sheriff’s sal ary county similarly specifically situated. As we have Greene set pointed out, County, by heretofore Green such amendment. Amendment See specifically constitutional amendment *11 430 ap- principle conclusions, be likewise of our this to In view think we do not We necessary find it
plicable to amendments.
to comment on the trial
holding
interpret
court’s
to
Amend-
the lan-
argued
it be
should
Even
ment
precluding
196 as
Act No.
from
1170
ambiguous,
Amendment 196 is not
guage of
anywhere
taking effect
in the
until
State
contend
appellants
a construction as
such
approved by
County,
the voters of
Clair
St.
spirit
the
for,
clearly contrary to the
process
constitutes a denial of due
under
held
frequently
This court
amendment.
has
the 14th Amendment
the
to
United States
that:
Constitution.
spirit and
the letter should
‘The
not
Opinion
626,
In
of the Justices, 284 Ala.
lead to
the
would
prevail when
latter
(1969),
justices
“The severability clause in House Bill 342, declaring that the unconstitutionali- inappropriate is not We think it to com- ty invalidity any part the Act very appellants mend for their excellent part shall not affect the Act which ' n briefs, we with which were favored. remains, Court that serves assure this legislature intended Act Affirmed. divisible, should and that the invalidi- ty any part not affect thereof should HARWOOD, MADDOX, McCALL, validity remaining portions SOMERVILLE, JJ., LAWSON, Spe- and Opinion Justices, Act. such Judge, cial concur. 195, Therefore, our an- So.2d 505. unconsiitutionality is that the
szver presently bill as zvritten is overcome J., and HEFLIN, C. MERRILL and striking the amendments thereto.” COLEMAN, JJ., dissent. emphasis.] [Our MERRILL, (dissenting) : Justice severability in H.B. at 342 is identical to that in the case bar. I in the dissent of concurred COLE- have course, advisory opin it is Of our mle that MAN, prepared prior J., which was to mine. opinions Supreme ions not Court do justices. not bind the City In our decision of of Mobile recent 660, 5, Salter, in deal- v. 255 So.2d Nevertheless, knowledge, it is common ing severability separability with a Alabama, within bench and in bar clause, Stiles, we cited Wilkinson v. opinions are cited followed and have been 279, 45, Spraigue Thomp- 76 So. many authority proposi- times as for the son, 6 S.Ct. 30 L.Ed. U.S. they lay tions down. principle “If a clause in a stat- Opinion It should also be noted ute which Constitution cannot violates Justices, rejected causing Au- supra, was rendered the act to enact without gust Legislature intended, 1170 was what never days legislature September sixteen whole statute must fall.” Salter, supra: new conference also said committee came We back with a bill single which contained county more “ * * * deleted of the If act thus exceptions and the Senate concurred competent stand with- invalid report. But the House non-concurred and part, an enact- the invalid and leaves out asked for still another conference commit- itself, sensible, complete ment within tee. This third committee came back with stand, executed, capable being it will single more than had in- parts valid unless the two —the previously. ever been the bill Both raise the inseparable so valid —are the House and the concurred in Senate Legislature would presumption that report midnight near and the bill was- the one without have enacted on, midnight delivered to the Governor at n ” * * * supplied] [Emphasis other. day the last of the session. *13 very history en- of Act is The No. 1170 history The alone Legisla- shows that the Legis- lightening to intent of the as the passed ture would never have the bill with- knowledge judicial court has lature. This single county out the exceptions and their state, in- legislative records of the of the addition, withdrawal and addition sec- the cluding legislative and Journals ond time in conference committees show Acts records of bills as introduced and they were so intwined the other- with Justices, passed. Opinion In re parts parts of Section 1 that “the two 681; ex rel. 100 So.2d —the valid inseparable and the invalid —are so Joseph, Crenshaw 175 Ala. So. as to presumption raise the Legis- lature would not have enacted the one with- as SB 674 was introduced No. 1170 out the other.” general A July and a bill. on was committee, approved in bill was substitute a, history This does more than raise changes being a reduction the chief “presumption.” my opinion, In it fur- population classifica- in the various salaries nishes positive, proof uncontroverted floor amended on the tions. The bill was Legislature passed would never have August 15. passed and Senate on Act No. 1170 without the inclusion of the Representatives, It went to the House of county single exceptions. several It took duly a committee and was was referred to three different conference committees and changing the reported an amendment with single excep- the addition of more top population in the of sheriffs night tions on the last of the session to- $21,000.00. to The bill came classification get even approve House to bill. August at which time up passage on times, eight of the it amended several was give severability To effect to the clause being exceptions eight dif- amendments in Act No. question 1170 to the before us counties, the bill single ferent was put many would sheriffs counties on only dissenting passed votes. two Legisla- salaries different from what session, day August the last On intended, plainly ture and in territories that and asked for a th'e non-concurred' Senate Legislature plainly excepted. had acced- conference committee. The House appointed ed committee. a conference I doubt that there has been ever an Act The conference committee re-wrote Section before this court where the intent the- county excep- single Legislature and removed all the Legisla- was so clear that the except tions concurred two and Senate ture would not have the bill without report. in the But the House conference inclusion several unconstitutional provisions, voted to non-concur and for another asked and which both sides to this- this, agi-ee, conference committee. acced- The Senate suit majority does the appointed court, ed' and a new committee. This are unconstitutional. always been bill
