Carlton v. Mathews
| Decision Date | 28 October 1931 |
| Citation | 137 So. 815,103 Fla. 301 |
| Parties | CARLTON, Governor, et al. v. MATHEWS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 19, 1931.
En Banc.Suit by John E. Mathews against Doyle E. Carlton, as Governor of the State of Florida; and others. From several adverse orders the defendants appeal.
Orders reversed, and cause remanded with directions.
On Petition for Rehearing.
Syllabus by CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge.
Where on appeal from a decree granting a temporary injunction, an application is made for a supersedeas of such restraining order, and it appears, upon hearing of said application for supersedeas, that only questions of law are involved, and that the counsel for all parties have fully and ably argued the merits of the bill upon which the restraining order was made, the court will adjudicate the merits of the cause to conserve the interests of all concerned. Crawford v Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41, 59 So. 963, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 916; Antuono v. City of Tampa, 87 Fla. 82, 99 So. 324; Anderson v. City of Ocala, 87 Fla. 257, 99 So. 667; Hathaway v. Munroe, 97 Fla. 28, 119 So. 149.
Where it appears that the House of Representatives duly passed a bill by a yea and nay vote, entered on the Journal of the House, and the Senate amended the bill by striking out the title and inserting another title of the same general nature, which amended title was spread on the Senate Journal, and thereafter further amended the House Bill by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting in lieu thereof provisions that relate to the general subject covered by the original House Bill and that have proper relation to the original and amended title of the bill, which amendment was spread in full on the Senate Journal, and then by a yea and nay vote, entered on the Senate Journal, the Senate passed the bill as amended, after a full reading on final passage, and the House amended the amended bill passed by the Senate, and the House, after the bill was read in full, by a yea and nay vote entered on the Journal, passed the amended bill as amended bill as amended by the House, and the Senate concurred in the action of the House, Held: This is a compliance with the provision of the Constitution that upon final passage of a bill the vote shall be taken by yeas and nays, to be entered upon the Journal of each House.
The Constitution does not require the vote by which the reading of bills on separate days, or by sections on second reading, may be dispensed with, to be by yeas and nays, or to be entered on the Journals. See State v. Dillon, 42 Fla. 95, 28 So. 781; State ex rel. v. Brown, 20 Fla. 407; State ex rel. v. Hocker, 36 Fla. 358, 18 So. 767; Amos v. Gunn, 84 Fla. 285, 94 So. 615.
There is great inequality among the counties of the state as to their population, their assessable property values, and their area. The more populous counties generally are smaller in area, while the more sparsely populated counties have greater areas, and consequently more road mileage, and less financial resources. County and district boundary lines have no controlling relation to the state system of roads, and the county and district roads generally connect with roads extending into other counties, so that the public roads in all parts of the State are freely used by the general public, without reference to county or other boundary lines. Sales of gasoline for immediate consumption are greater in populous communities and at junction and terminal points, but the gasoline so sold is used for motor vehicle transportation over the public roads without reference to the sales point or to county or local boundary lines.
Held: Such diverse conditions require the exercise of legislative judgment and discretion that is plenary in providing public roads, when no applicable provision of organic law is violated.
The second gas tax, the levy, and the appropriation and disbursement of the proceeds, all of which are provided for in House Bill 65X, chapter 15659, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, Ex. Sess., is a state tax.
The provisions of House Bill 65X, chapter 15659, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, Ex. Sess., cannot be correctly interpreted as levying the second gas tax and appropriating its proceeds for the purpose of paying bonds, or other similar obligations of political subdivisions of the state.
The state revenue realized from the levy of the second gas tax, under House Bill 65X, chapter 15659, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, Ex. Sess,. is under the provisions of the act, to be used in reimbursing and paying certain counties and/or special road and bridge and other special taxing districts, for the construction of and contributions made to the construction of roads, which the Legislature, by virtue of its sovereign power, has taken over as state roads, and which the Legislature has recognized as moral obligations, that in justice, honor, equity, and good conscience, should be paid.
Under the provisions of House Bill 65X, chapter 15659, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, Ex. Sess., the proceeds of the second gas tax are appropriated to pay a recognized state expense. The funds do not become county funds, until they have been paid to the state treasurer as ex officio county treasurer.
Under the provisions of chapter 15659, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, Ex. Sess., the right of any county and/or special road and bridge or other special taxing district, to participate in the moneys, appropriated from the proceeds of the second gas tax, is not dependent upon whether it has outstanding bonds, issued for road purposes, but such right to participate depends upon whether or not it has constructed or built roads, which have since been taken over, and designated by the Legislature, as state roads; and whether or not it has contributed, advanced, or paid out, any of its funds in the construction of state roads.
