The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-03-28
ATTORNEY GENERAL GIVES
 OPINION ON OIL TAX LAW

pone the effect of criminal laws unti
 thirty days after the final adjournment o
 the session, and that such laws should l not take effect until that time ever
 tnougn in the meantime the Legislature
 mlsnt recess for more than thirty days
 1ne utle of the act is Fixing the Time
 when Certain Laws Shall Take Effect. | lt provides That hereafter no penal aci shal take effect against any person ir | .nls state until thirty days after the ad- | !ournment of the session of the Leg1s- iature at which such act may be passed. l (Acts 1866-67, D.. 40)
 | t is clear If the foregoing proposi- uons are sound, that so much of the sub- aivislon of the revenue law under con- sioeration as makes a violation of its pro- visions punishable by fine, Is penal law, and will not take effect until thirty days stter the adjournment of the Legisla- ture; that the Legislature has not ad- !ourned; and that, therefore, said provis- Ions are not yet operative and will not be until thirty days after the final adjourn ment of the Legislature
 law may, however be in part penal, ana In part remedial. Sutherland on statutory Construction, Secs. S69, 36O and notes; Endlich on the Interpretation of statutes. Sec. 332. note 39; Diyersey ". smith. l03 III. 37S) I think that the char acter Of the statute under consideration. While that part of it which provides for punishment for its violation is penal, that part of 1t which levies the tax, de- lines the amount of 1t and provides ma cninery for its collection is remedial so Tar as the State is concerned. or at least IS us no. penal. Cooley on Taxation, 2d Ed ~, 20; Sutherland on Statutory Con- struction, Sec. 361, n. 4;S63, n. on D. 463; 0S. n. 4; Endlich on Interpretation of statutes. Sec. 346, n. Co 126 n. 125 on p. 43l; Am. and Eng. Enc. of Law, 1st Ed, v. Daly. 175 U. S. 14S; Jahns V. Noting. 2S Cal. 5O7, 512; Cornwall V. Todd. 3S Conn. 4iS) The criminal part of the law is sev- erable and distinct from the part of 1t that levies the tax. They are distinct statutes. just as much so If they were written on separate pieces of paper and In the form of distinct enactments. In a Sfate like ours where there Is no provis- Ion in the Constitution forbdding such practice. part of a statute may be made effective at one time, and another part of the statute at another and different time. As matter of fact, this has often been done in this State. (Olmstead V. Crook S9 Ala. 22S; Lane V. Kolb, 92 Ala. H36; Act of the present Legislature mak- Ing K. K. Commission elective, in man. uscript; Stone V. Charlestown, IA Mass. 2lD. If a general statute defines the time when laws shall take effect, and a particular law provides that certain parts of it shall become operative at a cer- tain time and is silent to the remaind- CT Of the law, that part of it which the act specifies shall take effect at a certain time becomes operative at that time, and the remainder of 1t becomes operative at the time fixed by the general statute. Hummer V. Jones, S4 Maine, 5S.)
 An analogous principle Is applied in the case of the statutes held to be in part void. So much of the statute as is void would never take effect at all, and still the remainder might take effect &C., cording to the general law on the subject. tHarper V. State. 109 Ala. 26) As an ex- ample, if so much of the statute under consideration as Is criminal in its nature should be declared void because not suf- ficiently expressed in the title, or for oth- CT reason. doubtless the remainder of the statute would take effect upon the ap- proval of the act. In the case of the Phoenix Carpet Co. V. State, 1lS Ala. 143, cited above, the act was an act to amend the revenue laws of the State. The pros- ecution In that case was for engaging in or carrying on a business without having taken out a privilege license. The court held that that statute became operative on it's approval.
 much of the subdivision under consider ation as Is not criminal became opera tive on the approval of the act by the Governor and Is now in effect. While the prosecution for a violation may be postponed, still the State Is not without remedy. The State may bring a civil ac- tion for the recovery of the tax against persons who owe 1t. It is true that the statute gives a remedy for collection of the tax. but our court has held that the State may maintain assumpsit for a tax notwithstanding remedy Is given for it's collection. if such other remedy is not declared to be exclusive (City of An niston V. Southern Railway Co.,, 112 Ala. 557.)"