The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1911-06-28
Baseball Law is Valid,
Says County Solicitor
CONTINUED from First Pager

and the ordinance licensing bawdy-
houses was valid.
/ In state versus Binder (3S Missouri
451) the legislature authorized the city
of st. Louis to allow certain beer sa-
looms to be kept open on Sunday,
though 1t was expressly prohibited
everywhere else, and the court held
that this was special exemption from
the general law, and so far as the city
was concerned, necessarily a repeal of
the general law.
u In State versus Kissels (120 Mis-
souri, App. 233, 96 Southwestern 494)
a city ordinance, licensing dram shops
on Sunday, was held valid under a
charter giving exclusive Jurisdiction to
a city to restrain, regulate. license, tax,
or suppress, dram-shops, although the
state law prohibited sales on Sunday.
In Hall versus Dunn (52 Oregon ATS,
81 Pacific 711) 1t was held that charter
authority to a municipality to license
or prohibit places where intoxicating
liquor is sold, and repeating all acts or
parts of acts inconsistent Herewith,
took the municipality out of the oper-
alton of prior local option law gen.
eral over the whole state
In State versus Clark (25 New Jer-
sey Law 54) 1t was held that the legis-
lature had the power to confer upon a
municipality the power to pass an or
ways, in conflict with the general law
on the subject, and that an ordinance
passed in pursuance of such authority
operated to repeal or suspend the OPP
Grafton of the general law within the
limits of such municipality.
To the same effect. see State versus
Morristown (33 New Jersey Law SD.
In Bennett versus People (30 Illinois
389) where the charter conferred ex-
elusive jurisdiction upon the munich
pality over the subject, 1t was held to
operate as repeal OF the general law
within the municipality. See Siebold
versus People (186 Illinois 33). Also,
Westgate versus Carr CAB Illinois 450).
In some states there are constitu-
tional provisions prohibiting the 1egis-
lature from comforting upon munich
palitieS power to pass ordinances in
conflict with the general laws of the
state, but we have no such constitu-
tional provision in the state of Florida
Section twenty-four (24) of Article
three CD of the constitution provides
that "the legislature shall establish a
uniform system of county and munich
pal government which shall be ap-
plicable, except in cases where 9ocal or
special laws are provided by the legis-
lature, that may be inconsistent there
with"
Section eight (s) of Article eight (s)
provides that "the legislature shall
have the power to establish and to
their government, to prescribe their
jurisdiction and powers, aRd to alter or
amend the same at any time"
In Waller versus Osban (F1orida)
50 Southern $40, the legislature con-
ferred upon the city of Titusville
special authority to regulate the run
ming at large of cattle within the cor
70 7irr1ife which hnrifU W diff
ferent from and in conflict with that
conferred by the general statutes of the
state, and the supreme court held
under the constitutional provisions
above quoted, that the general law
was superseded by the special charter
passed by the city council in pursu-
ance of such special authority.
HAS POWER TO CONFER.
From the cases above cited, it is my
opinion that the legislature did have
the power to confer upon the city the
authority to pass an ordinance in con-
fiict with, and superseding or repeating
the general law of the state within
the territorial limits of the city of
Pensacola, and that the act comforting
such authority is constitutional
Did the amendment to the city char
ter authorize the passing of the ordi-
nance licensing and permitting base
ball on Sunday?
There is no question but that the
provision was inserted in the charter
for this purpose. When the words
"superseding and repeating existing
laws" were Incorporated in the clause
and coupled with the power of the city
to license and regulate baseball play
ing, the legislature could have had in
mind no law but the law prohibiting
baseball on Sunday, as that is the only
state law relative to baseball, and it
follows that the legislature intended
that the city should have the right to
supersede and repeal such law.
In OVERLY VS.. State Us Fla, 1879 it
was held that an act of the Legislature
licensing keno tables operated to re-
peal so much of the general statute as
made it a criminal offense to maintain
a keno table for the purpose of gaming.
The court said: I'VE cannot believe
that the legislature would or intended
to punish criminally any of the acts
licensed by it's authority"
In the case of Hall VS.. Dunn (supra),
as in the case of the act amending the
Pensacola charter, the title of the act
contained a clause repeating all acts
and parts of acts in conflict Herewith,
and in the body of the act was sec
ton repeating all acts and parts of
acts in conflict Herewith, as provided
Pensacola charter. The act itself con-
ferred upon the municipality power to
license or prohibit places where intoxi-