USA > Alabama > History of Alabama and dictionary of Alabama biography, Volume II > Part 2
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115 | Part 116 | Part 117 | Part 118 | Part 119 | Part 120 | Part 121 | Part 122 | Part 123 | Part 124 | Part 125 | Part 126 | Part 127 | Part 128 | Part 129 | Part 130
The immigration acts of March 7, 1876, and of February 9, 1877, were codified as chapter 19 of the code of 1876. This chapter with its seven sections was not carried for- ward into the code of 1886. The reasons for their omission are thus stated by the commis- sioners in their report to Gov. E. A. O'Neal, p. 11:
"Sections 1756 to 1762 of the Code of 1876, in reference to commissioner and assistant commissioner of immigration have been omit- ted as unnecessary, these offices not being filled, and as it is obvious are rather for the transaction of private than of public busi- ness."
While there were various commissioners and assistant commissioners, there is no rec- ord of their service, if any. No reports were printed, following the report of Mr. Seivers
in 1878, and if any were ever filed, they are not now available.
The next stage in the official promotion of immigration was the incorporation of a pro- vision in the act of February 23, 1883, estab- lishing a department of agriculture, requir- ing the commissioner "to aid immigration by publishing each year such information as to the agricultural, mineral and other industries and resources of this State as shall be of interest to those seeking homes in the State of Alabama." This duty still remains in force, with the addition of a requirement that the commissioner shall aid those "seeking invest- ments" as well as homeseekers. In the execu- tion of his duty hereunder, the commissioner has published a number of handbooks and other literature of a descriptive nature. He has also advertised the advantages and re- sources of the State by participating in state, sectional and national fairs and expositions, and by occasional advertisements in leading farm and industrial journals.
Immigration Policy .- During its entire history, the State has maintained a liberal policy on the subjects both of immigration and emigration. Every constitution has car- ried a provision declaring that emigration from the State should not be prohibited, and that no citizen should be exiled. With the adoption of the constitution of 1875 the fun- damental provision was enlarged, and carried forward into the constitution of 1901, viz: "That immigration shall be encouraged; emi- gration shall not be prohibited, and no citi- zen shall be exiled." This section was con- strued in the case of Kendrick v. State, 142 Ala., p. 43. It was there held that an act of the legislature prohibiting emigration agents from plying their vocations within the State, without first obtaining a license therefor, was not violative of the fourteenth amend- ment of the Constitution of the United States, nor of section 31 of the constitution of Ala- bama. The license imposed was held to be an occupation tax, designed for the purpose of raising revenue, and that it was not intended to interfere with the freedom of egress from the State, or the freedom of contract.
The present policy is indicated in the fol- lowing extract from the immigration law of February 11, 1915:
"The commissioner of agriculture and in- dustries shall use lawful means to prevent the induction into this State of immigrants of an undesirable class, and to this end sball investigate the conditions of the applicants for admission through the department, so as to discourage the coming in of [persons of] an anarchistic tendency and paupers, persons suffering from contagious or communicative diseases, cripples without means and unable to perform mental or physical service and idiots, lunatics, persons of bad character, or any persons who are likely to become a charge upon the charity of the State and all such that will not make good and law-abiding citi- zens."
It is further provided that "immigrants shall be sought from desirable white citizens
728
HISTORY OF ALABAMA
of the United States first, and then citizens of English-speaking and Germanic countries and France, and the Scandinavian countries and Belgium, as prospective citizens of this State and conformable with the laws of the United States."
In the early history of the State, however, constitutional provisions and statutes were not necessary to stimulate immigration. One historian declares with enthusiasm that after the conclusion of the treaty of Fort Jackson, "The flood-gates of Virginia, the two Caro- linas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Georgia were now hoisted, and mighty streams of emigra- tion poured through them, spreading over the whole territory of Alabama. The axe re- sounded from side to side, and from corner to corner. The stately and magnificent forests fell. Log cabins sprang, as if by magic, into sight. Never before or since, has a country been so rapidly peopled."
