296 



FLORIDA. 



ing for the removal of the capital of the State 

 from Tallahassee to Jacksonville. 



In March, the county commissioners of Es- 

 cambia County applied to the Attorney-Gen- 

 eral to know whether "under existing laws " 

 they were authorized "to levy and collect a 

 special tax for the erection of a court-house 

 and jail, when no issue of bonds is contem- 

 plated, but when the tax itself is to be applied 

 directly to the purpose named." The answer 

 was, that the law required them "to build 

 and keep in repair county buildings, roads, and 

 bridges," and "to issue bonds in their respec- 

 tive counties for the purpose of erecting a 

 court-house, jail, and to prescribe the rate of 

 interest thereon: Provided, That no bonds 

 shall be issued except the same be ordered by 

 a majority of the registered voters of their re- 

 spective counties." In view of this the Attor- 

 ney-General was of opinion that no other course 

 than that prescribed in this provision could be 

 followed. He said : 



It is true the law does not prohibit the direct levy 

 and collection of a tax for building a court-house 

 and jail ; but it is important to consider that it does 

 not authorize it, and that the county commissioners 

 are restricted in their duties to the authority they 

 have under the law ; and that the law does prescribe 

 the exact manner of raising funds to build a county 

 court-house and jail. The requirements of the law 

 are just ; and the registered voters have a right to 

 be consulted through the merits of the ballot-box, 

 whether they, and the other tax-payers, will be 

 taxed or not, for the necessity of which they are not 

 only permitted but required to vote on, that the 

 measure may be vitalized by the sanctity of the law. 

 It is my opinion that you can only tax the people of 

 the county by ascertaining whether or not, by a vote 

 of a majority of the registered voters of the county, 

 such a tax should be levied by authorizing the issue 

 of bonds in accordance with the statute in such cases 

 made and provided. 



The United States Circuit Court held at 

 Jacksonville in the spring was occupied for 

 some time with the case of Francis Vose 

 against the trustees of the internal improve- 

 ment fund, which has not yet been finally de- 

 termined. It appears that in 1859 the firm of 

 Yose & Livingston, of New York, sold iron 

 to the Florida Railroad, and took its note in- 

 dorSed by D. L. Yulee, 'and secured by $195,- 

 000 of internal improvement bonds. On the 

 dissolution of the firm some years ago, the 

 note and bonds came into the sole possession 

 of Mr. Vose. He sold the bonds for a small 

 sum and himself became the purchaser, ap- 

 plying the proceeds as a credit on the face of 

 the note. He then brought suit in New York 

 against the Florida Railroad and Mr. Yulee, and 

 recovered judgment for $165,000, the amount 

 due at that time. In 1871 he went to Florida 

 and demanded of the trustees payment of the 

 bonds and overdue coupons amounting to 

 nearly $400,000 ; this was refused on the ground 

 that the Florida Railroad had been sold under 

 the internal improvement law, and the amount 

 of the proceeds due on these bonds, some $40,- 

 000, had been paid to Moses Taylor, of New 

 York, for their redemption, and the trust fund 



was no further liable. Suit was brought against 

 the trustees in the United States Circuit Court, 

 and a judgment recovered for the full amount, 

 and a decree was obtained requiring the trus- 

 tees to sell lands for cash only, to be exclusive- 

 ly applied to the payment of overdue coupons. 

 In 1872 Mr. Vose obtained an order from the 

 court placing the trust fund in the hands of a 

 receiver, and directing a public sale of the sink- 

 ing fund. This latter consisted of $100,000 in 

 bonds and securities, which were disposed of at 

 a forced sale, and bought by Mr. Vose for $45,- 

 000. In 1873 he obtained a decree appoint- 

 ing agents to sell public lands to satisfy his 

 claims. His last suit against the trustees was 

 for an alleged violation of the decree of the 

 court in reference to the disposal of public 

 lands, and Mr. Justice Bradley decided that 

 the course of the trustees had not been in vio- 

 lation of such decree. The whole amount of 

 Mr. Vose's claim for a debt on which judg- 

 ment was rendered in 1870 or thereabouts for 

 $165,000 seems to be the amount of said judg- 

 ment with interest, something over $200,000, 

 principal of 150 internal improvement bonds, 

 $150,000, past-due coupons and interest $310,- 

 000, coupons to become due $168,000, or con- 

 siderably over $800,000 in all. The Legisla- 

 ture at its last session, in accordance with the 

 recommendation of a special committee, adopt- 

 ed the following resolution : 



Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor is here- 

 by requested to bring suit at once in the name of 

 the State in the Supreme Court of the United States 

 against the said Vose, restraining him from proceed- 

 ing further, and the board of trustees from paying 

 to the said Vose any further sums of money which 

 they may receive from the sale of the swamp and 

 overflowed lands, and to prevent any further misap- 



Elication of the funds or of the diversion of the 

 mds from their legitimate and lawful purposes, 

 until the legality of his position is fully established 

 and the said court otherwise determine : Provided, 

 That said suit shall not cost the State of Florida any 

 sum of money or thing or things whatever. 



A case came before the United States Court 

 in May involving the construction of the home- 

 stead provision of the State constitution. A 

 debtor had a house and forty acres of land, 

 and a sawmill in which he carried on the busi- 

 ness of a lumber-manufacturer. He claimed 

 exemption of his sawmill from sale for debt as 

 a part of his homestead. The court decided 

 that he was entitled to it, as the constitution 

 exempts one hundred and sixty acres of land 

 as well as the dwelling-house in the country, 

 and the " business-house " as well as residence 

 in cities. It was the intent to leave the man 

 his means of pursuing the occupation by which 

 he gains a livelihood. Mr. Justice Bradley 

 said: 



In the case under consideration the debtor claims 

 to follow the business and trade of sawing lumber, 

 and asks to have his mill, which adjoins his dwell- 

 ing, reserved as part of his homestead. In our 

 opinion this claim is supported by the constitutional 

 provision. The mill, in the sense of that constitu- 

 tion, is appurtenant to and part of the debtor's 

 homestead. If it be objected that the value is un- 





