The Punta Gorda herald. [volume] (Punta Gorda, Fla.) 1893-1958, 1916-04-27

brought by P. O. Hickman, a.
gainst L. w. Whitehurst, ct al,
has special news value; and as 1t
gives in substance the controlling
questions raised in the pleadings,
both sides are presented. The
decision reads as follows:
"This cause comes on for hear.
ing upon motion for. injunction a
gainst the County Commissioners
and the Bond Trustees of the
Punta Gorda Special Road and
Bridge District to prevent the
further building of the roads of
that district, except by contract
work, | find that the statute un-
der which the road district was
created provided for doing the
work by letting to the lowest bid
der. l. find that the Legislature
in 1915 passed a special and local
law relating only to this particu-
lar district, in effect allowing the
work to be done without letting
under a contract.
"The motion came on, upon
bill, demurrer thereto and ans
wer. | think the pleadings raise
but two controlling questions :
Does the Constitution prohibit
the legislature from passing such
an act as the 1915 act by reason
of its being local or special to a
particular locality? 1t is true
that the Constitution prohibits
legislation regulating jurisdiction
or duties of officers in one commu-
nifty and not generally applicable
to all. have concluded that
whether or net this act is often
sive to the constitution, is at least
doubtful and therefore under the
law must uphold the act, because
unless an act is clearly and be-
yond reasonable doubt, under
any rational view that may be
taken, in positive conflict with
some identified provision of the
constitution, it should not be de-
clared imperative. The act does
not enlarge the jurisdiction or
duties of County Commissioners
over subject over which t.
had no jurisdiction before, but re-
lates to a subject matter over
which they had full charge before
the act, that is the building of
roads. 1t was on this ground
that the Supreme Court has up
held a special act to build a dock
and issue bonds therefor. The
same objection was made there as
here to its constitutionality. They
say, we shall not undertake to
define the demarcation between
regulations affecting the County
Government which are directly
permitted and regulations as to
the jurisdiction and duties of any
class of officers which are prohib-
tied. IN the matter now before
us it may well be doubted if the
comforting of a power upon a
county through its county COM
missioners to levy tax to meet
bonds issued for a county purpose
regulates their jurisdiction and
duties. This seems to be the on
ly expression of the Supreme
Court upon an illustrated ques-
tion, and while not directly in
point yet throws much light on
the clause in question.
81 am of the poinion that the
constitutional clause in question
means and in its correct, rational
Interpretation, was intended to
prohibit the legislature from en-
larging the jurisdiction of county
commissioners over a subject mat
ter Except by general law over
which they had no duties or jur-
iSdiction before. 1t was said in |
argument that | could be aided |
but little by any previous authori-
ties; and if the construction of !
this clause be one of first impress
sion, | will try to find the true
reason Of it. In doing so l be-
lieve that the object of the clause
was to confne the officers of all |
classes to the power generally |
conferred on them and prohibit
the legislature from enlarging
those powers or their jurisdiction
in one locality over new subjects
of jurisdiction, not conferred on
all alike; but has no reference to
defining the details or incidents
in carrying into effect their gen.
cral jurisdiction. This seems to
he the more forceful when Section
20. is construed with Section "a,
of the same article-'The legisla-