Directors of First Board of Immigration, 1875 .- W. H. Chambers, W. V. Chardavoyne, David Clopton, Daniel Coleman, J. C. Foster, J. R. Hawthorn, Thomas H. Herndon, George G. Lyon, Abraham Murdock, Eli S. Shorter, Lewis M. Stone, Price Williams, B. M. Woolsey.
Commissioners (Old law) .- C. F. Seivers, 1875; E. R. Smith, 1879; J. J. Alston, 1881; Henry C. Stoutz, 1882.
Assistant Commissioners (Old law. Dates of appointment only are given) .- Charles N. Golding, 1876; Jay W. Cowdery, 1876; Nor- ris C. Buxbanne, 1876; J. E. Reimann, 1877; Lewis Heinsheimer, 1877; Joseph Goetter, 1877; George D. Reigal, 1877; W. R. King, 1877; John A. Lile, 1877; Louis Ballinger, 1877; W. J. B. Lansdale, 1878; W. J. Van- kirk, 1878; J. M. Alexander, to Paris, 1878; Dr. Thomas T. Pratt, to Paris, 1878; Prof. James F. Park, to Paris, 1878; George Dunn, 1878; C. W. Gee, 1879; J. J. Alston, 1881; Otto Cullman, 1881; Charles Smallwood, 1881; Henry C. Stoutz, 1882.
Commissioners (New law) .- R. H. de Holl, 1907; R. H. Walker, 1910-1911; Lee Cowart, 1911-1915.
PUBLICATIONS .- (Old) Address of Commis- sioner of Immigration, March 20, 1876; Report, Nov. 6, 1876; Report, Oct. 11, 1878. 3 vols. (New) Report, Feb. 3, 1911-Jan. 1, 1915. 1 vol. Alabama's new era, 1911-1913, vols. 1-3; and sundry circulars and leaflets.
See Agriculture and Industries, Department of; Horticulture, State Board of; Industrial Resources Bureau; Population.
REFERENCES .- Constitution, 1901, sec. 30; Codes, 1876, secs. 1756-1762; 1907, sec. 22, sub- div. 14. and secs. 827-837; Acts, 1874-75, pp. 121- 124; 1875-76, pp. 266-267; 1876-77, p. 125; 1882- 83, p. 193; Gov. George S. Houston, "Message," in Senate Journal, 1876-77, p. 16; General Acts, 1907, pp. 313-316; 1911, p. 689.
IMPEACHMENTS. The grounds, meth- ods of procedure, and the officers subject to removal by impeachment are set out in arti- cle vii, sections 173-176 of the constitution of 1901. Certain State and county officers may be impeached, under the provisions of
section 173, "for wilful neglect of duty, cor- ruption in office, incompetency, or intemper- ance in the use of intoxicating liquors or narcotics, to such an extent, in view of the dignity of the office and importance of its duties, as unfits the officer for the discharge of such duties, or for any offense involving moral turpitude while in office, or committed under color thereof, or connected therewith. ยท ." For these causes the following State officers may be impeached before the senate: governor, lieutenant governor, attorney gen- eral, auditor, secretary of state, treasurer, superintendent of education, commissioner of agriculture and industries, and justices of the supreme court. Other officers may be impeached for the same causes by the supreme court, namely, chancellors, judges of circuit courts, of probate courts, and of other courts from which appeal may be taken directly to the supreme court, solicitors and sheriffs. Under the constitution the impeachment of other officers may be provided for by legis- lative enactments. The clerks of circuit courts, criminal courts, and other courts of like jurisdiction, tax assessors, county treas- urers, county superintendents of education, judges of inferior courts created under au- thority of section 168 of the constitution, coroners, justices of the peace, notaries pub- lic, constables, and other county officers, and mayors, intendants, and other officers of in- corporated cities and towns may be removed from office for any of the causes specified in section 173 by the circuit or criminal court of the county in which such officer holds his office. In such cases it is provided that the right of trial by jury and appeal shall be secured to the defendant.
