The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1911-05-21
STOKES SAYS
LEGISLATURE
MAY ACT NOW
SECTION IN STATE
CONSTITUTION CITED BY oP-
PoNENT OF INCOME TAX AND
SAYS SUCH SECTION CON.
FLIcTs WITH FEDERAL CON-
sTITUTIoN AND Is THEREFORE
IMPERATIVE.

The question raised by Senator
Dayton, as to the right of the present
legislature to act upon the income tax
amendment in view of the provision
made in section IS of article Is of the
Florida constitution, has ELECTED more
or less speculation by those who are
interested in the question. This sec
ton reads as follows:
NO convention or legislature of this
state shall act upon any amendment of
the constitution of the United States
proposed by congress to the several
states unless such convention or legis-
lature shall have been. elected after
such amendment is submitted"
AS one half of the present senate, or
amendmnt was submitted Senator
Dayton holds that this legislature can
not, under the Florida constitution,
act upon it.
SENATOR SToKEs's VIEWS.
In discussing the subject with a
Journal representative yesterday, Sena-
tor John P. Stokes, who came with
the legislators on their visit to Pensa-
cola, said:
"Inasmuch as the federal constitu-
ton provides that when the proposed
amendments ratified by the legisla-
lures of three-fourths of the states it
shall become part of the federal con-
stitution, discretion is thereby vest
ed in the legislature to act upon such
proposed amendment whenever 1t may
see fit In other words, the federal
constitution says, in effect, that the
present legislature may, in its dis
erection, act upon the proposed amend
ment or postpone action to a future
legislature. 1t is clear that when the
state constitution undertakes to say
that the present legislature may not
act upon the proposed amendment, it
thereby says that the present legisla-
ture may not do the very thing that
the federal constitution says it may
do. If the state constitution under
takes to say that the first legislature
converting after the proposed amend
ment was submitted for ratification,
must act upon such amendment, no
one would deny that this would be a
restriction and a limitation upon the
discretion vested in the legislature by
the federal constitution. 1t would
seem to be equally clear that the pro-
vision in our state constitution that
the present legislature may not act
upon the proposed amendment is a re-
striction and a limitation upon the
discretion vested in the state legisla-
ture to act on the amendment at this
or some future time. The federal con-
stitutfon is the supreme law of the
land and every member of the Iegisla-
ture has taken an oath to support and
defend it. When the state constitu>
ton conflicts with the federal consti-
tuition the latter must prevail Prot
Jameson, Judge Story and Daniel
Webster, three of the greatest ex-
Founders of the federal constitution,
support the theory that, the state con-
stitution in this particular conflicts
with the federal. constitutions and ie
therefore void. If the provision OF the
state constitution mentioned is void,
it is imperative and the present leg
islature is free to act upon the pro-
posed amendment and should at once
proceed to raitfy it."