The St. Lucie County tribune. (Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Fla.) 1905-1920, 1911-11-10
THE DECISION
ON BOND LAW
Full Text of Supreme Courts De.
CisiOn of Last Week
FULL COURT CONCURS
A Decision of Far Reaching Benefit in De-
filming Power of Legislature in Grant
ing Special or Local Legislation

The following is the full text of the
decision of the Supreme court handed
down last week, which renders the st.
Lucie County special bonding law a
valid instrument:
In the Supreme Court of Florida,
Division A. June Term, A. d., 1911.
Paul Kroegel and others, Appellants,
VS.. Richard Whyte and others, Appel
lees. st. Lucie County, on Rehearing.
Justice Cockrell.
Certain resident taxpayers of st.
Lucie County obtained an injunction
against the issuance of bonds voted for
the construction of hard surfaceq roads
aud public dock, under authority of
Chapter 6016, Laws of 19O9 which is a
special or local law. Pending the ap-
peal in this court, the legislature pas
sed an act, being Chapter $500 of the
Laws of 1911, validating the said bond
issue and requiring the levy of taxes to
pay the interest and to provide sink
ing fund
The supposed defects pointed out
specifically in the bill of complaint
have been fully met in the validating
act; but upon the original hearing this
court was. following some well consid-
cred cases in other jurisdictions con-
STRUNG similar constitutional pro-
visions of the opinion that the legisla-
ton fell within the inhibition against
special or local laws, ''fOr assessment
and collection of taxes for State and
County pursoses. Upon further con-
sideratiOn, however, we are now of the
opinion that other provisions of our or
ganic law permit us to follow another
line of decisions holding that the i,hibi.
ton goes only to the manner Ormethod
of assessing taxes and does not forbid
the legislature to authorize by special
or local laws a county to levy a tax for
lawful county purpose. See Gibson
v. Mason, 5 New. 1888; State ex REL
Williams v. Fogues. 10 New. 247, 9 Pac.
Rep. 1873; Bright v. Mccullough, n
Ind. 223; Bacon v. Milford, Al N. J. L.
SO; Simon " Northrup, q Ore. 487. 40
Pac. Rep. $50; Sisk v. Cargile, 1873 Ala.
1854, IS South. Rep. Ia. The legisla-
tive department of this STATE has so
construed the constitution, o Judge
from numerous enactments at nearly
every session held by it since the con-
stitution became effective. r.
Sec "a of Article III of the consttu-
ton clearly pc mits the legislature to
pass special laws as to county govern
ment; this section indicates DISPOSE
ton not to hamper the legislature as to
county affairs, in view of the widely d.
vergent needs of the communities in
state, differing so in soil, climate, pop
ulation and otherwise; but there is an
other provision to which we did not
give sufficient weight
Section of the article on taxation
and finance provides that "the leglsla-
ture shall authorize the several cOun-
ties and Incorporated cities and towns
in the state to assess and impose taxes
for county and municipal purposes.
The use of the word several drives
us to the conclusion that the counties
may be given power severally and hence
they may be given it by special or local
laws. We cannot construe the inhlbl-
ton against special or local laws for
the assessment and collection of taxes
for county purposes as an inhibition
against an imposition OF a tax for coun-
ty purposes. in the face of the COM
mand to authorize the several counties
to assess and impose taxes for county
A general law authorizing
all the counties to assess and levy 4
tax for a county purpose, of course
au horizes the several counties, each
and every, to do so, hut this power
would have existed, had the word 'seV"
eral" been omitted. We cannot accuse
the makers of our constitution of using
words idly and we cannot give effect to
this word only by declaring that it per.
mits the legislature to grant by spec
ial or local law authority to a county,
or several counties. to assess and levy
a special tax for a legitimate county
provided only the manner and
method Of assessing and collecting the
tax be regulated by the general law.
This legislation authorizes the county
of st. Lucie to issue bonds for the
of public dock, authority not
conferred by general legislation upon
other counties. and It is suggested that
this may be offensive as regulating, in
a special or local law, the jurisdiction
or duties of class of officers not mu-
nicpal. We shall not undertake to de-
fine the demarkation between regula-
tons affecting the county government
which is directly permitted, and regu-
lations as to the jurisdiction and duties
of any class of officers which are pro-
hibited. In the matter now before us
it may we'll be doubted if the confer
ring of power upon county through
its county commissioners to levy tax
to meet bonds issued for county pur.
pose, regulates their jurisdiction and
(oont;nuad IN naUo Sl