Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1900-10-03
An Able, Logical and Clear DOCu- ment Which SuStains the Val- idity of the Democratic Law.

idity of the Democratic Law. , This is suit brought by the plain
 tiff, Saxton $. Acker, against the de
 fendant, l.. w. Quinlan, as a register ing officer of the county to obtain a
 writ of mandamus requiring said reg
 istering officer to place his name upon
 the great register of the county. The
 complaint sets forth that the plaintiff
 is native-born citizen of the United
 States, over the age of twenty-One
 years, a resident of the territory, of
 the county and of the precinct of Mor-
 mon Dairy for more than two years
 preceding the bringing of the action;
 that he is a sane person and has not
 been convicted of any infamous
 crime The complaint also states
 that the plaintiff duly appeared before
 the respondent L. W. Quinlan who
 was then and there a duly appointed,
 qualified and acting justice of the
 peace in and for Flagstaff precinct
 and by virtue thereof a registering of
 ficer of said county, and presented an
 affidavit which, in effect, set forth his
 qualifications as an elector, to-wit:
 That he was a male citizen over the
 age of twenty one years, a resident of
 the county of COconino, in the
 territory of Arizona and precinct
 of Mormon Dairy for more than
 two years preceding the date of
 the affidavit, and that he was
 in other respects qualified elector.
 The complaint also states that upon
 the presentation of the affidavit, the respondent required of him the pro duction of receipt showing that the plaintiff had paid a poll tax for the
 year 1900, but that the plaintiff re-
 fused, and still refuses to produce | such receipt, and that thereupon the registering officer denied him the privilege of having his name enrolled upon the great register of the county.
 The plaintiff also states in his com
 plaint that he has not paid the poll tax for the year 1900, and further states that he is not by law exempt from the payment of poll tax under the laws of the territory. The plain tiff further states and sets forth that by virtue of Act Number Thirty-seven (3O, sof the twentieth legislative as sembly of the territory of Arizona, en- titled An Act requiring the payment of poll tax of electors in Arizona be, fore they shall be entitled to have their names entered upon the great register of the county" That said Act is unconstitutional, void and of no effect, for three reasons: First, That the Act is unreasonable; Sec ond, that it is lacking in uniformity, and, third, that the Act is not impar- tial in its application.
 The district attorney, on the part of the respondent, has entered a general demurrer. So the sole question pre- sented for decision is the validity of the Act Number Thirty (37), of the twentieth legislative assembly l of the territory of Arizona, entitled, An Act requiring the payment of a poll tax, etc"
 Upon the argument in this case, by the learned counsel who presented this case before the court. it was con ceded that the Act in question was not in conflict with any provision of the organic law. The organic law of this territory is found in the constitu- ton of the United States and in the laws of congress; or, it might be ex- ; pressed in this way: The organic law of the territory is found in the acts of congress, because the consti- tuition becomes a part of the organic law of the territory by reason of an act of congress. Section 1860 of the Revised Statutes of the United States ' provides:
 At all subsequent elections in any territory hereafter organized by con gress, as well as at all elections in territories already organized, the qual- ifications of voters and of holding of flee shall be such as may be pre- scribed by the legislative assembly of each territory; subject, nevertheless, to the following restrictions on the power of the legislative assembly 
 First: The right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States above the age of twenty-one years and by those above that age who have ' declared on oath. before a competent . court of record, their intention to be- V come such, and have taken an oath to ! ! the constitution and govern U ment of the United States. I
 Second: There shall be no denial d of the elective franchise or of holding I office to citizen on account of race. d color, or previous condition of servi- / tude. |
 Third: No officer, soldier. seaman. mariner or other person in the army V pr navy, or attached to troops in the U service of the United States shall be d allowed to vote in any territory by reason of being on service therein. m- . less such territory is, and has been for ( the period of six months, his perma- G | nent docile'
 It follows further that the legisIa- U i've assembly might go further than 2 t does, and require property quail icatiOn as prerequisite to the eXer- ;ise of the privilege of voting. or it might go still further and require an qualification in order to exercise the right of suffrage. Tam O speaking now of the power of the e legislative assembly, not as to its wis T dom in this respect. Within the limi- ] tatiOns expressed by the organic law. l think there can be no question but i that the legislative assembly might q require a property qualification, an qualification, or the legis- | lative assembly might go to the op- I posite extreme and grant to every | male or female over the age of twenty t one years who are citizens of the Uni Il ted States, or have declared their in [ tention to become such, the right of c suffrage. C
 There can be no doubt but that the | has the right to require and to enforce the payment of q poll tax, The right of the legislature to l exempt certain persons from the pay | ment of poll tax has never been ques- | toned.
 If the payment of poll tax is a duty d required by law, may not the legisla- I lure require as condition precedent l 10 the exercise of the elective fran f ,hise, the performance of that duty?
 1t seems to me that is reasonable t pGll tav k mt o,, T,