Under the constitution, the penalties in cases of impeachment or removal from office "shall not extend beyond removal from office, and disqualifications from holding office, un- der the authority of this State, for the term for which the officer was elected or ap- pointed; but the accused shall be liable to indictment and punishment as prescribed by law."
Pursuant to the provisions of the constitu- tion, a body of law governing impeachment proceedings has been enacted and incorpo- rated in the code of 1907, sections 1172-1177 and 7099-7126. Under the provisions of the code, disqualification is made a ground for impeachment, and proceedings may be insti- tuted upon the information of five resident tax payers. In the impeachment case against Charles W. Buckley, 54 Ala., p. 599, the court held that such proceedings constituted a criminal prosecution. Sections 1172 to 1177 of the code, based on an act of August 13, 1907, govern the impeachment of municipal officers.
The first impeachment case in the State was the famous attempt in 1829 to depose three justices of the supreme court. This case is popularly known as "The Trial of the Judges." It was not an impeachment in the strict sense of the term, as it was not insti- tuted as required by the constitution of 1819,
729
HISTORY OF ALABAMA
but was commenced by means of a memo- rial to the senate under authority of article v, section 13, of the constitution, which pre- scribed that "the judges of the several courts in this State shall hold their office during good behavior; and for wilful negligence of duty, or other reasonable cause, which shall not be sufficient ground for impeachment, the Governor shall remove any of them on the address of two-thirds of each House of the General Assembly."
At that time judges were elected by joint vote of the two houses of the legislature, and served during good behavior. The supreme court was composed of the judges of the vari- ous judicial circuits. The proceedings were begun by William Kelly, a lawyer of north Alabama, who undertook the removal from office of Justices Reuben Saffold, John White, and Anderson Crenshaw, for alleged improper rulings and decisions in connection with the celebrated usury cases. The case was tried before the senate, Arthur F. Hopkins and John J. Ormond acting as counsel for the judges, and William Kelly prosecuting. The judges were acquitted and sustained. In the case of Judge Saffold, the resolution states that "it is the opinion of the Senate that the charges preferred against Judge Saffold by William Kelly, Esq., are not sufficiently sustained by proof to authorize an address to the Governor for his removal." Similar resolutions were adopted in each of the other cases.
Other impeachment trials have occurred since "The Trial of the Judges," as fol- lows:
Ledbetter. clerk Bullock County court; 1846; wilful neglect of duty and incompetency; acquitted .- 10 Ala., p. 241.
Charles W. Buckley, probate judge Mont- gomery County; 1876; corruption in office and malfeasances; acquitted .- 54 Ala., p. 599.
William Seawell, justice of the peace, Montgomery County; 1879; corruption in office; acquitted; the court held that charges were too vague and indefinite to uphold the proceedings .- 64 Ala., p. 225.
Wiley C. Jones, probate judge Barbour County; 1881; wilful neglect of duty, cor- ruption in office, habitual drunkenness, in- competency, and commission of offenses in- volving moral turpitude; plead guilty to the charge of neglect of duty, and thereupon nolle prosequi entered as to the others.
F. M. Taylor, probate judge Winston County; 1886; wilful neglect of official du- ties, corruption in office, and embezzlement; plead guilty to the charge of neglect of duty, and was removed from office .- Atty. Gen., Report, 1886, p. 88.
Robert R. Savage, probate judge Cherokee County; 1889; habitual drunkenness while in office; impeached .- Ibid, 1890, p. 6.
John B. Talley, judge ninth judicial cir- cuit; 1894; wilful neglect of duty and mur- der; acquitted on first charge, convicted on second, and removed from office .- Ibid, 1894, pp. 7-9.
William C. Robinson, probate judge. Lee County; 1895; habitual drunkenness; ac- quitted .- Ibid, 1896, pp. 6-8.