Legislative separability intent has invocation of a clause.. determining polestar in the constitutionali- process Such a chameleon a. itself is Here, ty majority complete legislative of a has statute. denial of the intent disregard proven in- completely legislative processes.” had to Legislature and has elevated tent of The single county ex- moment ordinary severability clause found in ceptions or either of were included at: them nearly high position all Acts of emi- places various 1 of Act No. Section I nence. think it a first for court each, 1170, it became a local bill because severability (not that a opine) hold stat- applied only one legislative importance ute of more than Thus, county. contrary the bill was to Sec- severability And it intent. is noted tion requires 104 of the Constitution which was not a late addition to the bill publication contrary of local bills but was of SB when it introduc- was § already quoted opinion.. Section 111 in this pro- ed and contained no unconstitutional And for the distinction between a visions. law, law and necessary a local it is to read Section 110 which defines each. Opinion majority refers to Justices, when So.2d I do not understand reasoning, the- asked, things, among this court was if other logic or the an appellate- conclusion when *14 single a bill which contained several court severability holds that a clause in a violated 111 Con Section weight statute can have more than a sec- There, agreed stitution. Justices tion of the (§ State Constitution 111) which single county exceptions were un positively amending general' forbids the of a majority said constitutional but the passage bill on its so as to become a local' the bill was not it unconstitutional because law. 111 Section ais constitutional limita- by separability was saved clause. I tion on power plenary otherwise the- signed opinion an contained the fol which Legislature, and no Legisla- .words lowing paragraphs three and still adhere I severability ture in a clause of a statute- opinion: to that ought to be allowed to set aside or vacate' prohibition solemn Constitution give separability “To effect State Alabama. by striking clause Section 4 would make proposed many effective in coun- law respectfully I dissent. Legislature specifically ties in which the exempted separability had and thus a HEFLIN, J., COLEMAN, C. J., given clause would be more effect than concur. expressed Legisla- intention of the in dealing ture with numerous counties COLEMAN, (dissenting): state. Justice majority opinion recognizes The to, have not been cer- “We cited have found, parts tain
we of Act No. are local laws' case Alabama which which separability are invalid because Section holds a in a clause bill the Constitution of change 1901has not been can it com- from local bill to a gen- plied eral bill. with. I understand that We do not think such a invalid clause parts nullify parts act are un- can those effect of Section dertake to remove certain counties from the Constitution. class into which those coun- anomaly “It would general be an aif respect ties would otherwise fall with bill could be converted local into a bill sheriff for- and allowances by amendments, and passage after feeding prisoners. agree parts I that those amended, be general reconverted into of the act are invalid. majority parts The find invalid recognize “We the force of argu- may disregarded the act and the re- ment that the separability clause should may mainder of the act be allowed to stand. given effect, possible, where to save I finding. do not concur in this the Act. But the principle is well under- stood that a may character appears It parts that the invalid not be invoked to save the Act when applied excepted act to eleven contravention of the legislative obvious general operation the act them from the intent. State Crumpton ex rel. v. Mont- when it was in 1969. It further gomery, 294; Ala. 59 So. appears parts that the invalid of the act ex- ex rel. Lister Hawkins, v. 229 Ala. cepted general sixteen counties from the 692; 155 So. Stiles, Wilkinson v. operation of the act under the 1970 census. 45; 76 So. Williams v. Standard Oil respect striking down in- rule with Co., 278 U.S. 49 S.Ct. 73 L.Ed. parts legislative allowing valid of a act and 287, 60 A.L.R. 596.....” Alabama expressed the remainder has to stand been State Federation of McAdory, Labor v. by this court as follows: 18 So.2d may “. . . . An enactment “. . . . is, however, The rule also part, valid in invalid that if striking out a void restrictive that, rule if and in the valid clause, the act, by remainder of an reason other, parts independent valid of each of its generality, will have a broader separable, competent and the valid scope subject as to territory, opera its invalid, leaving stand without an en tion is not in accord legislative with the being capable actment sensible and intent and the whole act would be affect executed, parts the valid will survive and ed and made void invalidity of such the invalid will be stricken. —Powell v. part; and, if a clause which violates the State, 10; Doe ex dem. Davis Constitution rejected cannot be without Davis, Minge, 56 Ala. *15 State v. causing the act to legis enact what the 344, Am.St.Rep. 30 So. lature never intended the whole statute Cyc. said, pp. 976-978. It also to be must fall. (Citation Omitted)” Alabama in the nature of limitation of the rule Public Service Commission v. AAA Mo stated, the whole statute will be Lines, Inc., tor parts stricken if the valid and invalid interdependent are so So.2d connected and j ect-matter, meaning, purpose sub many See also authorities cited in Alabama presumed Legisla
it cannot be Digest, Statutes, Key 64(1). ture would have without one No. other, striking or where the Being opinion pre- that it cannot be invalid would cause results not contem Legislature sumed that the plated lawmakers, pass intended to or intended where that invalid is the consideration or the valid of the act without the invalid act, inducement of the whole or where apply approximately parts the valid are ineffective unen state, one-fourth of the in the I themselves, forceable in according respectfully dissent. legislative Author, supra.” State intent. — ex Crumpton rel. Montgomery, al. et Commissioners, HEFLIN, Excise MERRILL, J., J., 240- C. con- 59 So. 302-303. cur.