The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1922-04-24
WHAT ONE FOOLISH MAN
CAN Do TO A STATE

Says the Palatka News: Perhaps
no man in Florida is so generally con-
demned as is Representative Gum, of
Levy county, who was the plaintiff in
the suit brought against the state to
annul the gasoline tax bill. He has
already forfeited the esteem of his
fellow citizens, as is attested by a
resolution passed few days ago by
the Williston chamber of commerce,
and there areSthousands of Floridians
who condemn him and probably none
to defend.
So many people have asked the
question, "Why did Mr. Gum attack
the gasoline bill?" In his bill of COM,
plant he sets up, as one of his rea-
sons, that the gasoline tax revenue is
applied solely to the construction of
roads, that the motor boat operators
of the state get no benefits from the
tax which they are forced to pay, and
yet Mr.. Gum, if he is financing the
attack on the bill, will spend more for
attorneys fees and other costs than
he would pay out in gasoline tax in
many years. He would be foolish
man, indeed, to exploit his selfshness
with so little opportunity for return.
But is this the motive behind Mr..
Gums suit? Was it Mr.. Gums idea
to employ attorneys whose retaining
fees are noted for their opulence? We
hardly think so. Are the big COM
panies the movants We. are told that
the tax makes no difference to them
that they pass it On to the consumer.
| But this does not relieve them of the
necessity for extra expense in keep
| ing account of the tax and making re-
mittances to the state. And the oil
companies may see in this first levy
on their product the possibility of fu-
ture levies that may reach into their
profits. We believe that they do op.
pose any tax on gasoline, and we are
supported in this belief by no less
than a dozen cases where the Stand
ard, the Texas and the Continental
oil companies have attacked gas tax
bills in other states and in every in
stance they have lost. Isn't it, then,
reasonable to presume that the oil
companies, divining that their case
might appear to have more merit
when brought by an individual, and
that Individual member of the legis-
| LOT 1ryhS h
If they brought the complaint them
selves?
But the gasoline tax bill is not yet
out of court. The decision of the SUI
preme court was on a demurrer to the
plaintiffs charges that the bill had
been illegally signed. The demurrer
of the state set up that if this were
true it did not invalidate the measure
The supreme court merely ruled that
it did, in a divided decision. Now the
mandate from the supreme court
comes down in thirty days and the
state will file its contentious that the
bill was legally passed, legally signed
and no evidence is available that il
was not. The only evidence that the
court can take cognizance of is the
written record of the legislature. The
bill was passed regularly by the nee,
essary majority, as ise shown by the
journal, was regularly engrossed, reg
iularly signed by all officials. The re
cord is complete and no oral evidence
of any kind can be introduced to con
trovert it.
But the harm has been done in ex
pense to the state, in loss of revenu,
at time when it is badly needed fol
road building purposes, and all thru
the foolishness of one man. But tn
oil companies will have to pay tn
tax that. they are now declining t.
collect and, after all, we believe, tn
state will not suffer.
Il