Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1882-03-30
An Important Decision.

A decision has Just been rendered by
Judge Allison, Of Philadelp phia, which
is likely to revolutionize a system which
has long been practiced at election times,
frequently to the detriment and defeat
OF honest measures and good candi.
dates. We allude 10 the custom of the
payment of taxes Of individual voters
on the suppo> that such vo; ers will
support the party presenting him with
q tax receipt. The case which called
for Judge Allison's ruling was that on
which voter named burst prosecuted
William H. Shrouds for illegally reject
ing his vote at the last election, while
acting as Judge in the Eleventh division
of the Twelfth ward of Philadelphia.
It appeared that burst went early to
the polls to vote and was challenged.
He went home and returned with his
ma urali alton papers and tax receipt.
He was igiin challenged on the ground
that he hat not paid for The tar receipt.
The oitic RS were IN a quandary. The IN.
spec Lors referred the matter to Shrouds,
the judg'. The latter called burst in.
de and proceeded to swear him. burst,
no ever, refused to take an affidavit
tuat ue had paid State or county tax
within two years or had it authorized to
he paid for him. He said that he had
not personally paid or authorized the
payment of the tax, but relied alto
gether on the receipt. Shrouds refused
to take the vote. burst then obtained
n paper from the Court advising the
Election Board, upon the case, as stated
to them, TO accept Duasts vote If he
was "otherwise qualified" Shrouds.
however, declined to receive the ballot.
burst testified on Thur-day that he
believed that the tax receipt had been
paid for 10y the Republican City Com
mittee. but he did not know so OF his
own knowledge, and had refused to
take an affidavit because Of this uncer
tainty. The testimony of both sides Us
To the facts and circumstances was sub
stautially the same.
Maxwell Stevenson. the counsel for
the defense, took the ground that
burst, in falling to pay hIs po!l-tax or
in dPputizing any one To do It. had not
complied with the requirements OF the
new Constitution A. TO the qualification
of voters, and that Shrouds was there
fore justified in refusing to take the
ballot
Judge Allison. in q long and compre.
hensive charge on this point, SAID :
The new Constitution holds as one OF
the qualifications OF voter that he
emphasizing the pronouu--"shall have
paid a State or county tax within two
years. The refusal OF the prosecutor in
this case to make oath that he had
made such n payment. in connection
!. . haa "A l,u IaI nH
il and had no personal knowledge Of its
haying been paid, justified the Judge in
rejecting the vote The Judge called
the attention Of the jury to the phrase.
oIogy OF the Constitution that proper
ly interpreted, would require that the
tax should be paid by the voter himself
or by some person whom he bad autho
rized to pay it for him. In the latter
instance, he said, the principle would
apply that what man does by another
he does by himself "But this" be
said, "by no means allows a stranger to
intrude himself into the business Of
voter, who alone can determine wheth.
or he would pay tax as a qualification
for voting or not. The custom he's pre-
vailed IN this city, and been extensively
pFacticed. Of obtaining names Of voters
from the assessment list and without
the authority OF the voter, and even
without his knowledge. having taxes
paid for him" This, the Judge thought,
does not constitute a legal payment OF
tax, because il i not done by the voter
directly or indirectly, and is an un
authorized act OF stranger on whom
the law confers no such right II the
defendant in the case before him. he
said, had accepted the prosecutors vote,
he would have been more properly
chargeable with violating the law than
By the act for which be was indicted.
The jury returned verdict of not
guilty and put the costs upon the pros.
ecutor.