The Key West Citizen

Constitutionality Of Acts
Diverting Gas Tax Monies
Up Before Supreme Court

State Road Department Is
Asking
High
Tribunal
For Instructions On Two
Main Points

TALLAHASSEE, Nov. 3. (FNS) The constitutionality of special acts diverting gas tax money to the use of counties for other than state road purposes and the right of counties to continue to participate in the distribution of gas tax money after all the provisions of the general act of 1931 have been met, was placed squarely before the supreme court Saturday by the State Road Department.

In its answer, filed Saturday in an action by Jackson county against the state comptroller and the State Road Department alleges that Jackson county has received to date more than $560,000 from gas tax collections and now has a credit of more than $11,000 from the same source in the hands of the state treasurer. The answer shows that this county is entitled to receive only a total sum of $155,185.70 under the provisions of the 1931 general act.

The answer sets forth that the general law of 1931 provided for the return to each county of the amount expended by it in the construction of state roads and further provided that a sum equal to that amount should be paid into the State Road Department License Fund and appropriated to the use of the State Road Department for the construction within said county of certain specified roads. A special act passed in 1935, diverted such gas tax money allocated for the construction of the roads designated in Jackson county by the 1931 act, for other and different purposes: and that because of this diversion none of this money, with the exception of $17,580.40, has been used or expended by the State Road Department for the construction of such roads.

The State Road Department asks the supreme court for instructions on two points. It asks if the special act, of 1935, diverting gas tax money for purposes other than those specified in the 1931 general act., is constitutional. And it asks, if Jackson county, which has already received more than the amount of gas tax due it under the provisions of the 1931 general act, is entitled to further participation in the distribution of gas tax money, which, under the terms of the 1931 act. should now be available for general road purposes.

The decision of the supreme court on these two points should settle the dispute which has been raging in the courts for months and give our state officials definite instructions for future guidance. It also will enable the State Road Department to determine to a more definite degree how much money it will have available for the maintenance of existing roads and for the construction of additional roads.