Smyrna times., 1890-01-22


THE decision of the Superior Court
in the Mandamus case last week il
Wilmington was calculated to, as il
did, attract a great deal of attention
both in and out of the State. The
chief object in the appeal to the court
to compel the collectors to accept taxes
on a power of attorney, was denied
but the decision covered other ground:
very admOnitOry to the collectors
While those seeking to compel the lat
ter to do their duty before the law and
in justice to the people feel it defeat
the decision covers other points that
are of practical Importance in defining
duty, while it may be criticised as
being in favor of the law, but against
its enforcement. Some of these points
are that any citizen has a right to dep
utize another to pay his tax, but the
court refuses to command the collector
to receipt for the taxes on the ground
that the law requires him to take the
money, but does not require him to
give receipts. As on election day a
receipt is the only recognized proof in
the case of a nOn-prOperty holder of
the right to vote, a tax paid under
such circumstances will be of very lit
tie value in the exercise of the right of
franchise. The judges however, COM
mand that the collectors shall be in
their places of business at the hours
designated by law to receive the taxes
OF individuals who apply in person,
and say that the court will be in ses-
sion to see that they do it.
The design of the mandamus was to
help those in Wilmington where by
dilatOry delays and the collectors alb
senting themselves from their Office.
much time was lost to laboIing men
and these in many cases were defeated
in their object. The Daily republican
OF that city in a second consideration
of the decision, thus states what was
gained by bringing the matter before
the court, though the main point was
denied. 1t says:
The sensible conclusion to be arrived
at in the recent decision of the Superior
Court in regard to the mandamus an
Piled for to compel Collector Dough-
erty to accept taxes by power of at
torney, is that Collector DOughertv
and all other collectors are enioined
to collect the taxes and to afford every
needed facility for doing so. When
these needed facilities are afforded.
such as sitting at seasonable hours
when taXables can call upon them
without losing unnecessary time and
money in doing so, and in providing
the necessary clerical labor to enable
him to wait with alacIity upon the
payers, there will be no cause of COM
plant. Then it is desired in prefer
ence by the court that taxables shall
apply in person and pay their own
taxes, also that they should do so with
their own money. This is the way the
court would like to have it if it could.
But the absence of these requisite
facilities for paying taxes is Something
else. Poll taxables found it very in
CONVENIENT to pay their taxes in the
hours named by the collectors. Manv
OF them lost half day, a whole dav.
some two days, and quite number
more than that in a vain endeavor to
get their taxes paid. Then the court
with evident reluctancy SAYS that
taxes can be paid by a power of attor.
ney, that is the taxable can. authorize
another taxable by proper writings of
authority to pay for him. This latter
course was the gist of the contest de-
clded. The court evidently didn't like
the plan much, but the doing by an
agent what one would do themselves
was such an old and recognized prin.
ciple of law and Justice that the sane
tlty of the power of attorney could NOT
be interfered with, and it was decided
that taxes could be so paid, and that a
who would not receive taxes |
so protfered was liable to the same
and penalties as if he had
declined to receive taxes under apv
other circumstances.
Then taxes can be paid by a power
of attorney and collectors must take |
such taxes. There is that much de- |
cided. Taxpayers living away from
the city, working men in the busy |
shops of the city, or others who from |
disability or any other cause |
cannot go in person and pay their own |
taxes without pain or great inconvience. |
can authorize another to pay for them. |
What else is decided? One other |
thing and then we have the whole de- |
cision. That is this, and this is for
the security of the collector, the col
leetor need not issue receipts for the |
taxes SO paid to the agent or the at
torney IN TACT, but can give them to
the taxable for whom the tax was
paid. At the same time this is not
made obligatory upon the collector.
de can elect to whom he will give the
receipt whether to the agent or to the
This knocks the bottom
out OF the blocks of five" business.
The Court, with perspicuous fore
sight, saw that if the receipts were
from the principals there
might be the same trouble in get
ting them from the collectors as thew
had in the first instance in pavin0
their taxes, seems voluntarily to have
gone a little further and protected
voter iD his right to vOCe without re-
eeipt. He has had "a State and county
tax" and is qualified to vote. Should
ais vote be objected to, the law pro-
Vides that he may be sworn as to
whether he paid such a tax and was
otherwise qualified. If he 80 swear
lis vote must be accepted, with or
without a receipt, stamped or ua-
stamped.
The foregoing is what mas been de-
;lded by the court. 1t does not seem
iifticult to Gull out even that much
and even if there should be a technical
construction into some other imprac-
Acal channel the foregoing would seem
% be practical, common sense view
Of the matter.
THERE is doubtless a spirit of unrest