MOTOR VEHICLES OWNED BY NON-RESIDENTS -LICENSE

Transcription

1 189 I Ig us Inof nd )plitun b on lis lly.ch ny b s Is: ly u,.') n r or b b. Lts which th socity owning it is organizd and whr portions of said building ar rntd thn th 6dtir proprty would b ~ubjct to taxation. Transposing tnis proviso, as I undrstand it, it would rad: "*** That this sction (providing for th xmption of proprty from taxation) shall not b construd to apply to lowr storis of charitabl or bnvolnt institutions.***" This is rathr a nic qustion and w hsitat to plac this construction on this provision but undr th wording w Lliv that ths proprtis, whr thy ar only partly usd for lodg rooms~ tc., should b taxd. Vry truly yours, J. B. JOHNSON, Attorny Gnral. MOTOR VEHICLES OWNED BY NON-RESIDENTS -LICENSE Han. Ernst Amos, Comptrollr, Tallahass, FZa. Dar Sir: Jun 2, I am in rcipt of your favor of May 29th as follows: "A cas has com up in th administration of th Motor Vhicl Licns Law, which apparntly involvs th qustion of rciprocity btwn th Stats in th mattr of motor vhicl licnss, and also th qustion of intrstat commrc. Th facts of th cas ar substantially as follows: "Mr. Bn May, a rsidnt of Dothan, Ala., oprats a bus lin from Dothan, Ala., to Panama City, Fla. Four motor vhicls ar usd in th opration of this lin. Mr. May rgistrd two of th motor vhicls in Alabama and has Ala

2 190 bama licns tags thron, and rgistrd two of th motor vhicls in Florida and has Florida 'for hir' licns on ths two vhicls. Passngrs ar carrid for compnsation from Dothan, Ala., to Panama City, Fla., and intrmdiat points. Occasionally passngrs ar carrid from a point within Florida to a point within Florida on rgular trip from th Alallama trminal to th Florida trminal. It has bn th ruling of this offic, with rfrnc to motor vhicl licns, that th motor vhicl ownd by a rsidnt of anothr Stat, oprating from a point within that Stat to a point in Florida, carrying only intrstat passngrs, will not b rquird to' hav Florida licns tags thron. "Th cas of Mr. May, abov citd, diffrs from thos hrtofor handld in two rspcts. "First. Picking up intrastat passngrs whil on an intrstat trip; and, "Scond. Th fact that two of his motor vhicls (or half of th quipmnt) ar rgistrd in Florida with Florida licns tags for hir. "I will b glad to hav you advis m your opinion with rfrnc to whthr th othr two motor vhicls ownd by Mr. Bn May, a rsidnt of Alabama, and opratd on th lins mntiond, shoulq also b rquird to hav Florida licns tags for hir. "Thanking you for an opinion on this point, I am," I hav givn th subjct of your inquiry carful considration and hav mad an xhaustiv invstigation of th Statuts involvd, togthr with th qustion of whthr th nforcmnt of our Statut as applid to intrstat transportation of passngrs for hir is a burdn on intrstat commrc and whthr for that rason th sam would b in violation of th commrc claus of th Fdral Constitution. Sction 1007, Rvisd Gnral Statuts, as amndd by

3 191 rs 1m ts. )ra- to, ;1 t ~lj s,n n 1 d [. L f y Sction 2 of Chaptr 10182, Acts,of 1925, provids: "Evry ownr of a motor vhicl or vhicls, trailr, smi-trailr, or motorcycl sid car, which shall b opratd or drivn upon th highways of this Stat, shall for ach vhicl, or vhicls so ownd, caus to b fild by mail or othrwis, in th offic of th Comptrollr of th Stat of Florida, a crtifid application for rgistratioh on a blank to b furnishd by th Comptrollr for that purpos,***" Sction 1011, Rvisd Gnral Statuts, as amndd by Sction 3, Chaptr 10182,' Acts of 1925, prscribs th fs to b paid for th rgistration of th diffrnt classs of motor vhicls rquird by law to b so rgistrd. Sction 1031, Rvisd Gnral Statuts, as amndd by Sction 12, Chaptr 8410, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1925, provids : for th disposition of th licns fund drivd from th licnsing of motor vhicls and th us to which sam shall b applid. Sction 1020, Rvisd Gnral Statuts, as amndd by Sction 6, Chaptr 10182, Acts of 1925, provids: "Th provisions of th forgoing sctions rlativ to rgistration and display of rgistration numbrs shall not apply to a motor vhicl ownd by a non-rsidnt of this Stat, othr than a forign corporation doing businss in this Stat; providd, that th ownr throf shall hav complid with th provisions of th law of th forign country, Stat, trritory, or Fdral District of his rsidnc, rlativ to motor vhicls and th opration throf, and shall conspicuously display his rgistration numbr as rquird thrby; and providd that th provisions of this sction shall b oprativ as to a motor vhicl ownd by a non-rsidnt of this Stat only to th xtnt that undr th laws of th forign country, Stat, trritory or Fdral District of his rsidnc lik xmptions and privilgs ar grantd to motor vhicls duly rgistrd undr th laws of and ownd bv rsidnts of this Stat. But such J.