J. H. Lovejoy, probate judge Etowah County; 1902; corruption in office and wil- ful neglect of duty; acquitted .- 135 Ala., p. 64.
Richard H. Lowe, solicitor eighth judicial circuit; 1901; wilful neglect of duty; im- peached and office declared vacant.
J. C. Wood, probate judge Lowndes Coun- ty; 1903; offenses involving moral turpi- tude; resigned, and proceedings dismissed.
Frank Cazalas, sheriff Mobile County; 1909; wilful neglect of duty under section 174 of the constitution; impeached .- Atty. Gen., Report, 1908-1910, pp. xxxi-xxxii.
Edgar E. Latham, sheriff Tuscaloosa County; 1910; intemperance in the use of Intoxicating liquors; acquitted-Ibid, pp. xxxii-xxxiii.
P. W. Jinwright, sheriff Bullock County; 1911; wilful neglect of duty, incompetency, connivance, etc .; impeached.
William Martin, sheriff Hale County; 1913; wilful neglect of duty and incompetency; State failed to make out a case.
A. L. Hasty, probate judge Marengo County; 1913; wilful neglect of duty, incom- petency and corruption in office; acquitted.
John W. Lane, sheriff Chambers County; 1914; corruption in office and offenses in- volving moral turpitude; acquitted.
Robert I. Burke, probate judge Cullman County; 1914; wilful neglect of duty; ac- quitted.
W. L. Pratt, probate judge Bibb County; 1915; intemperance in the use of intoxi- cants; impeached.
J. B. Lyons, probate judge Lee County; 1915; misappropriation of county funds and habitual drunkenness; resigned, and case dismissed.
David C. Almon; solicitor eighth judicial circuit; 1915; corruption in office, offenses involving moral turpitude, wilful neglect of duty; acquitted.
P. M. Daniel, sheriff Russell County; 1916; wilful neglect of duty and incompet- ency; impeached.
REFERENCES .- Constitution, 1819, art. v; 1901, art. vii, secs. 173-176; Code. 1907. secs. 1172- 1177, 7099-7126; Acts, 1875-76, pp. 277-284; Sav- age's case, 89 Ala., p. 1; Talley's case, 102 Ala., p. 25; Robinson's cose, 111 Ala., p. 482; Cazalas' case. 162 Ala., p. 210; Latham's case, 174 Ala., p. 281.
IMPORT DUTIES. An indirect tax col- lected by the United States Government on certain articles and materials imported into the country, at stipulated rates, sometimes specific and sometimes ad valorem. These duties are the only taxes upon imports now collected in the State. Mobile is at pres- ent the only port of entry in Alabama where customs duties are collected. Before the organization of the State of Alabama, there were ports of entry collecting tonnage charges on imports at Fort Stoddert and at Blakeley, but there was no customhouse at
730
HISTORY OF ALABAMA
either port. The first customhouse was es- tablished at Mobile by the United States Government in 1831. (See Mobile Federal Building.) There are only meager records of the duties collected at Blakeley, Fort Stoddert or Mobile previous to 1871. It ap- pears, however, that duties on imports and tonnage charges for the year ending Septem- ber 30, 1823, aggregated $27,953.50.
The duties collected at Mobile by the United States Government in each fiscal year from 1871 to 1916 are shown by the ap- pended table:
Duties Collected at Mobile, Alabama.
Year ended June 30
Amount
1871
$660,126
1872
371,414
1873
89,110
1874
75,622
1875
19,396
1876
38,592
1877
38,141
1878
33,206
1879
21,141
1880
27,106
1881
222,017
1882
108,957
1883
200,399
1884
50,139
1885
6,869
1886
18,787
1887
18,815
1888
9,235
1889
12,071
4,989
7,397
9,157
1894
9,561
1895
17,852
1896
19,053
1897
20,048
1898 1899 1900 1901 1902
26,735
1903
32,261
1904 1905
33,893
1906
26,149
1907
34,391
1908
58,660
1909 1910
69,028
1911
69,487
1912
85,859
1913
85,124
1914
73,873
1915
80,402
1916
73,103
See Blakeley; Federal Taxation; Fort Stoddert; Income Tax; Internal Revenue; Mobile, Port of; Mobile Harhor; Water-borne Commerce.
