The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1917-10-02
Local Branch of American
Automobile Association
to Discuss Subject.
CLAIMS STATE LAW
REPEALS CITY ACT
Section of Ordinance Inpos-
ing Auto Tax in Line for
Merry Court Fight.

When the local branch of the Am
erican Automobile Association meets
tomorrow afternoon at four o'clock
IN the Chamber of Commerce. the new
tax regulations proposed for the CITY
OF Pensacola will be discussed with
the view of opposing them, as auto
mobile owners, in the claim that after
paying the state ta-< levied by the last
legislature, they arc exempt from all
other taxation. either county or
municipal.
Officials of the automobile associa-
ton claim that The new law repeals
the sections Of the city charter giving
the city authorities power to lew
taxes on motorists. but the CITY con-
tends that unless the sections G the
spe:tai charter act are expressly re-
peaied, that they are still valid.
lr support of their opposition to
the proposed taxation, local motorists
cite section 6, of the 1917 act, which
reals as follows: 1.-THE registration
fee imp, sed by this act shall be in
lieu OF any county or municipal Ii
eense fee, and it shall be unlawful
ttp dqr any county of municipality to col
that ali COUNTIES unti~s-segistrati9n aJaiuea. fss ap
may charge ans an auda!nd and nlnnieinaIi.;s.s
On all motor driven vehicles used for
hire, which additional tax shall not
exceed fifty per cent of the state
license tax
AS soon as the ordinance was pro-
posed great divergence of opinions
as to its legality occurred, and it is
planned to have the matter brought
Iof 1o t1c
soon as possible Those who claim
the additional tax, on the ground that
the new law fails to specifically re-
peal the provisions of the special
charter act, cite the decision of the
Supreme court in the case of Sanders
VS.. Howell, in which the city of Pen
sacola claimed the right to impose
license tax on diary products vended
in the city, in spite of the fact that
there existed a general act covering
the subject matter of the special act.
When the case was in the Court of
Record. the court held that the city
had no such right, but on appeal to
the supreme court by the city attor-
ney, the higher court reversed the
lower one, and held that the addition
al tax was valid.
In support OF Lnelr contention lHdC
the tax provisions in the city charter
were repealed by the general act. the
local motorists cite the decision of
the supreme court in the case of
Stewartv. DeLand--Sr. Helen special
road and bridge district.
In handing down the opinion ut the
January 1916 term Justice Shackle-
ford said for the court: s'In State of
Florida v. County OF Gadsden, 63 Fla.
62O. So South Rep 232, we held:
"While statutes may be lmpiledly
as well as expressly repealed. yet the
enactment of a statute does not oper-
ate to repeal by implication prior
statutes unless such is clearly legs
lative intent.
All intent to repeal prior statutes
or portions thereof. may De made ap-
parsnt wile. there is 4 positive and
srreconciIahle repugnancy between the
provisions of the later enactment and
those of prior statutes. But the mere
fact that a later statute relates to
matters covered in whole or in part
by a prior statute does not cause
repeal of the older statute.
If two statutes may operate upon
the same subject without positive in
consistency or repCgnancy in their
practical effect and consequences,
thew should each be given the effect
designed for them unless d contrary
inte.lt clearly appears.