State v. Allen
| Decision Date | 10 February 1922 |
| Citation | 83 Fla. 214,91 So. 104 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. BONSTEEL v. ALLEN, Sheriff. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Original application for a writ of habeas corpus by the State, on the relation of L. S. Bonsteel, against Louis A. Allen, as Sheriff of Dade County.
Petitioner remanded to custody.
Syllabus by the Court
When title of amendatory act is sufficient. Where the title of an act amendatory of the Revised General Statutes, gives the numbers of the sections of the law designed to be amended and also briefly expresses the general subject embraced in such sections, if they have a common connection with the general subject, it is sufficient notice to the Legislature and to the public, as reasonably to lead to an inquiry into the body of the bill to ascertain what changes are proposed in the existing law, and anything germane to the general subject expressed in the title may be included in the act.
Provisions as to motor vehicles held within title. 'Fixing maximum weights,' 'classification of vehicles by weights as well as by structure of tires,' and 'legislating certain vehicles from use of roads,' are matters properly connected with the operation of motor vehicles, and germane thereto.
When law levying license tax will be held void as unreasonable and arbitrary. While it is within the power of the courts to declare laws levying license taxes void because of the unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of the state's power either in the classification or in fixing the amount of the license, such power will not be exercised unless the amount of the license tax is so great, or the classification so palpably arbitrary as to be beyond the necessities for the legislation, or equivalent to an impairment of the constitutional rights of property, or tend to prevent a great number, if not all persons, from pursuing otherwise lawful occupations which do not impair public safety, public health or injure public property.
Statute prohibiting use of public highways by motor vehicles of certain weights held not unreasonable. The prohibition of the use on the public highways outside of municipalities of motor vehicles of certain weights enumerated in section 5 of the act amending section 1011, Rev. Gen. Statutes, is not unreasonable when considered in connection with the character of our existing public highways.
Bart A. Riley, of Miami, for petitioner.
Rivers Buford, Atty. Gen., and Fred T. Myers, of Tallahassee, for respondent.
A writ of habeas corpus was issued from this court upon a petition that challenges the constitutionality of chapter 8410, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1921.
Without referring seriatim to the grounds enumerated by the petitioner upon which he seeks to have the act declared unconstitutional, we will discuss them in such a way as to dispose of all the questions raised.
The contention that the act violates section 16, article 3 of the Constitution we decided adversely to the petitioner. Where the title of an act amendatory of the Revised General Statutes gives the numbers of the sections of the law designed to be amended, and also briefly expresses the general subject embraced in such sections, if they have a common connection with the general subject, it is sufficient notice to the Legislature and to the public as reasonably to lead to an inquiry into the body of the bill to ascertain what changes are proposed in the existing law, and anything germane to the general subject expressed in the title may be included in the act. Stokes v. Galloway, 61 Fla 437, 54 So. 799.
In the title before us there is but one subject, 'the Operation of Motor Vehicles, Trailers, Semi-Trailers, Motorcycles and Sidecars.'
'Fixing maximum weights,' 'classification of vehicles by weights as well as by structure of tires,' and 'legislating certain vehicles from use of roads,' are matters properly connected with the operation of motor vehicles, and germane thereto.
The same is true of the 'delegation of powers to comptroller,' and the 'delegation of power to county commissioners.' The duties imposed on the comptroller and the county commissioners are administrative acts to carry into effect the provisions of the law regulating the operation of motor vehicles. The law cannot be self-executing. There must be persons charged with the duty of administering it, and a reasonable amount of discretion must be vested in them in the performance of those duties. We do not find anything in the law that vests arbitrary or unlimited powers upon these officials.
While it is within the power of the courts to declare Laws levying license taxes void because of the unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of the state's power either in the classification or in fixing the amount of the license, such power will not be exercised unless the amount of the license tax is so great, or the classification so palpably arbitrary as to be beyond the necessities for the legislation, or equivalent to an impairment of the constitutional rights of property, or tend to prevent a great number, if not all persons, from pursuing otherwise lawful occupations which do not impair public safety, public health, or destroy property.
We do not find that the tax levied by the act of 1921 upon owners of motor vehicles, or the classification for the purposes of regulating their operation, is so unreasonable as to make the act unconstitutional in this respect.
The public highways of the state are built and maintained by public funds derived from various sources of taxation. Their construction and maintenance is a charge upon the people of the state, and it is not only the right, but the duty, of the state, to prohibit their use by motor vehicles that by reason of their great weight or other reasons are likely to impair and seriously injure the roads. In the exercise of this power the regulations and prohibitions must be just and reasonable, and not such as would impair the reasonable use of the highways by the public. We find, therefore, that the prohibition of the use on the public highways outside of municipalities of motor vehicles of certain weights enumerated in section 5 of the act amending section 1011, Rev. Gen. Statutes, is not unreasonable when considered in connection with the character of our existing public highways.