REFERENCES .- Toulmin, Digest, pp. 849-877; Mclaughlin and Hart, Cyclopedia of American Government (1914); American State Papers, Finance, vols. 1-5, passim.
IMPOSTS. See Import Duties.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. It is pro- vided by section 20 of the constitution of 1901, "that no person shall be imprisoned for debt." The same inhibition was con- tained in section 21 of the constitution of 1875, and in section 22, article 1 of the con- stitution of 1868, where it first appeared. Previous constitutions, viz, those of 1819, 1861, and 1865, contained, as a section of the "Bill of Rights" included in each, the fol- lowing provision:
"The person of a debtor, where there is not strong presumption of fraud, shall not be detained in prison, after delivering up his estate for the benefit of his creditors, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law."
Thus, for practically 50 years, or from the organization of the State government un- til the adoption of the constitution of 1868, so far as constitutional provisions were con- cerned, a debtor could be arrested, placed in prison and kept there, at the desire of the creditor, so long as he failed to surrender his estate for the satisfaction of his debts, but no longer, unless there was "strong pre- sumption of fraud." However, after the pas- sage of the act of February 1, 1839, "to abol- ish imprisonment for debt," a debtor could neither be imprisoned nor arrested for debt, except in cases of fraud. Section 1 of the law provided "that from and after the pas- sage of this act, it shall not be lawful to take the body of any person, in custody, to answer for a civil demand except in cases of fraud as hereinafter prescribed." From the pas- sage of this act until the constitution of 1868 became effective, debtors could be im- prisoned lawfully only when fraudulent methods had been used in contracting or in avoiding payment of a deht. Since 1868 im- prisonment for deht, whether fraudulently contracted or not, has been held by the su- preme court to be unconstitutional. That is to say, a debtor may not be arrested nor in- carcerated as a means of forcing him to pay a debt, or as a penalty for its nonpayment, even when fraud has been used in contracting the debt or in avoiding payment.
In Ex parte Hardy (68 Ala., p. 303) the supreme court held, with the chief justice dissenting, that that part of a statute which authorized a court of equity to commit to prison the person of. a debtor who refused to comply with a decree of the court requir- ing the delivery of property in settlement of a judgment for debt, on the ground that such refusal was a contempt of court, was violative of section 21 of the constitution of 1875, and
therefore null and void. This ruling has formed the basis of all subsequent decisions.
Old Laws and Practices .- The provisions of the first constitution of the State with re- spect to imprisonment for debt were simply the embodiment in a single sentence of the substance of the laws of Alabama Territory in effect at the time that instrument was framed. The Territorial code was founded upon the English common law, which sanc- tioned imprisonment for debt; but the pro-
1890 1891 1892 1893
14,921
9,707
11,686
17,452
16,193
34,651
49,414
731
HISTORY OF ALABAMA
visions of the common law had already been modified in some particulars by the Missis- sippi Territory when Alabama Territory was created in 1817. The existing laws of the former were carried forward into the or- ganization of the latter, as was the case with the statutes of the latter when the State was organized.
Among the earliest statutes upon the sub- ject was the act of the legislature of Mis- sissippi Territory, passed February 7, 1807, "concerning executions, and for the relief of insolvent debtors." It covered the entire procedure in the collection of debts, and su- perseded all previous enactments. It au- thorized the seizure of "the goods, lands, or body" of a debtor upon writs of fieri facias, elegit, and capias ad satisfaciendum, sued out by a creditor holding a judgment of a court of record of the Territory, for the sat- isfaction of such judgment; and a debtor so imprisoned might be kept in prison until the the debt and the court costs were paid. How- ever, an insolvent debtor might take the oath of insolvency, prescribed in the act, and file a sworn schedule of his assets with the courts, whereupon he would be discharged from prison, and could not again be impris- oned on account of the same judgment.
