Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1889-06-27

errors and appeals, to-day, before full
bench, the argument upon the constitu.
'tionality of Delaware's assessment laws
began. Tho case has been pending for
three years, and now that argument Ia
being had, the court will doubtless hand
down an opinion at the January term.
The case Ia that Of John NJ Frieszlebsn
w. 6ereok F. Shallcross, Thomas Toy,
Thomas Mc0raoken, Isaac N. Grub,
Robert h. Morrison, Henry D. Hickman,
Edmund Hamsn, James u. Mackey, James
n. Taylor, George O. Rothwsll and John
Il. Ohsaira, members of the levy oonrt of
New CASTLE county. The plaintiff is
represented by Hon. Anthony Higgins,
Edward g. Bradford and Levi O. Bird,
Esqs,, and the defendants by Hon
George Gray and John II. Rodney, Esq
Mr.. Bradford. this morning, began his
argument with the following:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
IN February, 1885, the name OF the
plaintiff was, on general assessment,
duly placed upon the general assessment
list for the Sixth ward OF the city of viii.
miugton, and the levy court Of New
Castle county efterward, In the spring OF
the said year, duly laid poll tax upon
him. On the second day of March, 1885,
the plaintiff, who hal not paid said poll
tax, was returned by the collector of
county taxes for the collection district
including the Sixth ward OF said city, to
said levy court as delinquent, and
thereafter on the twenty.ninth day OF
March In the same year, the defendants,
composing aud sitting as said levy court,
allowed said poll tax as delinquent and
caused the name of the plainuf to be
struck and dropped from the assessment
list; whereby no tax was assessed or laid
upon the plant a for the year 1886 and
he was consequently deprived of all
opportunity at any time to pay county
taI for that year and thereby qualify
himself TO vote at the general election in
November of that year, although in all
respects, save the payment of county
tar, qualified as an elector. The levy
court had no evidence that the plaintiff
was dead, or bad left the State or the
Sixth ward OF said city, or said collection
district. The only evidence before
said court was the collectors return OF
the plaintiff as delinquent" The action
Of the defendants In causing the name Of
the plaintiff to be struck and dropped
from the assessment list and continuing
10 leave It of the sauIe was in strict
accordance with the provisions OF sectior
/ OF the act entitled ian act In relation
10 tho collection Of taxes In this State,
passed at Dover, April 10th, 1873, ant
he provisions OF section OF the act on
titled IAN act in relation to the duties o
NJ ha rfa n TN
several counties o. the State" passed q
Dover, April 9th, 1879 Section of tn
sct OF April 10th, 1873, provides that, II
the case of persons assessed and liable Z
pay poll taxes, upon the return of tn
collector Ia form and verified as thereil
provided, 1t shall be the duty OF the lev
court .,to allow said collector as delin
onenoies the taxes unooileoted by him
and the names OF such delinquents shal
he dropped from the assessment list b,
the levy court and shall not be places
thereon again for period OF IL month
from and after the date of such allow
ance." 80 .o-,
section Q OF the set of April 9th, 1878
provides that at shall not be lawful 10
suy assessor or any Levy Court, upo
the personal application OF any one Q
otherwise, 10 place upon the assessmel
in any hundred the name OF any perso
who having failed to pay the county %
assessed sgainst him or her for tue pr
oediug yearswas returned and allowed
n DELINQUENT until after the expiration 9
the twelve months from the time sue
allowance as delinquent was made by u
Law Court" The defendants rely upo
the foregoing provisions for the iustltoi
tion of their action in causing the nan
Of tho plaintiff to be struck and droppe
from the assessment list and conhnuin
10 leave II of the same.
The plsintitt had not paid any count
tar within the space OF two years me-
preceding the general election in 1856
This suit Is an action on the CA
brought for the recovery OF damages
aultina to the plaintiff by reason OF h
having been deprived by the defendan
81 ali opportunity Of paying connl
tar for 1885 and thereby qualifying hin
self to vote at said general election
The questions reserved for the oee
sIon of this court are arst, wheGher
not the above provisions OF the lsshl
tion Of 1873 are unconstitutional u
void; and, secondly, II said provision
ba Unconstitutional and void, whether
not the defendants are personally liau
In damages for their action In the PREF
ises. .;...
nrinted pages the principal points 90
landed for being as follows:
TIE aystem OF county taxation, z,
ta,,, IN annual taxation under which
waa the imperative duty of the assess
and levy court each year to assess P'
fan mon every free man above Inc o
of 81 years. 4,
II was the imperative duty Of the q
able each year to pay the poll teA
assessed upon him.
n was the imperative duty OF tue O
tactor 10 use ali due diligence In rece
ing or collecting such tax.
1ba legislation OF 1873 practical
,naratss 10 verse the policy of q
long established system OF county VI
alton. ,,.t..;on
1873 upon which the Defendants g
considered ss fiscal regulation OF
Stste. are unconstitutional and void,
yiolatiye OF the constitution OF DelsWa
The constitution OF Delaware no Wh
imposes any restriction upon lhs , exsfS
Of the sovereign right OF taxation,
leaves the Legislature clothed wiIu
power TO provide for the apportlonme
assessment and collection Of taxes.
The provisions of the legislation
1873 upon which the defendants rt
considered as fiscal regulAron OF
Rtate, are unconstitutional ana Vusa'
yiolatiye of the constitution OF
The provisions of the legislation
1878, upon which the defendants :.
considered 90 q regulation OF county
alton, are unconstitutional and
under both the constitution or DelaW
and the constitution of she United sse
by reason of the power conferred y
collectors of county taxes TO nlsctin M.
Ill