4 192 xmptions shall not apply to motor vhicls opratd for hir." Th provisions of Chaptr 10182, Acts of 1925, bcam ffctiv January 1st, It will b sn that th provisions of th statut rlativ to th licnsing of motor vhicls opratd upon or along th highways in th Stat of Florida and th display of licns tags thron must apply to ach and vry motor vhicl so opratd upon and along th highways into or within th Stat of Florida without rgard to class or purpos sav and xcpt only as applid to th xcptions containd in Sction 1020, Rvisd Gnral Statuts, as amndd by Sction 6, Chaptr 10182, Acts of It is also apparnt that in and by th amndmnt of Sction 1020, Rvisd Gnral Statuts, to-wit, Sction 6 of Chaptr motor vhicls opratd for hir from and aftr th 1st day of January, 1926 shall b xcludd from such xmption containd in said Sction 1020 is not a burdn on intrstat commrc and not in conflict with th commrc claus of th Fdral Constitution. In ndavoring to arriv at a corrct solution of this qustion I hav xamind th dcisions of th Suprm Court of th Unitd Stats baring on this qustion, which I wish to quot from as follows: In 'th cas of Hndrick v. Stat of Maryland, 235th U. S., Pag 610, th Suprm Court of th Unitd Stats, spaking through Mr. Justic Rynolds, said: "Th movmnt of motor vhicls ovr th highways is attndd by constant and srious dangr to th public and is also abnormally dstructiv to th ways thmslvs. Thir succss dpnds on good roads, th construction and maintnanc of which ar xcdingly xpnsiv; and in rcnt yars insistnt dmands hav bn mad upon th Stats for bttr

5 or n v h Is so h nd on 6, III 'al s 'Y, III c al ";; :1 ;1 IS l ;1 J J. " ls S.r 1 's r facilitis, spcially by th vr incrasing numbr of thos who own such vhicls.***in th absnc of national lgislation covring th subjct a Stat may rightfully prscrib uniform rgulations ncssary for public safty and ordr in ro spct to th opration upon its highways of all motor v~ hicls-thos moving in intrstat commrc as wll as othrs. And to this nd it may rquir th rgistration of such vhicls and th licnsing of thir drivrs, charging thrfor rasonabl fs graduatd according to th horspowr of th ngins-a practical masurf' of siz, spd and difficulty of control. This is but an xrcis of th polic powr uni } formly rcognizd as blonging to th Stats and ssntial to th prsrvation of th halth, safty and comfort of thir citizns; and it dos not constitut a dirct and matrial hurdn on intrstat commrc.***" 193 Quoting furthr from th sam opinion th following languag is usd: "*** In viw of th many dcisions of this Court, thr can b no srious doubt that whr a Stat at its owp. xpns furnishs spcial facilitis for th us of thos ngagd in commrc, intrstat as wll as domstic, it may xact compnsation thrfor. Th amount of th chargs and th mthod of collction ar primarily for th dtrmination by th Stat itslf; and so long as thy ar rasonabl and ar fixd according to som uniform, fair and practical standard thy constitut no burdn on intrstat commrc." Th principl of law nunciatd in th cas of Hndrick Y. Stat of Maryland, supra, was quotd with approval and sustaind in th cas of Kan v. Nw Jrsy, 242nd U. S. Pag 160. Not th following languag from th opinion in th cas of Kan v. Nw Jrsy: "Th powr of th.stat to rgulat th us of motor vhicls on its highways has bn rcntly considrd by this Court and broadlysustaind. It xtnds to non-rsidnts as wll as to rsidnts. It includs th right to xact rasonabl compnsation for spcial facilitis affordd as wll as