The attack upon the act because it violates section 4 of article 9 of the Constitution, in that it attempts to direct the expenditure of public moneys without an appropriation made therefor, is also untenable.
This provision of the act is in part as follows:
Section 12, c. 8410, Acts of 1921, amending section 1031, Rev. Gen. Stats. 1920.
The word 'appropriation' is not used in connection with the setting aside of a portion of the money to pay for number plates, postage and clerical work, but it is as much an appropriation as if that word were used. It is a setting apart of money formally or officially for a special use or purpose (see Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary), and, where that is done by the Legislature in clear and unequivocal terms, it is an appropriation.
Statutes setting apart or designating public moneys for special governmental purposes have been held to be appropriations, notwithstanding the word 'appropriation' is not used. The statute creating the State Board of Health, adopted February 20, 1889 (Laws Extra Sess. 1889, c. 3839), provided:
'That there shall be annually levied and collected upon the assessable property of the state a tax of not more than half a mill, the revenue derived from which assessment and collection shall constitute a special fund to be used for public health purposes of the state.' Section 20.
This was carried forward in the Revised Statutes as section 784. The word 'appropriation' is not used, but this section was construed by this court in the case of State v. Southern Land & Timber Co., 45 Fla. 374, 33 So. 999, where it was held that the language was equivalent to an appropriation, and this construction was sustained in the case of Amos v. Mosely, 74 Fla. 555, 77 So. 619, L. R. A. 1918C, 482.
The cases cited by petitioner to support his contention that the power vested in the Comptroller in the matter of the expenditure of part of the moneys derived from the motor vehicle license tax is unconstitutional as a delegation of unlimited power to the Comptroller in the expenditure of public funds are not in point. In those cases (People v. Sargent, 254 Ill. 514, 98 N.E. 959; State ex rel. Ruth v. Budge, 14 N.D. 532, 105 N.W. 724; State ex rel. Miller v. Taylor, 27 N.D. 77, 145 N.W. 425; State ex rel. City of Fargo v. Wetz, 40 N.D. 299, 168 N.W. 835, 5 A. L. R. 731) there was authority to raise money and expend it without being deposited in the treasury, and authority to expend it without an appropriation by the Legislature.
In the case of People v. Sargent, supra, the Secretary of State was authorized to collect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carlton v. Mathews
... ... Denied Nov. 19, 1931 ... En ... 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 ... 374, 33 ... So. 999; Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555, 77 So. 619, L ... R. A. 1918C, 482; State ex rel. v. Allen, 83 Fla ... 214, 91 So. 104, 26 A. L. R. 735; Lainhart v. Catts, ... 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47 ... [103 ... Fla. 363] The time when ... ...
-
Amos v. Gunn
... ... article 3 of the Constitution, relating to the veto power of ... the Governor, invests the chief executive of the state with a ... power in trust to be exercised to the end that its full ... purpose of providing a check upon errors and protecting the ... The title of the act covers 'license taxes,' and is ... not deficient or misleading. State ex rel. v. Allen ... (Fla.) 91 So. 104, decided at this term ... As the ... excise tax of 1 cent a gallon is 'in addition' to the ... tax of $5 for ... ...
-
Rorick v. Board of Com'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist.
...specifically appropriated (Lainhart v. Catts, 73 Fla. 735, 75 So. 47, text 54; Bannerman v. Catts, 80 Fla. 170, 85 So. 336; State v. Allen, 83 Fla. 214, 91 So. 104, text 105, 26 A. L. R. 735), and pledged to the extent and for the purposes just mentioned; the appropriation and pledge contin......
-
State Ex Rel. Lane Drug Stores, Inc. v. Simpson
... ... reasonable, not unjustly discriminatory, nor arbitrary, ... whimsical, irrational, grossly oppressive, plainly unequal, ... or contrary to common right, they will be upheld.' See ... Gray v. Central Fla. Lbr. Co., 104 Fla. 446, 140 So ... 320, 325, 141 So. 604; State v. Allen, 83 Fla. 214, ... 91 So. 104, 26 A.L.R. 735; Jackson v. Neff, 64 Fla ... 326, 60 So. 350, writ of error dismissed in 238 U.S. 610, 35 ... S.Ct. 792, 59 L.Ed. 1488; Peninsular Casualty Co. v ... State, 68 Fla. 411, 67 So. 165; Amos v. Gunn, ... 84 Fla. 285, 94 So. 615; Amos v. [122 ... ...