Daily national Republican., 1863-05-30
tFrom the National Intelligencer, June 3, 1881
OPINION OF TEiE CORPORATION At
ToRNEY, JUNE 2, 1854.
nod - anniiaontlnn. .

N1AN On NuouucnNt0ns
The ted Of a voters q,Iailaedtions q to b ap-
piled on he day Of election, and Is as as tolloSa
/. Is he a free white male citlEon1
.. Has he attained the age Of twonty-one
yeaSl - raI
3. Has he resided in the city Of Washington
toni
4. Is he resident of the ward in which he
offers To vote ..r-.. o.
s. Has he been returned on the books Of the
Corporation, during the year ending Che 3lst
day of December last, as subject 10 q school tax
for that year. or (tohioh is TIE same thing under
he recent decision Of me cotrt) was he liable to
be so returned, and has he been omitted
through the inadvertence and oversight Of the
Assessors; In which case he Ia to be considered
as II In fact returned on the listsl
o. Has he paid the school taxes and all taxes
on personal property due from hint
II all these questions are resolved in the
affirmative, he is, by the terms Of the hfth sec
tion of the charter OF 1848, "ENTITLED TO
VOTE" unless he be "non compos ,aeutis,
ragrdnt, pdEper, or shall have been conVicted Of
an ttJBnotS crime"
II. SCHOOL TAX LISTS. .r
l. Persons whose names are actually on tho
lists are to be presumed rightfully there. II Ia
to be presumed that the assessors, being sworn
officers, have done their duty, until tho con-
trary appears by proof.
2. In receiving other persons as having been
inadvertently omitted by the Assessors, the
commissioners are charged with similar duties
with that of the Assessors and II they are sat-
isfed by proof that the party ought to have
been returned on the lists and was omitted as
aforesaid, he Is 10 be considered as on the lists;
and the same presumption arises in his favor;
so that being challenged that presumption must
be overcome by proof.
3. Proof that party has been omitted
through inadvertency.
The affidavit Of the voter himself. and of
known and credtable witness, in the form pre-
pared by me, and certified to the several polls,
would, in my opinion, be sufficient proof.
The credibility of the parties making the
oaths Is, of course, not to be lost sight OF by
the commissioners, whose consciences must be
satisfied Gas in the case of a juror) that the
fact Is proven. They will, of course, not yield
to mere surmses or unfounded doubts; but, as
there seems to be great room for abuses in this
particular, too much care cannot be taken to
prevent them.
A justice Of the peace should be in attend
ance at each Of the polls to administer oaths.
Nothing further occurs to me to suggest eX-
cept that the commissioners arc undoubtedly
bound to carry into effect the recent authorita-
tive Interpretation Of the charter recently made
by the court. The substance of that decision
is that Il Is not he meaning Of he charter that a
citizen shall lose his Vote through the ilddUertence
and oversight Of the corporation officers. But
Its foundation might be, It is the vital
principle of all governments that the laws, as
declared and interpreted by the constitutional
authorities, In that behalf, must bo obeyed
All of which is submitted.
J. NJ. CARLISLE,
Attorney fthc Corporation.