Daphne or Bay Minette
Case is Up to Supreme Court Again
Court House Difference
Lawyers to Argue Matter Before Justices Today
Will Decide Whether the Commission Complied with Law
Four Opinions Were Handed Down by Court
The Bay Minette-Daphne Court House controversy is to have another hearing before the Supreme Court of Alabama. Lawyers are in Montgomery prepared this morning to present an appeal from the decision of Chancellor Thomas H. Smith, of the Southwestern Chancery Division. This decision was rendered this past summer and was in favor of Daphne.
The arguments of both sides are expect to be heard this morning beginning at 10 o'clock in the court room at the Capitol. T. M. Stevens and R. T. ervin of Mobile will represent the interest of Bay Minette in the case, and the Daphne side will be supported by H. T. Smith of Mobile.
As the cause has been brought into unusual prominence by the recent happenings in Baldwin county great interest in being manifested in the outcome of this, the third appeal to the Suprem Court, to determine whether Bay Minette or Daphne is the county seat.
-Assumes New Phase_
The act of the Legislature which purported to remove the county seat from Daphne to Bay Minette was passed in 1901. The former cases in which the contest, between the two towns has been involved made attacks on the constitutionality of the act and on its self-consistency. The Supreme court, it is claimed, has an opportunity to settle the fight for good this time because it has assumed a different phase. The case to be argued today, that of James D. Hand, et al, against Gus stapleton, et al, puts it up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the Court House Commission, named in the act, has done all th things required ofit.
There were a number of duties imposed on this Commission and one of them was, it is claimed, to determine from an examination ofthe funds of Baldwin County whether the new Court House that was built could have been paid for out of the available money in the year 1901. Chancellor Smith seems to have held that there was not enough money for the purpose and that as the members of the Commission did do...[unreadable] ...as the couty records were in the possession of the Sheriff and Clerk of the Court, who refused to go to Daphne upon the order of the Judge.
Montgomery Advertiser, November 15, 1905
Transcribed by Dawn Conway