6 194 rasonabl provisions to insur safty. And it is proprly xrcisd in imposing a licns f graduatd according to th horspowr of th ngin. Kndrick vs. Maryland, 235 U. S. 610.". Furthr quoting from th opinion in th cas of Kan v. Nw Jrsy, supra, th following languag is usd: "***Th amount of f is not so larg as to b unrasonabl; and it is clarly within th discrtion of th Stat to dtrmin whthr th compnsation for th us of its highways by automobils shall b dtrmind by way of a f, payabl annually or smi-annually, or by a toll basd on milag or othrwis.***" (242 U. S. Pag 168) Furthr quoting from th Kan cas, 242 U. S. Pag 168: " 'In th absnc of national lgislation covring th subjct a Stat may rightfully prscrib uniform rgulations ncssary for public safty and ordr in rspct to th opra. tion on its highways of all motor vhicls-thos moving in intrstat commrc as wll as othrs.' ***" In th cas of Michigan Public Utilitis Co. v. Duk, 266 U. S. 570, 69th Law Edition, Pag 445, th sam doctrin as hld in th two cass abov quotd was again quotd with approval and uphld by th Suprm Court of th Unitd Stats. To quot from th cas of Michigan Public Utilitis Co. v. Duk,'supra, 69th Law Edition Pag 449: "This court has hld that in th absnc of national lgislation covring th subjct a Stat may rightfully prscrib uniform rgulations ncssary for public safty and ordr in rspct to th opration upon its highways of all motor vhicls-thos moving in intrstat commrc as wll as othrs; that a rasonabl graduatd licns f imposd by a Stat on motor vhicls usd in intrstat commrc dos not constitut a dirct burdn on intrstat commrc and that a Stat which, at its own xpns, furnishs spcial facilitis for th us of thos ngagd in intrastat

7 y o - :> i 0 1, " n ~ s 1 j ';(! '! 195 a.nd intl';:)tat commrc, may xact compnsation thrfor and if th chargs ar rasonabl and uniform thy constitut no burdn on intrstat commrc." TJ;w cas of Hndrick v~ Stat of Maryland, supra, was dci"dd January 5th, Th cas of Kan v. Nw Jrsy, supra, was dcidd Dcmbr 4th, Th cas of Michigan Public Utilitis Co. v Duk, supra, was dcidd January 12th I giv th dats on which ths svral cass,,,,-r dcidd for th purpos of showing th continuity of th principl of law announcd in th first cas quotd, which has com on down and was th law of th land at a vry rcnt dat. Th undrlying principl in ths cass diffrntiats th qustion undr considration from that of a railroad company or othr common carrirs for hir not using th public high- ways of th Stat, and it is not hard to undrstand th rason for this diffrnc. Th railroad company owns its track and right of way and maintains sam at no xpns to th public, and in addition thrto furnishs a vry substantial sourc of rvnu to th Stat in th way of taxation. This is not so in th cas of motor vhicls opratd for hir. Th Stat (or subdivisions throf) furnishs th highways anq maintains thm at no xpns to th _non-rsidnt oprator of motor vhicls whr h is not rquird to rgistr and pay for th licns on his vhicl. Th conclusion is inscap'abl that it is both lgal and quitabl to rquir of th oprators of motor vhicls upon th highways of th Stat th rgistration throf and th paymnt of th f rquird by statut and that this applis to non-rsidnts as wll as rsidnt ownrs or oprators and without rgard to th qustion of whthr thy ar doing an, intrstat or intrastat businss. Thrfor, it is my opinion that non-rsidnts oprating motor vhicls for hir into, upon and along th highways of this Stat, rgardlss of whthr thy b ngagd in xclusiv

8 196 intrstat or intrastat, or both intrstat and intrastat com mrc ar undr th Statut rquird to rgistr such motor vhicl in th Stat of Florida, whthr th sam b rgistrd and licnsd in anothr Stat or not; to pay th rquird f thrfor and procur a licns tag as rquird by th Motor Vhicl Licns Law of th Stat of Florida; and that a failur upon th part of anyon to so comply with th Statut is a violation of th law and such party would b amnabl to criminal proscution. Rspctfully J. B. JOHNSON, Attorny Gnral. INSPECTORS-TRAVELING EXPENSES Hon. Ernst Amos, Comptrollr, Tallahass, Fla. Dar Sir: July 7, I a!ti in rcipt of your favor of July 5th as follows: "In complianc with Sction 7 of Chaptr a numbr of motor vhicl inspctors wr mployd. Th Stat has bn dividd into districts by m to facilitat th work, according to th stimatd numbr of motor vhicls in th givn trritory. As a rsult som of th largr countis hav two inspctors. "A fw of th inspctors wr appointd from within th district that thy ar rquird to srv on account of thir plac of rsidnc. Thrfor, dictricts hav bn assignd to inspctors outsid of thir hom County whn appointd. "Th qustion I want to know is as to th rimburs