141 So. 707 (Ala. 1932), 6 Div. 252, Wages v. State

Docket Nº:6 Div. 252.
Citation:141 So. 707, 225 Ala. 2
Opinion Judge:KNIGHT, J.
Party Name:WAGES v. STATE.
Judge Panel:ANDERSON, C.J., and BROWN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
Case Date:March 19, 1932
Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Page 707

141 So. 707 (Ala. 1932)

225 Ala. 2




6 Div. 252.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 19, 1932

L. L. Wages was convicted of violating the Barber's Commission Act, Gen. Acts 1931, p. 615, and he appealed to the Court of Appeals, which court under Code 1923, § 7322, certifies to the Supreme Court the question of the validity of such act.

Questions answered.

For opinion of Court of Appeals conforming to answers to certified questions, see 141 So. 709.

Certification to the Supreme Court.

To the Honorable Supreme Court of Alabama:

Page 708


In reply to your inquiry as to whether or not the act of the Legislature of Alabama, entitled "An Act to define, regulate and license barbers and barber colleges, and other like businesses in counties of the State of Alabama having a population of three hundred thousand or over, according to the last or any subsequent Federal Census; to create a barbers' Commission for said counties; and to provide a penalty for the violation of the provisions hereof," is a local law within the meaning of section 110 of the Constitution, and therefore void under section 106, no notice of the intention to apply therefor having been given as required by the latter provision of the Constitution. And whether or not the above referred to act offends section 45 of the Constitution, in that the subject of the act is not "clearly expressed in its title," for the reason that the title "would restrict the operation of the Act to certain designated counties, while the 'body' of the Act would make it applicable to all counties of the State."

We will consider the questions in the order submitted.

In passing upon the validity of the act in question this court will, of course, indulge all presumptions and intendments in favor of its constitutionality, and will accord to the lawmaking body of the state government sincerity of purpose and fairness in dealing with the people of the state. And we will not assume that the population classification was arbitrarily fixed, but rather that their action, in the given instance, was fairly taken and had for the purpose of meeting conditions, that it honestly thought existed, or might exist, in the larger and more populous counties of the state.

This court has long committed itself, in line with the holdings of other courts, to the proposition that...

To continue reading