Title: Drummond Co. v. Boswell

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

346 So. 2d 955 (1977)
The DRUMMOND COMPANY, a corporation and Taylor Coal Company, Inc., a corporation
v.
Charles A. BOSWELL, as Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Alabama.
SC 2234.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 3, 1977.
*956 John E. Grenier, Birmingham, for appellants.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., Willard W. Livingston, Counsel, Dept. of Revenue and Asst. Atty. Gen. and John J. Breckenridge, Asst. Counsel, Dept. of Revenue and Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Robert G. Tate and Joseph W. Letzer, Birmingham, for Ala. Mining Institute, S. Eason Balch, Jr. for Balch, Bingham, Baker, Hawthorne, Williams & Ward, Birmingham, for Alabama Power Co., amicus curiae in support of appeal.
JONES, Justice.
This case involves the validity of Act No. 1005, Acts of Alabama, Regular Session, 1975, Vol. III, p. 2031, a local tax whereunder the legislature directly levied an excise or privilege tax of 20 cents per ton on coal severed in Cullman County. The Act, in pertinent parts, states:
Drummond Coal and Taylor Coal companies, taxpaying appellants, contend that this Act is violative of Art. 4, § 105, of the Constitution of Alabama 1901, and thus void. This section states:
It is the position of the Taxpayers that this Act contravenes or conflicts with Title 51, § 431, Code, a general law which, in pertinent parts, provides:
The Taxpayers' constitutional attack is on two fronts:
It should be noted, at the outset, that this Act was passed by the legislature and duly enrolled;[1] thus, it is not an Act passed by a political subdivision. Counsel for the Taxpayers and Amicus Curiae argue that this Act was passed by legislative courtesy and the practical effect of this alleged courtesy was that the Act was passed by a political subdivision. This we cannot accept. Even in the context of "legislative courtesy," acts which are passed by both houses, signed by the Governor (or otherwise become law under Section 125, Constitution of Alabama), and regularly enrolled do not acquire the status of legislation by a political subdivision. If otherwise valid, the application of legislative courtesy in its passage carries no taint, in itself, of invalidity.
On the other hand, we reject the State's insistence that § 105 prohibits local legislation only in cases specifically enumerated in § 104. Our cases are clear that a local law must satisfy both §§ 104 and 105. The test under § 105 is:
". . . [whether] the object of the local law is to accomplish an end not substantially provided for and effectuated by a general law, notwithstanding there is a general law dealing with the subject or system affected by the local law." Polytinsky v. Wilhite, 211 Ala. 94, 99 So. 843 (1924).
Thus, the remaining issue is a narrow one: Does Tit. 51, § 431  the general coal severance taxing Act  which provides the source and the objects of expenditure of the proceeds of the tax, in operation with § 105 of the Constitution, render void local Act No. 1005, which provides the same source but different objects of expenditure of the proceeds of the tax? Ultimately, then, we must decide if the use of the proceeds from this tax for highway maintenance in Cullman County, as provided in local Act No. 1005, is substantially and materially different in the end to be accomplished from the general law which provides for use of the proceeds from the same source for retirement of State Dock bonds.
The Taxpayers contend that "it is the identity of subject matter of the two acts [Act No. 1005 and Tit. 51, § 431] which is fatal to the Cullman Severance Tax, the local act." The test as stated in this contention *958 is too narrow and the conclusion is not supported by our case law. It is not the broad, overall subject matter which is looked to in determining whether the local act, taken together with the general law, is violative of § 105; rather, it is whether the object of the local law is to accomplish an end not substantially provided for and effectuated by a general law. Indeed, the word "subject" does not appear in § 105. The exact wording is: "No special, private, or local law . . . shall be enacted in any case which is provided for by a general law. . . ."
This constitutional proscription, as stated in Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky v. Limestone County, 220 Ala. 231, 124 So. 523 (1929), had been previously considered by this Court:
In Limestone, the Court was faced with a problem similar to the instant case. The Legislature in 1923 had passed a general law imposing a gallonage tax of 2 cents on motor fuels and a later act divided this money equally between the 67 counties of the State for the construction and maintenance of bridges and public roads. The Legislature, in 1927, then passed a local act authorizing the Court of County Commissioners of Limestone County to levy an additional 3-cent tax on all motor fuels in Limestone County.
The taxpayers in Limestone contended in brief:
Mr. Justice Bouldin, speaking for the Court, responded, saying:
We find no significant distinction between a valid local act which assesses an additional tax on gasoline and a local act which assesses an additional tax on the severance of coal.
Likewise, in In re Opinion of the Justices, 266 Ala. 363, 96 So. 2d 634 (1957), this Court opined that an additional automobile license tax imposed by Lauderdale County in face of a general law licensing the use of automobiles was not constitutionally proscribed. See also Steadman v. Kelly, 250 Ala. 246, 34 So. 2d 152 (1948).
The policy argument that Cullman County is benefiting at the expense of the rest of the State (the principal market for coal being outside Cullman County) is a compelling one. But it cannot overcome the constitutional grant of legislative power to make such policy decisions.
We are also impressed with the contention, from the standpoint of policy, that a lack of uniformity in the levying of this tax from one coal-producing county to another is undesirable in a growing and essential State industry. But, here again, this is a policy argument to be addressed to the legislature.
It must be remembered that one of the predominant themes of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 is found in the restrictions placed on home rule. Power denied to local governments is reserved to the State Legislature; and, subject only to constitutional proscriptions, the Legislature is free to determine policy and enact local laws *959 accordingly.[2]State v. Steele, 263 Ala. 16, 81 So. 2d 542 (1955).
AFFIRMED.
BLOODWORTH, MADDOX, FAULKNER, ALMON and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
TORBERT, C. J., and SHORES and EMBRY, JJ., dissent.
[1]  The following note appears on p. 2033 at the conclusion of the Act: "This act became a law under Section 125 of the Constitution on October 10, 1975 without approval by the Governor."
[2]  The issue of the amount of the tax as being capricious and confiscatory is not raised.