76
. Supreme Court sent up to the Secretary of the Board of
Pardons.
With this in hand it will be entirely proper when Riggs
has served a term equal to the sentence lawfully imposed
upon him for the Board of Pardons to right the matter
by granting him a full pardon.
Yours very truly,
RIVERS BUFORD,
Attorney General.
TAXATION-POLL TAX-NATIONAL GUARD.
Tallahassee, Fla., May 6, 1924.
Hon. Cary A. Hardee,
Governor,
Tallahassee, Fla,.
Dear Governor:
Replying to your letter of May 5th, asking me to advise
you whether or not members of the National Guard are
required to pay poll tax to qualify to vote, I beg to say:
It is my opinion that Section 57 of Chapter 8502, Acts
of 1921, exempts "every officer and enlisted man of the
National Guard" from the payment of poll tax.
It is my opinion that each member of the National Guard
is entitled to a certificate from the commanding officer
of his company, troop, battery, or similar organization, on
a form prescribed by the Adjutant General and signed by
such commanding officer, and that such holder or' such
certificate being duly' registered and otherwise qualified
may, upon presenting this certificate to the Inspectors at
his election precinct, be allowed to vote without having
paid poll tax. It will be observed that the certificate is
only good for the calendar month within which it bears
77
;he Board of
'when Riggs
lllly imposed
t the matter
date. This provision is for the purpose of preventing those
, who have not complied with the Military Code from re­
ceiving the benefits prescribed by this Section.
Yours very truly,
RIVERS BUFORD,
Attorney ,General.
~D,
T
GeneraL
TAXATION-SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
Tallaassee, Fla., June 10, 1924.
GUARD.
y 6, 1924.
Hon. Cary A. Ha,rdee,
. (fovernor,
TaUa.hassee, Fla.
Dear Governor:
1e to advise
Guard are
~g to say:
'8502, Acts
man of the
lX.
.onal Guard
ling officer
tJ,zation, on
~signed by
(er"
such
!>:,,<,., ()f
- .
~l·qualified
ki'
~ectors at
u~, having
ificate is
. bears
A careful analyzing of the opinion in the case of Con­
solidated Land Company, et aL, vs. Jensen Bridge District,
Frank M. Taylor, et aL, will disclose that in this opinion
the Supreme Court has enunciated no new or radical state­
ments of the law applicable to such cases.
The propositions of law forming the basis of the decision
in this case, which are old and well settled, may be divided
into three concise statements and which may be quoted as
follows from the opinion by Judge Whitfield:
"1. The validity of a tax levied only in a district or
subdivision of a County for a p'ublic purpose may depend
upon the nature of the public purpose to be served and its
special or peculiar relation to the property in the dis­
trict, at least where public health, safety or morals are
not involved; and property in the district can not lawfully
be taxed for public improvements or facilities if such t,ax
for any reason substantially and materially imposes an un­
just discriminating burden upon the' property without
(:.ny resulting compensation, benefits or advantages, and