With respect to the support of prisoners for debt, the act provided: "Any person im- prisoned in a civil or qui tam action, shall furnish his, or her own sustenance, or pay the gaoler fees for the same, until lawfully discharged; and when any prisoner shall be committed to gaol in a civil action, as afore- said, and shall provide for his, or her own support, in any way wherein the sheriff or gaoler shall have no concern, it shall be the duty of the gaoler, or prison keeper, to ad- mit to the wicket grate, or small window of a prison, in which such prisoner shall be confined, any person who may come to ad- minister to the wants of such prisoner, by furnishing him or her with meat or drink; which shall be conveyed through such small window or grate, that the security of the prison be not too frequently exposed by opening the doors thereof." It provided fur- ther: "That if any person being in prison, charged in execution, [for debt] shall hap- pen to die in execution, the party or parties at whose suit or to whom such person shall stand charged in execution for any debt or damages recovered, his or their executors or administrators may, after the death of the person so dying in execution, lawfully sue forth and have new execution against the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, or any of them, of the person so deceased.
The law was no respecter of persons, for the members of the legislature itself, who were by law immune from arrest while en- gaged in their duties as such, could obtain relief from its penalties only temporarily, under the following section: "That if any person taken in execution, be delivered by privilege of either House of Assembly, so soon as such privilege ceaseth, he shall re-
turn himself a prisoner in execution, or be liable to an escape."
On December 11, 1811, the legislature ex- tended the benefits of the above-discussed act to persons "in custody, upon original or mesne process," the same as to persons charged in execution; and on January 15, 1821, the legislature passed an amendatory act for the relief of insolvent debtors, by which it was provided that a debtor arrested upon mesne process, or taken in actual cus- tody, who desired to surrender his property for the benefit of his creditors, might give bond in the amount of the judgment or execu- tion for his personal appearance at such time and place as should be designated by the court, and thus secure his release; and, fur- ther, that an insolvent debtor might obtain his discharge from arrest or imprisonment by filing a declaration of his insolvency and a schedule of his creditors with the amount due each. The making of a false return in filing such declaration and schedule made the cul- prit "subject to all the pains and penalties prescribed hy law against perjury," and such person should "never thereafter be entitled to the privileges or benefits extended" by the act.' Additional stipulations contained in the act were as follows: "That no person in custody shall have the liberty of the prison bounds, who shall neglect or refuse for sixty days to take the benefit of this act;" and "that all persons ordered to be imprisoned for falling to pay any fine imposed by law, who shall be unable to pay the same, shall have the benefit of this act, subject to the same rules and instructions applicable to other debtors."
With the foregoing modifications, all tend- ing to ameliorate the harshness of the com- mon law, the statutes of Mississippi and of Alabama Territories concerning debtors, sol- vent and insolvent, remained in effect, un- changed by the provisions of the constitution of 1819, which merely forbade the further detention in prison of a debtor who sur- rendered his property for the benefit of his creditors, unless there were grounds for a strong suspicion of fraud, until the passage of the act of February 1, 1839, above re- ferred to, which prohibited arrest or impris- onment for debt except in cases of fraud; and with this further modification, continued in force until the adoption of the constitution of 1868.
Thus, prior to 1807 there could be no re- lief from imprisonment for debt except death or the will of the prosecuting creditor; from 1807 to 1821 a debtor could secure his re- lease by surrendering his estate or by prov- ing himself insolvent-his further confine- ment after taking such action being forbid- den by the constitution after the organiza- tion of the State in 1819; from 1821 to 1839 he could escape arrest and imprisonment by furnishing bond to appear in court and de- liver up his estate, or prove his insolvency; from 1839 to 1868 he could be arrested for debt only in cases of fraud; and since 1868 he cannot be imprisoned, directly or indi-
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.