The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1917-10-04
Many Car Owners Take
Part in Varied Discussion
Before Local Auto Assn.
SAYS THAT TAX COVERS
ALL LEGAL CHARGES
City Ordinance Imposing
Tax Declared Be Unjust
and Discriminatory.

At meeting of Pensacola motor
lists held yesterday afternoon at 4
clock in the Chamber of Commerce
to formulate plans for opposing the
new city ordinance levying an addi-
tlonal tax on motor cars, it was de-
clded to appoint committee COM
posed of large number of promi-
nent owners, to call on the city COM
mlssloners at the meeting next Mon
day, and protest against the new law.
The meeting yesterday was attend
ed by a large number of car owners
of Pensacola, who unanimously voiced
the opinion that the ordinance is un-
just, illegal, and discrimintory, and in
direct conflict with the provisions of
the new state automobile law enacted
at the 1917 session of the Legisla-
ture.
After general discussion of the
situation, George P. Wentworth
summed up the matter confronting
local motorists, and moved that a
committee of three be appointed to
manage the legal campaign against
tions with the commissioners prove
futile. DIR. Louis DEM. Blocker, pres
ident of the association, Immediately
appointed George p. Wentworth, +.
,',;+ts.. w; Marsh and = NJ. Pyle on this COM
In outlining the plan to obtain le-
gal action in the matter, Mr.. Went
worth said that the committee could
arrange for the arrest of some local
car owner on the charge of non pay
ment of license, which would immedi-
ately bring the matter before the city
court. Upon refusal to pay the fine,
and subsequent Incarceration. habeas
corpus proceedings could be brought,
and the point of law involved by the
circuit court within a few days.
Before making any definite plan
of action, F. w. Marsh, Secretary of
the association, read sections of the
ordinance, and then cited provisions
of the new state law with which it
is contended there is a direct con-
fiict.
A copy of letter from City Attor-
ney John B. Jones, addressed to City
COMPTROLLER Bayless, was read in
which the city attorney briefly re-
viewed the decision of the supreme
court in the case of Sanders v. Howell
which presents almost analogous
points. In this case, the city imposed
a license tax on dairy products ven
there is a state law exempting dairy
products from taxation. In the
Howell case, as in the present one,
the city maintained the right granted
under it's charter to act independent
1y of the state law. contending that
the charter grant of taxing power
was not infringed or superseded by
any state laws.
When the question was brought be-
fore the supreme court on the appeal
of the city attorney from the decision
of the court of record here, the high
er court held that the CITY had the
right to lew the tax on dairy prod
ucts. Notwithstanding the tax ex
emption of the state law.
As the two cases are verv similar,
the present contention will be follow
ed with unusual interest
In order to obtain funds with which
to defray the expenses incurred by le-
gal action, should it be necessary,
committee of sixteen was authorized
to solicit subscriptions from all local
motorists, whether they have paid the
tax or not. Some have already paid
the city tax, but it is stated that it
will be refunded in case the court
rules in favor of the motorists.