Ex Parte Gilletti
| Decision Date | 08 December 1915 |
| Citation | 70 So. 446,70 Fla. 442 |
| Parties | Ex parte GILLETTI et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Habeas corpus by Guiseppe Gilletti and others. Petitioners remanded.
Syllabus by the Court
While the title of an act is by the Constitution required to briefly express the subject of the enactment, it need not state matters properly connected with such subject that are embraced in the body of the law; and the language used in expressing the subject of the enactment is within the legislative discretion.
If the language of the title, considered with reference to the legislative intent as shown by the purpose and object of the act, may by any fair intendment cover the subject of the act the courts will not, because of an asserted defective title refuse to give effect to any matter contained in the body of the enactment that is germane to or properly connected with the subject of the law, where the title is not so worded as to mislead an ordinary mind as to the real purpose and scope of the particular enactment.
A wide latitude must of necessity be accorded to the Legislature in its enactments of laws, and it must be a plain case of violating the requirements of the organic law as to titles of acts before the courts will nullify statutes or portions thereof as not being within the purpose and scope of the subject as expressed in the title and of 'matter properly connected therewith.'
If the title of an act fairly gives notice of the subject of the act so as to reasonably lead to an inquiry into the body thereof it is all that is necessary. The title need not be an index to the contents of the act.
It cannot be said beyond a reasonable doubt that a provision requiring a license for taking oysters from the salt waters of the state may not fairly be included in or properly connected with the subject expressed in the title of Laws 1915, c. 6877, as 'An act to protect and regulate the salt water fishing industry of the state of Florida.'
The provision of chapter 6877 requiring an alien or nonresident to pay a license tax of $10 per annum before they can 'engage in taking fish or oysters from the salt waters of this state for any purpose other than his own individual use' applies to aliens or nonresidents of the state who 'engage in taking fish or oysters' on their own account, not to laborers who are employed to take fish or oysters for their employers. As so construed and applied, the statutory provision does not violate organic or treaty rights.
The state may, without denying 'to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' justly discriminate in favor of its citizens in regulating the taking for private use of the common property in fish and oysters found in the public waters of the state, where such regulations have a fair relation to and are suited to conserve the common rights which the citizens of the state have in such fish and oysters as against aliens and nonresidents of the state.
The equal right of all persons who reside in a state, whether citizens or aliens to labor therein, does not include an equal right of an alien to participate in the common property and privileges that are peculiar to citizens.
Chapter 6877 does not purport to discriminate against aliens and nonresidents with reference to private property rights or the right to labor or to deal in fish and oysters after they lawfully become private property.
The provision of section 17, art. 5, of the Constitution that the county judge 'shall issue all licenses required by law to be issued in the county' is not violated by the provision of chapter 6877 requiring the commissioner of agriculture to issue licenses for fishing privileges in the public waters of the state.
COUNSEL W. J. Oven, of Tallahassee, for petition.
T. F. West, Atty. Gen., and Fred T. Myers, of Tallahassee, contra.
A petition was presented to a justice of this court in which it is alleged: That the petitioners are unlawfully held in custody by the sheriff of Franklin county under charges that each of them, being an alien of the state of Florida, did in October, 1915, in Franklin county, Fla., remove from a public oyster bar certain oysters without first having paid a license of $10 as provided by law. That the license required and the law referred to being covered and embraced in the sixth subdivision of section 14, c. 6877, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1915, the title to which act is 'An act to protect and regulate the salt water fishing industry of the state of Florida, and to provide penalties for the violation of this act,' and the provision of said act under which the petitioners are held is as follows:
'Whoever being an alien or nonresident of this state, and who shall engage in taking fish or oysters from the salt waters of this state for any purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. City of Tampa
...statutes, or portions thereof. See Rushton v. State, 75 Fla. 422, 78 So. 345; Smith v. Chase, 91 Fla. 1044, 109 So. 94; Ex parte Gilletti, 70 Fla. 442, 70 So. 446; State Vestel, 81 Fla. 625, 88 So. 477; Butler v. Perry, 67 Fla. 405, 66 So. 150, affirmed in 240 U.S. 328, 36 S.Ct. 258, 60 L.E......
-
Amos v. Gunn
... ... court has held that the clause of the Constitution referred ... to (section 17 of article 5) is not applicable. See Ex parte ... Gilletti, 70 Fla. 442, 70 So. 446 ... That ... the act imposes a tax of $5 for each place of business and 1 ... cent per gallon on ... ...
-
State v. City of Tampa
... ... 67, 28 S.Ct. 22, 52 L.Ed. 106; 27 R. C. L. 1325; The ... Abby Dodge v. United States, 223 U.S. 166, 32 S.Ct. 310, ... 56 L.Ed. 390; Ex parte Powell, 70 Fla. 363, 70 So. 392; Ex ... parte Gilletti, 70 Fla. 442, 70 So. 446 ... Tidelands ... are those that are daily covered and ... ...
-
State v. Allen
... ... [83 ... Fla. 223] As to the sufficiency of titles to acts amending ... sections of general revisions of statutes, see Ex parte Bush, ... 48 Fla. 69, 37 So. 177; Strobhar v. State, 55 Fla ... 167, 47 So. 4; State ex rel. Turner v. Hocker, 36 ... Fla. 358, 18 So. 767; ... ...