Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1890-01-30

sary ell 4et. leaving out of view the queB-
tion of design, which has no place IN
this discussion, the point TO be decided is
does the legislation OF 1873 necessarily lm-
pair the voting right Of the citizen? 1t will
oe we'll, In this inquiry, to look at the state
OF things existing at the time It was passed,
as contrasted with that 1t displaced.
Before enianclpation OF slaves, and the
adoption of the flf.eenth amendment to the
constitution OF the United Stated, voting
In Delaware was confined to white males of
over twsnty-one years, with the exceptions
oefGrs given; and so steady ard constant
was our population every where except Ia
Wilmington, that surh persons as were
selected to be assessors were usually
acquainted personally With nearly ali the
yofing class II was for this reason, no
doubt, that the law made no requirement OF
potlca by the assessors that they were about
to procaad. or would proceed to make the
asssssn nant.
AT tho February session OF the levy court,
the assessments were relnEuable and by the
practice OF tne court and the law, they
were ligOla to corrsGtlon by the levy court,
10 order 10 perfect them. But the March
term Tss an appeal term from assessments,
Ht WHich any person aggrie7ed at not Deins
nsletsed at Hll, or who or whose property WAS
rnfairiy assessed, could Rppasr before tins
court and obtain redress. When the levy
court mud made an examination of tue as.
tbs February term, Il Was the duty of the
clerk OF tnG peace by the 2Oth OF that month
to make copies OF the hundred lists and
post them for public Inspection with notice
OF the holding tha court of appeal (S8otton
~ of chapter 0, Revised Gods, Hairs DIG.
375). This publication was the tlrst formal
notice to the public Of the assessments
and then they hs1 been completed by tue
assassors. No further notlce vas given In
relation to assessments. On or before the
first Tuesday o. Arril following, 1t was the
duty oil ths court to Issue to the collectors
duplicates OF tue assessment lists with the
TAX assossed upon Lhem,t gether With war
rants for their collection: and it was that
OF the collector, before proceeding to col
lect hts taxes by legal process TO make 10
days previous demand for them; but other
notice to tho taxpayers there was none.
Doubtless, 1t happened, in many cases,
thaE parties were returned Delinquent who
had never been called upon taer taxes
at all. Their only notlc9 being that given
| by tho clerk OF the peace, as above re-
| qutred, IL the publication OF tho gssess-
msnt lists. l have already pointed out
that under the old system, prior to the act
| OF 1873, Wnen person was re-
! dropped from the assessment thea
I existing: and have ascrlbed the practice
/ TO the maxim specified. Under 1t, there
/ fore, II he was returned q delinquent
| and allowed as such by the levy court
| AZ the March session next after the year
| when tho assessment was returned, he was
| on during the residue OF the duration OF
tho assessment then six years. and after 1t
| was changed, then the residue OF four
| years. But II was found that many names
were restored In some way surrept!tously
| which operated to allow the delinquent
class, or such Of them rs the dominant
party pesded In their service, TO vote when
| Thafr bHltDfg In rAnniattfnn and
escaped paying their taxes at other times
thus defeating the requirement of paying
"scot and lot' or taxes whenever assessed,
as tha distinction OF "freeman." This
law Of 1643 broke up tkat fraud, or was In
tended to do 30, and required, In terms,
that the dellnquent's nems should not only
be dropped, but that 1t should not go upon
the list again until lie was again lawfully
assessed-wnich, by the restrictive effacr OF
the provision In the old statute for annual
assessment s, could not be done until there
was u general assessment OF persons.
In ls47 an act was passed, the second
section requiring the reassessment of de-
lInquents IN the annual assessments. They
then were made to stand upon the same
footing as persons before omitted. phe
first section required the delinquent list TO
be- returned by the collectors on the first
day OF the annual March term and pro.
| htplted allowance OF tt by the levy court
for five days attec return; aud secured the
public right to inspect 1t By indictment of
the members Of the levy court, or tAe clerk
of the peace, as the case might be, refusing
TO allow such inspection upon application.
| (V3lume \, I'D.
The act was repealed by r-at u 1851, be-
fore quoted, when provided that the effact
OF allowance OF delinquency should only
bs to credit the collector with the tax, and
required that the name OF the delinquent
should be again put upon the collectors
duplicate. Ii also repealed expressly so
much OF the act OF 1913 as required the
dropping the name OF a delinquent from
the assessment list, though that was done
by implication. Toe act OF 18i3, by the ex-
preston of purpose contained In the second
section shows motive for passing the pro-
vision with respect to delinquent taxes and
to dropping dsiiuqusats from the tax list.
It did Its work very effectively, SO that
taxes had to be paid the condition, upon
which the elective franchise was to be Gu
joyad, had to be- performed, or the legal
presumption prevailed.
In the political campaign OF 1915 when
the dominant party lost their candidate for
governor, farce assault was made upon
1t, and chislly because OF the act OF 1913
aud the manner In which that law dealt
with daliDquents. The Legislature, how
ever, was not lost, and accordingly at the
session follow wing the election the act OF
1Bi7 was passed, which was repealed as
has been stated by that OF 1851, when the
power OF the party In the Legislature passed
into the hands OF It's opponent. Tha legis-
lation upon the subject or de,inquents was
a Sam0 OF politics, Dut no one doubted that
It was one which might bs lawfully played.
1t did not put 1t out of the power OF any
man really or practically, to obtain and 70.
tain the rishJ to vote; but only aimed at
compelling hinl to perform the condition
for It's exercises as other peop!e had to 90
who owned property-pay tie county
taSt3.
rha party which passed the act Of 1851
lost is lscepdepcy In tho Legislature at The
eluctiol OF 1852. hut retaluing its majority
In tue senate. OF course, there was 10
prospect OF repeating tnGt which had osen
80 great q desiisrntun with it--On whose
slide the great body of the duli,qlehts was.
II tae election Of iSJI Il totally aaW party
came irTo ppwart and by what vas, thau,
u large mHi1rity. Both branches Of ;ha
LsgIslHturs were OF it's namoers-the
HOusa entirely, aud tlvo-thlgGs OF the Sem
are, It was e very ,troue party, aud had
no need 10 concern itselt with legislation
about delGquents, 4 gt5Rt mistake OF lsg-
tslltiop, made at thHs session 50 shattered
It's rluks that tho political power OF the
STATE PASSED away from II utterly, and tine
party it5alt practically disbgnded. Such
results restored TO power the makers OF the
legislation OF 1851 which, suittDS the doml.
nAnt party perfectly, remaiael In force
untl 1t vas repeated by thar Of 1873. By
ths latter, the provision contained III thu
law of 1888 for dropping the n1nls Of do.
linquent from th3 list, was re- enacted; aud
nv tha assessment sar (Cnapter S7l, Of Vol.
NV, Revised Code y, p.ts sal at the saine
session Con the tag prarei.nE the dein-
qu5nt act, or Chapter 97@ u Vol. NV, ls'
visel Code so, ,s4se8sors We're lOrbldiau 10
assas5 u delinquent "nnt!l Gtter the eSpirS.
ton OF twelve months" from tina time allow.
q tIBIl ly bN l.,i mo Nn