The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-01-08
FEE QUESTION IS SETTLED Judge Sayre Of City Court Renders Decision. WRIT OF MANDAMUSISSUED Test Case by Tax Collector
 Geo. w. Halls. pelinquents Will Only Have to Pay $1.5o Instead of $2oo as Re
 quired by Assessor--ordcr
 of Judge.

Judge A. D. Sayre, of the Montgomery City Court, yesterday issued peremp- tory writ of mandamus to George W. Halls, Tax Collector of Montgomery County. to give clear receipts for poll taxes to citizens upon the payment Of s1.50. Judge Sayre practically gives it as his opinion that under the new Com stitution delinquent fees cannot be col- lccted, and the case was decided against Tax Assessor Eubanks, who held he had a right to charge delinquent assessment fee of 90 cents |. The writ was issued by Judge Sayre upon the application of T. B. Thompson, who filed a friendly suit against Tax Collector Halls to test the validity of the law under which the Tax collector claimed he had the right to collect the | fee for delinquent assessment.
 The writ issued by Judge Sayre is in- l teresting because it virtually holds that | only s1. .50 can be collected under the new | Constitution for poll taxes and sets at l rest all further question upon this sup | ject
 The order of Judge Sayre in full is as | follows;
 1 On January 4th, petitioner, against | whom a poll tax was assessed prior to l the ratification of the constitution of 1901, offered to pay to the respondent, | who is Tax Collector of Montgomery l County, the tax so assessed against l him. The Tax Collector refused to re ceive the tax and to give receipt for it unless he was paid the Assessors fee, which accrued when the assessment was l made. The petitioner now asks for a | writ of mandamus.
 That respondent was entitled to re- ceive the fee under the statutes and the constitution of 1875 is not denied. | Those provisions of the constitution I.FJ kt.,la hts ha | to bear upon the rights in the premises of the respective parties to this proceed | ing as follows:
 Section IFS. "ro entitle a person to vote at any election by the people, he shall have paid on or before the l first day of February next preceding the l date of the election at which he offers | to vote. all poll taxes due from him for the year 1901. and for each subsequent | year.
 Sec. 19i. The poll tax mentioned in l this Article shall be one dollar and fifty | cents upon each male inhabitant of the
 State over the age of 2l years, and under tho age of 45 years. who would not now
 be exempt by law; but the Legislature
 is authorized to increase the, maximum 1 age fixed in this section to not more
 than sixty years. Such poll tax shall
 become due and payable on the first day
 of October In each year. and become
 delinquent on the first lay of the next
 succeeding February but no legal pro- cess nor any fee or commission shall ,bt allowed for the collection therof.
 Sec. 2sl. The salary. fees or comPen
 sation of any officer holding any civi
 office of profit under this State or any county or municipality thereof, shall no
 be increased or diminished during thu
 term for which he shall have been electe,
 or appointed
 And in connection with these pro
 visions the respondent says that the As
 sessor's right to receive the fee here h
 controversy become vested before tn
 ratification of the Constitution of 1901
 and by this l suppose 1t is in
 tended to invoke that part of tn
 Constitution of the United States whicl
 inhibits any State to deprive any perso
 Of property without due process of law
 "ln these constitutional provisions
 have found nothing to induce doub
 os petitioners right to pay the tax with } cut the fee, If he be SC inclined, an
 thus. as far as payment of poll tax goes
 qualify himself to vote. The lee involve is the fee for assessing the poll tax o [ the year 1901. The payment cf the pol l tax tor the year 1901 is made a cond;tiu ore cedcnt to thu right to vote No fe
 or commission shall be allowed for tn collection thereof. Thus far tine mcanih Is plnin: %, Lac .a,.. ,o,.,, - in my mind. Respondent contends tha . it protects the Assessor against change n So 1t does from the date of the ratifica I ton of the Constitution of 1901. But th . 1 change here was made by the people an
 at the time of the ratification. Sestio
 @Sl is a limitation upon the future powo
 Of tho Legislature. l am at loss t
 think how 1t can he considered other
 wise Neither this secticr nor section
 of the Schedule which provides Tha
 all laws in force at tho ratification O
 this Constitution and not inconsiste en
 herewith shall remain in full force ur ture have any effect upon the clea
 meaning of Sections 11s and 19i. Th z provisions of these last named section are as explicit and as particular in thei {. application as language could we'll hay made them. Tn such case the particula !, expression win prevail over the genera f where there arc general expressions C | | contrary import.
 Q Tt is not necessary to inquire whethe
 tho Assessors s right to his fee, earne II before the ratification of the Constitutio
 of 1901. is vested right which the peC
 pie of Alabama had no power to tai
 away from him. The fee is a matter b' | ha