Palatka daily news. [volume] (Palatka, Fla.) 1919-1994, 1922-05-03
Question of Fact Will Be
Argued at the Next
Hearing
RECORDS ARE COMPLETE
Show That Act Was
Passed and Signed in
Regular Order
Inv AagOcfated Preasl

Tallahassee, May 3-The second
step in the test case involving the le-
gality of the passage of House Bill
No. 702, commonly known as the gas
oline tax bill, has been taken, the
Comptroller moving, through Attor-
ney General River Buford and his
assistant Judge j. B. Gaines, for a
rehearing on the second phase-the
legality of the passage, signing and
engrossing of the measure in accord
ance with constitutional provisions.
The decision rendered by a divided
court some time ago was that if the
allegations set up by the plaintiff
that the bill was not regularly signed
as required by the constitution, that
the measure is invalid. Now comes
the state and contends that the bill
was passed in regular and legal man.
ner, enrolled and engrossed and duly
signed. This is shown by the House
journal, and beyond this, the state
contends, the court cannot go, al
though the court might know of its
own knowledge that the bill was not
signed at the time or within the time,
required by the constitution.
In its move for hearing on the Sec
ond phase of the case the state sets
up the following:
First: Because the opinion and de-
cision of the court are predicated up
on the assumption that, sit appears
from the record, and it is not con-
troverted, that house bill No. 7O2
published as chapter SAIL of the
laws of Florida, acts of 1921, was not
signed by the presiding officers of the
senate and house of representatives
until afr the expiration of the con-
stitutional period of sixty days dur
ing which a legislative session may
last, and after the legislature adjourn
ed sine die on the third day of June,
1921" and in thus assuming it to be
established by the record that the
bill in question was not signed by the
presiding officers of the respective
houses until after the final adjourn
ment of the legislature, the court
overlooked and failed to consider the
fundamental difference between the
effect of demurrer and allegations
Of traversable facts and that of the
demurrer to Inontraversable allega-
tions Of facts designed to show the
;nvalidity Of a statute.
Second: Because in arriving al the
opinion and decision above mention
ed, the court overlooked and did not
consider that allegatins of facts de-
signed to show the invalidity of a sta
lutte are neither traversable nor sus-
ceptible of admission by the parties
by demurrer or otherwise, but pre-
sent solely question of law deter
minable only by matters of which the
court will take judicial cognizance.
Third: Because the decision of the
court, as set forth in the said opinion,
assumes it to be established by THE
record that said house bill No. 702
was not signed otherwise than as
therein stated, because allegations of
the bill to that effect were not contro-
verted, in which assumption the court
overlooked and did not consider the
proposition that such allegations pre-
sented purely a non-traversable ques-
ton of law, instead of traversabie
question of fact, with the result that
the effect of said decision is that con-
clusions of law are admitted by de-
murrer to the pleading in which they
are set forth.
The matter is now before the SUI
preme court for its decision as to
.,,Lo4hox -. ,,o& q vahaa riuU shall he