The White Pine news. [volume] (Treasure City, Nev.) 1868-1906, 1897-11-13
PAY YOUR POLL TAX.

The new poll tax law, which requires
that a mar who is liable to the pay
ment of poll taxes can not register I'M
less he can show his receipt for the
year of election and the preceding year
as well, has been pretty thoroughly dis
cussed by the papers of the State. The
question is now raised by the Lyon
County Times, 'fCan a man who fails to
pay his poll tax in 1897 legally pay it in
1898" 1t is true that the law specif-
cally states that if a man has not paid
his poll tax for the current and preced-
ing years, he may pay them al the time
of registration to the Registry Agent
and receive the proper receipt therefor.
This seems perfectly plain but in con-
connection with that receipt there Is
likely to be trouble. In the General
Statutes of the Sta.e OF Nevada, Sec.
1929, We find the following: And on
the same day first Monday II Deem
ber) the County Treasurer shall attend
with the Assessor at the office of the
County Auditor, and the County Audi
tor shall. hen and there. finally settle
with the Assessor for all poll tax re-
ceipts signed by the Treasurer and de-
livered To him: and al poll 5ax receipts
mot used returned by the Assessor
shall be forthwith transmitted by the
Auditor, with his annual statement. to
the Controller Of State; and no poll tax
receipt shall be valid for any wear un-
less issued after the first Monday in
February of each year"
Accofd ding to this statute. which so
far as We know is sill the law o. the
State, all blank poll tax receipts for
1897 WI be retuened by the County
with his annual statement in December
of this year and We fail 10 see how the
the Registry Agents ofthis or any other
county viii be able to get blank 1897
receipts during the time for registra-
ton next year. Further. it is mani
testify unlawful for Registry Agents or
any other county official to give an
1898 receipt for a poll tax due in
1897 and the issuance Of any other re-
ceipts except those provided for by Jaw
and duly delivered to the County Treas
urer each year by the State Controllet,
is an offense punishable by both fine
and Imprisonment. 1t therefore APP
pears to IS that voters who do not pay
their poll taxes this year will not be
able to pay them at tie time of regis
tering next year, owing 10 the fact that
the Registry Agent VIII not have the
proper receipts to give therefor. and as
a result, all such voters will be disfran-
chised.
We are Informed by County Treas
urer " 8ia- iiiat there have been
3l9 pc axes q, eeted or entered upon
the reg Jar tax rel o' the county so
far this year. ana /, ere are at least 30
which w have % l.. paid before the
iirst Monday in De embcr. What DO
these men who have rs yet failed 10
pay expect to do? Don't they want 10
vote next year; VII they pay in the
ut sf weeks before the final report
is the State Controller, or will
they their chances OF being able
to pay next year? This is the problem
that each II has to solve for himself.
If Il man had rather lose his right to
vote than to pay Y3 towards the sup
port Of the government, he is not fit to
be a voter. and the sooner he is dis
franchised the better. We have dis
cussed this subject al such length in
order that none through ignorance OF
the situation, might fail to pay the
tax and thus through his carelessness
lose his chance to vote next year. We
advise all who have not yet paid their
poll tax this year. 10 do so at once, and
avoid all risk.
In taking this view of the case we
are opposed by no less an authority
than Attorney General, Jas. r. Judge,
who, at the request of the Virginia
Report rendered the following opinion:
From an examination of the langu-
age Of the act. | am of the opinion that
any person subject TO the payment of
such poll tax for the present year, and
who negiects or is unable to pay same
during this year may pay amount
thereof next year, and upon making
such payment. together with his poll
tax for mex year. viii. if in all other
respects qualified, be entitled to reg
ister.
From the wording of this opinion,
however, it would appear that the At
torney General had confined his in
vestigation to the text Of the new law
alone, and had not sufficiently investi-
gated the bearing Of this law upon those
already in force with regard to the pay
ment of poll taxes and giving receipts
therefor. That his opinions are not
infallible has been clearly shown within
the last few weeks in the case of Prof.
Dornberger, of Eureka, in which he
rendered an opinion without due in ves-
tigation of the law and had to be correct
ed by District Attorney Breen.