The primary purpose and intent of the Legislature, as shown from the provisions of House Bill 65X, chapter 15659, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, Ex. Sess., providing for the levy of the second gas tax and for the appropriation of the proceeds thereof, was not to pay in whole or in part the principal and interest of bonds of the political subdivisions of the state but to provide for the reimbursement to counties and/or special road and bridge or other special taxing districts thereof, for moneys expended and/or contributed by them in the construction and building of roads, which the state, by acts of the Legislature, had designated and taken over as state roads.
House Bill 65X, chapter 15659, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, Ex. Sess., provides for the levy of the second gas tax, and the appropriation of the funds derived therefrom, for a general public purpose, i. e., to pay for state roads constructed by counties and/or special road and bridge, and other special taxing districts; for moneys advanced, contributed, furnished, and paid by such counties and/or districts in the construction of state roads; and, lastly, for continuing in such counties the building of state roads. There is nothing in the provisions of the act obligating the state to pay principal and interest on bonds of any kind. There is nothing in the act to indicate any recognition by the state, that it is in any was liable for, or obligated to pay bonds of any kind.
The mere fact that some of the moneys realized from the levy of the second gas tax, and appropriated by the Legislature to pay and reimburse counties and/or special road and bridge and other special taxing districts, will be used by the board of administration, a fiscal agency of the participating counties, to pay interest and/or principal, and to provide a sinking fund to take care of the retirement of county and district bonded indebtedness, affects neither the validity of House Bill 65X, chapter 15659, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, Ex. Sess., nor the levy of the tax, nor the appropriation of the funds derived from such tax. Neither are sections 2 and 6 of article 9 of the Constitution of Florida contravened thereby.
House Bill 65X, chapter 15659, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, Ex. Sess., when properly construed, does not undertake to treat the amounts expended, advanced, or contributed by counties and/or special road and bridge or other special taxing districts, for the constructing of state roads subsequently taken over by the state, as an advance or loan to the state, constituting a contractual obligation upon the part of the state to repay.
The Legislature of the State of Florida has the power and authority to declare that moneys expended by counties and/or special road and bridge and other special taxing districts thereof, in the construction of roads, or furnished and contributed to the state for the construction of roads taken over by the state, are proper expenses to be borne by the state, and to levy an excise tax and appropriate the proceeds to pay such amounts, upon moral and equitable considerations, and as obligations of justice and honor, as distinguished from legal 'contractual' obligations.
House Bill 65X, chapter 15659, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1931, Ex. Sess., providing for the levy of the second gas tax, and appropriating the moneys derived therefrom to pay and reimburse counties and/or special road and bridge or other special taxing districts, for moneys by them expended upon, and advanced in the construction of roads, which, at the time of the passage of the act, had been taken over and designated as state roads, is not violative of either section 2, section 3, section 4, or section 5, of article 9 of the Constitution of Florida.
The provisions of House Bill 65X, chapter 15659, Laws of Florida Acts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ada County v. Wright
... ... of Idaho in any manner, as prohibited by section 2 of article ... 8 of the Idaho Constitution. ( Amos v. Mathews, [60 ... Idaho 398] 99 Fla. 65, 115, 126 So. 308; Williams v ... Baldridge, 48 Idaho 618, 284 P. 203; State v ... Erickson, 93 Mont. 466, ... under a statute similar in most respects to that here in ... question, in the case of Carlton v. Mathews, 103 ... Fla. 301, 137 So. 815, 834, and the court said: ... "If ... the Legislature can purchase a state road from private ... ...
-
State Ex Rel. Harrell v. Cone
...roads within the county recognized as being a part of the first, second, or third preferential system of state roads. In Carlton v. Mathews, 103 Fla. 301, 137 So. 815, held that the primary purpose of chapter 15659, Acts 1931 (Ex.Sess.), in imposing the 'second gas tax,' was to provide for ......
-
Miami Laundry Co. v. Florida Dry Cleaning & Laundry Bd.
... ... changing the principles. In the opinion of this Court on ... rehearing in the case of Carlton v. Mathews, 103 ... Fla. 301, 381, 382, 137 So. 815, 848, written by the writer ... of this opinion, it was said: ... 'Constitutional ... ...
-
Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Amos
... ... effect. Lee v. Clearwater Growers' Association, ... 93 Fla. 214, 111 So. 722; Amos v. Mathews, 99 Fla ... 1, 65, 115, 126 So. 308; Jerome H. Sheip & Co. v ... Amos, 100 Fla. 863, 130 So. 699; Gray v. Central ... Florida Lumber Co., ... of public importance. Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla ... 41, 59 So. 963, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 916; Carlton v. Mathews ... (Fla.) 137 So. 815 ... The act ... is first attacked upon the ground that the subject-matter was ... not within the ... ...