State ex rel. Milton v. Dickenson

44 Fla. 623
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 15, 1902·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinions

Taylor, C. J.

(after stating the facts.)

Section 27, of Chapter 4684, laws enacted in 1899, to enforce the provisions of which this proceeding was instituted, provides as follows: “It shall be the duty of the board of county commissioners in each county in which, there is a company or battery of State troops to provide each company or battery with an armory suitable for its. meetings and drills and the safe storage of arms and equipments.” The first contention of the motion to quash the alternative writ is that the provision of this section of the law-is void because it violates the provisions of sections 5 of Article IX of the Florida constitution, which reads as follows: “The legislature shall authorize the several counties and incorporated cities or towns in the State to assess and impose taxes for county and municipal purposes, and for no other purposes, and all property shall be taxed upon the principles established for State taxation. But the cities and incorporated towns shall make their own assessments for municipal purposes upon the property within their limits. The legislature may also provide for levying a special capitation tax, and a tax on licenses. But the capitation tax shall not exceed one dollar a year, and shall be applied exclusively to common school purposes.” The limitation imposed by this section of the organic law upon the legislature in its grants of authority to the counties to assess and impose taxes is, that such taxes must be for none other than county purposes. As the expense of building or renting armories for State troops must necessarily be met by taxation, if follows that the validity of a law imposing the burden of supplying such armories upon the counties must depend upon the question whether or not it is a county [627] purpose. And this brings us to the question,-is a company of State troops, regularly enlisted as a part of the militia of the State, in any sort or sense such a county institution of the county where its members individually reside, as that the erection or maintenance of its armory in such county can properly be termed a county purpose?

Section 1 of Article XIV of our constitution provides as follows: “All able-bodied male inhabitants of the State between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, that are citizens of the United States, or have declared their intention to become citizens thereof, shall constitute the militia of the State; but no male citizen of whatever religious creed or opinion shall be exempt from military duty except upon such conditions as may be prescribed by law.” Section 2 of the same article provides that “the legislature may provide by law for organizing and disciplining .the militia of the State, for the encouragement of volunteer corps, the safe keeping of the public arms, and for a guard for-the State prison.” Section 3 of the same Article provides for the appointment by the Governor, by and with the consent of the Senate, of two Major-Generals and four Brigadier-Generals of militia. Section 4 of the same Article provides that “the Governor shall have power to call out the militia to preserve the public peace, to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, or to repel invasion.” Section 16 of Article IV of our constitution provides that “the Governor shall appoint all commissioned officers of the State militia, including an Adjutant General for the State. The Adjutant-General shall be the chief officer of the Governors staff, with the rank of Major-General. His. duties and compensation shall be prescribed by law. Section [628] -4 of Article IV of the constitution provides that ‘‘the Governor shall be Cominander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they shall be called into the service of the United States.”

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

State ex rel. Milton v. Dickenson, 44 Fla. 623 (Fla. 1902).

44 Fla. 623 (State ex rel. Milton v. Dickenson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Ocean Highway and Port Authority
217 So. 2d 103 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1968)
Barr v. Watts
70 So. 2d 347 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1953)
State v. Florida State Improvement Commission
47 So. 2d 627 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1950)
Coppedge v. State Ex Rel. Bowden
127 So. 319 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Amos v. Mathews
126 So. 308 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. City of Lakeland
115 So. 669 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Lewis v. Leon County
107 So. 146 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1926)
Commonwealth v. Sparks
255 S.W. 859 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1923)
State ex rel. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Board of Equalizers
84 Fla. 592 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1922)
State ex rel. Thompson v. Burch
204 P. 785 (Washington Supreme Court, 1922)
State ex rel. Agricultural School District No. 1 v. Craighead County
169 S.W. 964 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1914)
Jordan v. Duval County
66 So. 298 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1914)
Hodgdon v. City of Haverhill
79 N.E. 830 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)