The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1916-07-29
THE BIRMINGHAM AGEHERALD SATURDAY, JULY 80 1916

Section 1886 of the code Of Alabama pro-
vides:
That the inhabitants of any mu-
nieipality shall be exempt from working
on the roads or highways outside the
limits thereof, and may be required. for
the support of the streets within such
limits, to pay a street tax of not exceed
ing S per year
This section of the code has been the
subject of examination by the court of
appeals of Alabama in two cases.
''Mr. Justice Pelham of the court of
appeals in passing upon the ordinance
of the city of MONTGOMERY, passed pur-
suant to this statutory authority, upheld
the ordinance in every particular, and de-
cided that the ordinance was a lawful
and reasonabl exercise of the authority
and power given by the section of the
general law upon which it rests. Mont
gomery VS.. Barefield, Sc Sou. $50
1.-The court also held: There is no
conflict between the ordinance and the
general laws of the state in the prohibit
ton sense that the legislature has no
power to authorize municipal corpora
lions to pass laws inconsistent with the
general laws of the state as is provided
BY section SO of the constitution Of 1901.
Judge Pelham also said in the course
of the opinion: The ordinance in question
strikes down the provisions of no gem
eral law, is not repugnant to it, does not
infringe its spirit and is not in con-
PREVENTION of or in conflict with the OPP
Grafton or enforcement of the general law
relating to the performance of road duty.
The laws are not contradictory or repug-
nant to each other; they may both CO.
exist and be enforced at the same time,
without dependence one upon the other.
Each has a separate field of operation in
which it may be enforced
JUDGE PELHAM'S VIEW
1.-The question has been raised as to
what effect Is to be given to the act of
the legislature of 1915 purperting to ex-
empt all persons in counties having tax
valuation of $1Oo, 100000 from road duty,
or in obligation to work the roads
Speaking on this question in the same
case, Judge Pelham said: The road law
sections SIT and SITS, is no longer in
force or applicable to the inhabitants of
municipalities they are taken entirely out
of the operation of that-law, and become
exempt from its provisions, under sec
aion 1886, and the city ordinance cannot
be inconsistent with it, either as to its
opera ton or the field of enforcement
The law authorizing the ordinance is
also a general law, and it's constitutions
atty unassailed; by it the power is dele
gated to the municipality to pass street
tax laws, and this is but recognition
of the established rule lnaI the power Oh
focal taxation for local purposes may be
delegated to and exercised by municipali-
ties
"Quoting further from this decision we
find:
"It is said that this power given the
city to levy upon the inha bitants within
it's borders tax to maintain Its streets
is in lieu of the duty to perform serv-
ices under the road law exaeted Of cer-
tain persons living outside the territorial
limits of the municipalities, but as a
substitute for SO used in these cases
Ceases cited by hin). means no more than
that the tax is not cumulative, and that a
person who is subject and has paid or
performed one cannot be made subject to
the other for the same period and not.
as contended by appellee, that the street
tax law and the read working law must
be identical and conform in all of their
requirements as substitutes for each
other.
I'm the case of city of Montgomery VS..
Gilmer, Sc Southern Reporter, 264, the
court of appeals of Alabama, speaking
through Mr.. Justice Pelham, said:
Section 1886 of the code of 1907 does not
authorize the cities to impose road duty,