The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-23
NO PAY POLL TAX
NO SIGN PETITION
Supreme Court UphoIds
the Raleigh Board of
Aldermen.
NO ELECTION HERE.
Justices Clark. Conner and H0ke Re-
fuse Mandamus. While Justices
Walker and Brown Dissent.
Opinions in Full.

The Board of Aldermen, who held
that no person could petition and Sc
cure an election for saloons unless
he could vote in such election. have
been sustained by the Supreme court.
This will be gratifying news TO the
bulk of the people of Raleigh, even
some who signed the petition, for
no good purpose can be subSerVed by
such an election at this time. Raieigh
is moving forward industrially ana
commercially, itst business interests
are united. the dispenSary is a vast
improvement over the saloons. and
| the best sentiment of the community
is in favor Of no agitation on the
! liquor question at least until after the
election Of 1906. 1t can co no gooa
to the moral or business welfare OF
the city. and we voice the sentimen,
of the majority of the business men,
professional men, mechanics. manu-
facturers and laboring men in the citS.
when we say: Let us have peace.
Opinion by Chief Justice.
The opinion Of the court is written
by Chief Justice Clark and concurred
| in by Justices Common and Hoke. and II
as follows:
supreme Court of North Carolina:
August term: 1905. No. 22I. Wake.
State eX rel j. NJ. Pace ct ai y. The
City of Raleigh, appellant.
Application for mandamus before
Justice. j. at Wake. The plaintiffs
/ and others presented a petition to the
I Board OF Aldermen asking that All
/ election be called to determine wheth-
er saloons should be licensed in said
city for the sale of intoxicating liquor
! in lieu of the existing City Dispen-
sary. The committee to whom the Pc
tition was referred reported that they
found on the registration books 1,S26
names but 233 of those registered
had moved and 35 died, leaving /. 56S
valid registered names. That after
purging in the same manner from the
petition the names of those who had
removed or led there remained on
the petition 543 names. Upon further
reference TO ascertain how many of
those upon the registration books
and the petition respectively weT-
entitled to vote by having paid the
poll tax for 1904 ON or before LIST of
May. 1905. as required By the Consti-
tuition 5. was found that 2e6 person
on the registration list had noe
so entitled themselves to vote, OF
whom the names Of 113 We're on the
petition. The Board, thercupon. auth
orized any one entitled to vote at the
proposed election to come forward
and add their names to the petition or
to Withdraw them; whereupon there
were 10 names added 10 the petition
and - withdrawn. Thereupon the
Board found that in accordance with
the above figures that there were 30
registered voters of whom 4lS had
signed the petition. being sixteen
names less than one third of the Ieg-
istered voters who were registered
at the last municipal election" and re-
fused to order an election. This pro-
ceeding was brought for a mandamus
against the Board of Aldermen TO or
der the election. which bein granted
the defendants appealed.
r. II. Battle, w. b. Snow and w.
X Jones for defendant appellant;
Argo e Shaffer and w. Il. Jones
for plaintiff appellee.
Clark. {. j. Chapter 233 Laws 1908
provides: 'Sec. Z. 1t shall be the
duty of the governing body of any
city or town. upon the petition of one
third Q-3) of the registered voters
therein. who were registered for the
preceding municipal election, TO order
an election to he held etc.
Sec. 8. Amy person entitled To vote
for members of the General Assem-
bly, shall have the right to vote at
and any such voter who is In favor
Of the manufacture. etc. and
every such voter who is in favor Of
bar-rooms or saloons shall vote a
ticket on which shall be written or
printed etc.
The sole question presented Is, who
are the persons entitled TO sign pc
tition for an election under this sta
tute which requires one-third. G-3)
of the registered voters therein, who
were registered for the preceding mu-
nicipal election" The plaintiffs con-
tend that registered voter is any
cue who is duly and lawfully regis
tered. The defendants contend that
a registered voter must not only be
registered but he must also be a vo-
ter. l. e., entitled TO vote, which
right the Constitution denies To one
who is merely regstered--that ii Is
further necessary that he shall have
raid his poll tax. In short, the plain
t. ifs contend that any one who is reg
istered is voter though he may not
b. an actual voter" entitled to vote:
while the defendants contend that he
must not only be registered but alse
a voter.
The plaintiffs are not entitled -
their poandamus unless they can main
tain their propos ton that registra
ton makes any one who is duly and
lawfully registered, q voter" Whp
> voter? Websters international
Dictionary defines 'tVoter: One who
votes who Is entitled to vote" This
is the definition in Section Of this
act (ch. 233 Laws. 1903) which says.