In re the Executive Communication of the 2d Day of June, A. D. 1870

13 Fla. 687
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 1, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 13 Fla. 687 (In re the Executive Communication of the 2d Day of June, A. D. 1870) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Executive Communication of the 2d Day of June, A. D. 1870, 13 Fla. 687 (Fla. 1870).

Opinion

Supreme Court Room,

Tallahassee, June 6, 1870.

) )

To his Excellency Harrison Reed, Governor:

The communication of your Excellency, under date of the 2d inst., requiring an opinion of the Justices of this Court upon certain matters embraced in a resolution passed by the Legislature, was received on the day of its date. The absence of one of the members of this court has prevented an earlier compliance with the request.

[688]*688Three questions are presented by your communication, as follows:

I. What class of expenses is required by the constitution to be paid by counties ?

II. Who are “ county officers ” within the meaning of the constitution? And,

III. What legislation is necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the constitution relating to the payment by counties of their legitimate expenses ?

I. It may be difficult to enumerate in detail the various kinds of expenses which are required to be paid by counties.

Sec. 6 of Art. XII requires the Legislature to “ authorize the several counties and incorporated towns in the State to impose taxes for county and corporation purposes.”

Sec. 18 of Art. XVI says: “ Each county and incorporated city shall make provision for the support of its own officers, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by law. Each county shall make provision for building a court house and jail, and for keeping the same in good repair.”

“ County purposes ” necessarily includes what is intended by the phrase “ the support of its own officers,” and the building of a court house and jail. The term, county purposes, may also embrace the payment of the legitimate indebtedness of the counties, the construction of roads and bridges, and public works of common necessity and convenience, the expenses of various servants and agents of the counties in the management of county affairs, the maintaining of the internal police and good order of the community, public schools, and such other matters of public concern as may peculiarly effect the people of the county in their property and local interests, and may be provided by the Legislature within the scope of its authority.

A county organization commonly includes the establishment of such various county offices as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes and execute the powers of the county. These organizations, and the powers and duties of [689]*689county officers, are quite uniform in the various States, as is well understood by all our citizens.

The provisions of our constitution upon these matters are practically identical with those of the constitution of other States, and the .matters above mentioned, and kindred subjects, are committed to the local governments on account of convenience and economy.

The word “ support ” is construed to refer to the ewrnmgs and fees to which the officers may be entitled for performing public duties. To'support means “ to sustain, to supply funds for the means of continuing, as to support the expenses of government.” (Webster.) We have little difficulty in determining the meaning of the word in relation to the support of the officer of a city; there can be no doubt as to its application..

II. Who are “ county officers ” within the meaning of the ' constitution ?

That instrument speaks of State officers, county officers, and municipal officers. All of them are officers of this State, and all take the same oath of office. . Their character, as State or county or municipal officers, is not determined by the manner in which the offices are filled. Some of them have the prefix of “ county,” as “ county judge,” &c. This is no more a test than would be the word “ State ” attached to an office, the functions of which pertain to a territory greater than a county. When State officers are mentioned, we at once understand a reference to those officers whose duties and jurisdiction are not confined to the locality of a county; and we understand county and city officers to be those whose duties are confined to the territory of a county or city, and are local in their character.

The constitution says that the Governor shall appoint, “in each county,” an assessor of taxes, a collector of revenue, a county treasurer, county surveyor, superintendent of schools, county commissioners, a sheriff and clerk of the circuit court, who shall be clerk of the county court and [690]*690board of county commissioners, recorder and ex-officio auditor of the county. Constables shall be elected in each county.” “ The Governor shall appoint a county judge for each county.” If the prefix “ county ” were held to be the criterion by which to determine whether it be a county office, we should have as county officers only a county treasurer, county surveyor, county commissioners, and a county judge. With only these officers, it strikes me that there could be no complete county organization, and the other offices are perhaps indispensable to make the necessary machinery complete and efficient.

What is a sheriff? We must define terms used in a constitution or statute by the rules of the common law, unless the constitution or statute gives us another rule. The very word here defines itself. The derivation of the word sheriff’ from the Saxon, attests the antiquity of the office. The sheriff was, in Saxon times, the reeve or bailiff of the shi/re, and during the Anglo-Norman period, acted as the deputy of the Count or Earl, {comes,) who had the government of the county. Hence his title in Law Latin of vice-comes, and in Law French, viseount, that is, the Count’s or Earl’s deputy. The English shire-reeve has contracted into sheriff.— History.

In England as in the United States, he executes civil and criminal process throughout the county, and has charge of the jails and prisoners, attends courts, and keeps the peace. His duties pertain in this State to affairs within his county, and whenever he desires to serve process or arrest an offender in another county, the process must be endorsed by some judicial officer in the other county. Th. Dig., 520.

Sheriffs may summon the citizens to aid him in some instances, and this is the posse comitatus or power of the county. The laws of this State, in several instances, speak of this officer as the “sheriff of the county.” Th. Dig., 60. The sheriff of the Supreme Court must be the “ sheriff of [691]*691the county ” where the court is held. Th. Dig. and Laws of 1868. '

"When a prisoner is convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary, the law may authorize the sheriff, or any other person, to convey the convict to thé penitentiary. That the. sheriff may perform the service and get his pay from the State will not divest him of the character of a county officer.

The offices of collector and assessor are provided for each-county, and they are necessary offices for each county, and the county government cannot be maintained without these, or equivalent officers. State and county taxes are assessed upon the same property, and economy and convenience require that the State and county taxes shall be collected, by the same person.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 1985
Lott, Et Vir v. City of Orlando
196 So. 313 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Thursby v. Stewart
137 So. 7 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Amos v. Mathews
126 So. 308 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Osborn v. Henry
76 So. 119 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
State ex rel. Clyatt v. Hocker
39 Fla. 477 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1897)
State ex rel. Attorney-General v. Burns
38 Fla. 367 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1896)
State ex rel. Murphy v. Barnes
24 Fla. 29 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1888)
County of Gadsden v. Green
22 Fla. 102 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1886)
City of Jacksonville v. Basnett
20 Fla. 525 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Fla. 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-executive-communication-of-the-2d-day-of-june-a-d-1870-fla-1870.