Evening journal., 1889-12-21
THE TAX RECEIPT WAR.
ARGUMENTS BY COUNSEL IN THE
MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGS.

Bates and William c. Srruance.
The hearing of argument in the great
msndamus case was continued in the
Superior Court yesterday afternoon A
large audience was present.
George II. Bates spoke against the
granting of the mandamus. He dis
cussed the citations of law made by the
opposing counsel at the morning session.
He held that if any one had been unable
to obtain the right to vote he was the
person to apply for mandamus, not
John Wesley Hawkins, who had no inter
est in the matter. He insisted
that so far as the law deals with
it, the right to qualify as an elector
is a private and not public right.
The authorities did not sustain the
position of the relator, nor was the
relator the proper person to ask for
mandamus, no matter how laudable his
intentions. We must admit that the
law does not apply to the system OF
voting men in blocks of five or ten, or
thirty or forty. 1t was not in the inten-
tion of the law of power of attorney
that blanks should be printed and signed
extensively, and then the mans vote
controlled by body of men. Each man
should do his own voting Mr.. Bates
said he would not discuss the abuses that
existed or did not exist, for
that was not in the question.
He said he believed in allowing every
man to vote, but not that he should be
wrapped in swaddling clothes as babe.
If the door, on the knob of which the
attorneys for the relator had their hands,
was opened, there would be such an
abuse of the right of suffrage as would
be detrimental to the good of the city.
The real ground of objection is that of
public policy. The people who have not
enough interest in municipal affairs to
take the trouble to qualify should not
be given tax receipts by others. In clos
ing he appealed to the discretion of the
court whether it should cure one evil BY
a resort to a new system containing the
germs of disease ten fold worse than
the present evil, if it be an evil. He
spoke for forty minutes.
Senator George Gray began his argu-
ment at 2. 80 o'clock. He contended that
there was one question on which hinged
the whole case. The office of the re-
spondent is solely and absolutely minis
terial Office in every respect. A tax col
lector has no discretion in the matter, he
must collect the tax Our position is
well stated in single paragraph by an
English writer, speaking of ministerial
offices "a distinction is sometimes made
between a general and particular dis
cretion, so that while this is ministe-
rial Office, and there is no general discre-
tion, but there is particular discretion
! as to the mode of doing.
Senator Gray read from the state con
stitution to show the necessary qualifi-
cation of voters and concerning the tax
collectors duties. Then he eloquently
argued whether or not it was right for
them to give receipts to taxables care
lessly. without proper caution, and in
large quantities. It was his duty to
collect all the time, and Mr.. Gray would
90 as far as anyonein making him collect.
If he should leave his Office and refuse "a
receive taxes, this court has the power
to compel him to receive them, to set In
motion the discretionary powers of th'
once. But the counsel on the other side
want the powers of discretion made so a,
to allow Hawkins, on payment of th'
lump sum, to receive as many receipts a.
he wants. The payment of the debt anS
the issue of the receipt are indisputabl,
connected, and as receipt cannot be is
sued except to the person for whom it i
intended, the money can be received from
no other person.
There is not the slightest intiination
that the powers of attorney who pre-
sented the money were paid the taxes b,
the taxables. Nothing is said abou
this. The attorneys are generous an,
willing to pay the taxes themselves, an
take their time and much trouble to
so. There is a distinction between tn
general and the particular discretion o
ministerial officer. To issu
from mistaken standpoint
mandamus under these circumstance
would be a matter beyond the control Q
this court. Suppose Mr.. Dougherty ha
reason to suspect that one Of thes
powers Of attorney was imposing on him
that he intended fraud, has he the righ
TO say / will receive the taxess Nc
when they are br ught by the generl
attorneys there is ground for suspicion
and he will refuse them.
Is there then any hardship for ma
/ to appear and pay this tax personally
0 It does not take long, hardly more tina
S to affix his name to a power of attorney
: In no other way can he give his name an
t residence and other qualifications al
e pleading for sound morality. This is n
new doctrine. When the constitution
says that man who pays his tax sha
e have the powers of citizenship, it mean
!. that the political power should 60 han
in hand with the performance of politics
= duty.
I Only last fall, in Pennsylvania, I'll
g courts decided that the payment of ia
by another is wrong and illegal, and b
: vote should be rejected. Senator Grs
: read the decision from an extract in I'll
4 Public Ledger. If Mr.. Dougherty. as
: says in his answer, is ready to receive 3
taxes from these taxables, wherein
b the reason@a for obiection2 If this
{ So where is the reason for the sneers {
the opposing counsel2 If there is an
I reason for com plant why are they nc
:, here in court to complain? What rels
! tion does Mr.. Hawkins hold to thes
Z. men that he invokes the powers Of tn
% court, while other men are treading Il
:, pavement to the tax Office and payiI
their taxes3
Z If this matter has any standing,
y must be through some infringement
> private right, and not because these m,
\ are sitting back and saying we will n
= pay our taxes except in this manner.
! Mr.. Gray referred to the election a
~ of 1881 which prohibited interferen
with elections or voters. This show
the care with which the policy of q
= state guarded the elections. This ca
shows that no man shall have the rig
TO demand from collect