State Ex Rel. Matthews v. Alsop

163 So. 80, 120 Fla. 628, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1444
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedAugust 26, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 163 So. 80 (State Ex Rel. Matthews v. Alsop) 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
State Ex Rel. Matthews v. Alsop, 163 So. 80, 120 Fla. 628, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1444 (Fla. 1935).

Opinion

Davis, J.

This is an original proceeding in mandamus wherein the respondents, Mayor and members of the City Council.of the City of Jacksonville, are required to forthwith prepare and adopt a budget for said city for the year 1936, making separate and several appropriations therein, first, for the payment of necessary operating expenses of said city in the performance of functions of government, and, secondly, for the debt service requirements of outstanding obligations of said city, and upon the adoption of such budget to make a separate and distinct levy of taxes to provide for raising by taxation on all taxable real and *630 personal property within the corporate limits of the City of Jacksonville such amounts as may be necessary to carry on the essential governmental functions of said city as appropriated in said budget, and a separate and distinct levy to provide for raising by taxation on all taxable real and personal property within the corporate limits of said city such amounts as may be necessary to pay interest and provide a sinking fund for the payment of the outstanding obligations of said city, as required by the terms and provisions of Chapter 16838, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1935, which require each Board of County Commissioners and the governing authority or board of each town, city or taxing district in this State to so proceed in the making up and adoption of budgets and the levies of taxes therefor.

By a motion to quash the alternative writ of mandamus the question is raised and presented as to whether or not the provisions of said Chapter 16838 (Senate Bill No. 160), Acts of 1935, are applicable in any particular to the City of Jacksonville in view of Chapter 17122, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1935, and Chapter 17564, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1935, passed during the same session of the Legislature at which was enacted said Chapter 16838, supra. The first mentioned Acts éxpressly exclude the City of Jacksonville from the provisions of said last mentioned Chapter 16838, relating to the making of budgets and the levying of taxes generally.

'Under the provisions of Section 24 of Article III of the Constitution of Florida, as amended in 1934, it is to be considered settled that no more special or local laws granting special charters to cities and towns, or specially providing for their government, jurisdiction, powers, duties and privileges, can be constitutionally passed by the Legislature after the establishment by the Legislature of 'the uniform system *631 of municipal government contemplated by said 1934 constitutional amendment. But said 1934 amendment to Section 24 of Article III of the State Constitution is expressly made non-self-executing. This is obvious, because the constitutional amendment in terms necessitates and requires definite legislative action to establish, pursuant to its provisions, a new comprehensive and uniform system of municipal government based upon a classification of cities and towns according to population, which shall .be applicable in all cases except where local or special laws relating to counties are provided by the Legislature that may be inconsistent therewith. .

- It therefore follows that until such time in the future as the Legislature of Florida shall construct anH establish by law the contemplated new and comprehensive uniform system of municipal government based upon general laws classifying cities and towns according to population, and providing by general laws for their incorporation, government, jurisdiction, powers,-duties and privileges under such classifications, that the general power of the Legislature to pass special or local laws making needful amendments and alterations in outstanding special charters of cities and towns in-Florida so as to provide for their proper government, jurisdiction, powers, • duties and privileges, is not altered, abrogated or impaired by the mere ratification of Senate Joint Resolution No. 296 adopted-at the legislative session of 1933 so- amending Section 24 of Article III of the Constitution as to impose upon the Legislature the duty of passing such general law classifying cities and towns according to population as may be found appropriate and essential to establish a uniform system of -municipal government in Florida, which, when and after being so established, shall'not'thereafter be'subject to being interféred *632 with or affected by special and local municipal laws enacted by the Legislature pursuant to the power given it by Section 8 of Article VIII of the Constitution of Florida.

Section 8 of Article VIII of the Constitution reads as follows:

“Section 8. The Legislature shall have power to establish, and to abolish, municipalities, to provide for their government, to prescribe their jurisdiction and powers, and to alter or amend the same at any time. When any municipality shall be abolished, provision shall be made for the protection of its creditors.”

The 1934 amendment of Section 24 of Article III does not in terms undertake to either repeal or amend said Section 8 of Article VIII of the Constitution of Florida relating to powers of the Legislature with reference to providing for the government, jurisdiction and powers of municipal governments by either general or special laws insofar as the Legislature had theretofore acted under Section 8 of Article VIII of the Constitution in setting up municipal governments in this State and providing for their jurisdiction and powers under special legislative charters.

It will be observed that Article III of the State Constitution is an article primarily relating to the duties which are required by the Constitution to be performed by the legislative department of the State government. In contrast to this, Article VIII of the Constitution is an article specifically dealing with counties and cities as contemplated integral parts of the State government to be established, regulated and governed under laws passed by the Legislature.

It seems plain, therefore, that when the Legislature of 1933 selected -for constitutional amendment Section 24 of Article III of the Constitution of this State relating to the *633 duty of the Legislature with respect to establishing a system of county and municipal government, instead of undertaking to amend Section 8 of Article VIII of the Constitution relating to the Legislature’s special powers with reference to special charters grantable to municipal governments, that it was contemplated by the 1933 Legislature, as the framer and proposer of the amendment to Section 24 of Article III of the Constitution as ratified at the general election in 1934, that the normal powers of the Legislature specifically vested, in it by Section 8 of Article VIII of the Constitution should remain in full force, vigor and effect until such time as the Legislature, by some general legislative Act classifying cities and towns according to population, might be able to carry into effect the new purpose and intent of amended Section 24 of Article III of the Constitution, which, when accomplished, would then have the effect of abrogating any further exercise of power by the Legislature under Section 8 of Article VIII of the Constitution insofar as the enactment of special and local municipal charters is concerned.

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

Related

State v. City of North Miami Beach
108 So. 2d 764 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1959)
State Ex Rel. Wilder v. City of Jacksonville
25 So. 2d 569 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1946)
American Federation of Labor v. Watson
327 U.S. 582 (Supreme Court, 1946)
Bryan v. City of Miami
190 So. 772 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
City of Miami v. State
190 So. 774 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
State Ex Rel. Gibbs v. Bloodworth
184 So. 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
American Bakeries Co. v. City of Haines City
180 So. 524 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
State Ex Rel. Landis v. Ault
176 So. 789 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
State of Florida, Ex Rel. v. Emerson
171 So. 663 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
State Ex Rel. Landis v. Jones
163 So. 590 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
State v. Town of Belle Glade
163 So. 564 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 So. 80, 120 Fla. 628, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-matthews-v-alsop-fla-1935.