The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-03
Mandamus Compelling
Election Under Review.
P0LL-TAX QUESTION
Argument in City's Appeal Began Yes
terday and Will be Continued To-
day. Mr.. Battle Asks That
Court Take Notice of En-
j.
tire Transaction.

In the Supreme Court yesterday the
case of Pace VS.. the City of Raleigh,
better known as the Saloon Mandamus
case, was called at the conclusion of
arguments from the tenth district. AS
it was half-past one O'Clock when the
case was called there was time at
yesterdays hearing only for the state
ment of Mr.. Snow, as to the facts
upon which the case arose and a por-
ton of the argument of Mr. Battle,
for the city, Mr.. Battle had little
more than begun his argument when
the hour of adjournment arrived. The
hearing will be continued this morn
ing.
Upon the call of the case, City At
torney w. B. Snow made statement
of the facts in connection with the
investigation by the Aldermanic Com
mittee of the petitions presented call
ing for an election on the subject of
dispensary or saloons, the action of
that committee and the subsequent
proceedings of the Board of Aldermen
of the city with respect to the petition.
Facts Shown by Record
He stated that the committee had
first proceeded to examine the regis
trars of the last election with a view
to striking from the lists names of
persons who had since removed from
their respective wards.
Finding a total of 1926 names on
the books the committee had SO
stricken from the lists the names of
223 persons who had removed and of
35 who had died prior to January 1st.
Whereupon an investigation of the
petition disclosed the presence thereon
of SAB names or an excess of the one
third necessary to call an election of
20 names
The majority report of the COM
mittee having thereafter recommend
ed that any person could, in person,
take his name off the petition or add
his name thereto, the petition was at
the next meeting of the Board re-
duced by twelve votes, p persons
having taken their names from the
lists and 10 having added their names
thereto, leaving an excess of eight
names of the necessary one-th1rd on
the registration books.
Thereafter a. resolution was offered
and adopted, declaring the payment
of poll tax prior to May 1St neces-
sary qualification to petition. The
city attorney had filed a written /opin-
ion advising against this course, which
was disregarded.
A committee having been appointed
to examine the books of the sheriff
relative to the payment of poll tax
reported that they found on the reg
istration books the names of 266 per-
sons who had not paid the tax prior
to the 1st day of May.
From 1.568 the 266 names left as
the standard of comparison 1902
names As there were i19 names of
the 266 thus stricken off on the pc
tition the result of the resolution was
TO reduce the number of names on the
petition to AIS, a shortage of 16
names.
Afterwards the matter had come up
before Judge NJ. II. Justice on petition
for a mandamus to compel the Board
to call an election, the mandamus had
been granted and the city appealed.
1t was stated by Mr.. Snow that at
the hearing in the lower court it had
been agreed between Mr.. Battle, rep
resenting the city, and counsel for the
petitioners that the only question in
volved in the case was whether or
not the payment of poll tax, prior to
May 1st as prescribed in the Consti
tutionaI Amendment applied to the
provisions of the Watts Act relative to
elections, so as to make the payment
of poll tax requisite to the right of
one registered at the last municipal
election to petition for an election
under the provisions of such act
The statement of Mr.. Snow, as
given, is clear and concise state
ment of the facts disclosed by the
record and of the issue at bar.
After making the statement refer
red to Mr. Snow said that his posi-
ton was a unique one, which would
not permit him to argue the case for
the city, and Mr.. Battle addressed the
court for the appellant.
Mr.. Battles Argument.
In beginning his argument Mr.. Bat
tie stated that while it was true
it had been agreed and admitted by
counsel in the case below that the
one question presented was the point
whether the right to petition de-
pended upon the payment of poll tax.