Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1882-03-29
election
PAYMENT OF POLL TAX.
The Voter Must Pay 1t i'm Per
son or by an Authorized
Agent.

Some years ago exJudge Pearson
was called upon, in contested election
case, to decide the question whether a
person claiming the right to vote on a
tax receipt, being otherwise qualified,
could be challenged for non-payment
of taxes on the ground that he had not
paid the tax in person but had the re-
ceipt presented to him by another. He
decided that the tax receipt was suffi-
cient evidence of the payment OF taxes
by the voter aud conclusive on the
election officers. This decision has
been accepted here as the law, and
hitherto political committees in this
city and county have been in the habit
of paying taxes for voters who were
delinquent in qualifying themselves in
that regard and handing the receipts
to the voters on or before election day.
MANY thousands of dollars have been
expended in this way by our local po-
litical committees since that decision
was rendered. That this practice is
not in conformity with the provision
of the constitution making the payment
of state or county tax q qualification
of the right of suffrage has always been
maintained by some of the best lawyers
of the Dauphin county bar. and their
view of the matter is now sustained by
one of the most eminent common pleas
Judges of the state.
On Thursday last criminal suit
charging one William III. Shrouds, an
election officer of the Eleventh division
of the Twelfth ward of Philadelphia.
with unlawfully rejecting the vote of
one William burst, was tried before
Judge Allison, of that city. The his
tory of the case is substantially as fol-
lows: burst, the prosecutor, was chal-
lenged for non-payment of taxes. He
presented tax receipt, but was again
challenged on the ground that he had
not paid the taxes for which he held
the receipt. He was sworn by the
election officers, but refused to say on
his oath that he had paid the taxes.
His vote was then rejected. In his ex-
animation in court he said that he be-
lieved that the Republican city COM
mittee had paid the taxes for which
he held the receipt, but he did not
know of his own knowledge that such
was the fact. Counsel for the defense
took the ground that burst in failing
to pay his poll tax or in deputizing any
one to do it, had not complied with the
requirements of the new constitution
as to the qualification of voters, and
that Shrouds was therefore justified in
refusing to take the ballot.
Judge Allison, in long and compre-
heDsive charge on this point, said:
The new constitution holds as one of
the qualifications of a voter that he'
emphasizing the pronoun-'shall
have paid state or county tax within
two years. The refusal of the prose-
cutter in this case to make oath that
he had made such payment, in con-
nection with the admission that he
had not made it and had no personal
knowledge of it's having been paid,
justified the judge in rejecting the
vote.
The Judge called the attention OF the
jury to the phraseology of the consti-
tuition; that, properly interpreted,
would require that the tax should be
paid by the voter himself or by some
person whom he had authorized to
pay it for him. In the latter instance,
he said, the principal would apply
that what a man does by another he
does by himself. But this he said,
by no means allows stranger to in
trude himself into the business of
voter, who alone can determine wheth-
er he would pay tax as qualification
for voting or not The custom has
prevailed in this city, and been extern
sive1y practiced, of obtaining names
of voters from the assessment list and
without the consent of the voter, and
even without his knowledge, having
taxes paid for him. This, the judge
thought does not constitute legalpay
ment of tax, because it is not dono by