Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1905-04-20
THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1905.
AT 1T AGAIN.


matter to teach an old dogs new tricks.
1t seems equally as difficult for the Vir-
ginia Democracy to forget or abandon
its old tricks. Attorney General An
derson, who is a candidate for re-elec-
ton, has given out an opinion in connec-
ton with the payment of the poll tax as
a qualification for voting. The Roam
oke Times, discussing that opinion, says:
attorney General Anderson has just
give an opinion to the effect that if a
Judge of election or citizen believes that
a mans poll tax was not paid out of his
own means, his vote may be challenged,
and he may be examined under oath.
This, as we recall it, was practically the
effect and rationale of Major Ander-
sons holding upon the question in last
falls contest. Had it been observed
and rigidly enforced at the time, it is
not unlikely that the Ninth District
would have returned to Democratic al
legiance. In the approaching campaign,
Ninth District Republican methods in
this respect should not be permitted in
any city or county in the State. "
When Major Anderson made his opin-
ion public last Fall, which opinion was
practically of the same effect as the
one recently given, its unsoundness ex-
cited the ridicule of every honest
lawyer of even the most ordinary at
tainments in his profession. There was
nothing to be found in the Constitution
to warrant the conclusions set forth by
the Attorney General. Republicans
justly regarded the opinion as unsound
in law, and looked upon it as a vicious,
partisan trick to cheat Republican vo-
tiers at the polls. So regarding it, if an
effort had been made to observe and rig
idly enforce the opinion of the Attorney
General in this district, there would
have been enacted many scenes similar
to the one at Fairview precinct in the
election of 1903. Fortunately, Mr..
Wysor was too sensible and honest to
give his approval to the scheme that
was intended to be operated by and
through the opinion of the Attorney
General, that opinion being mere die
tum, not sound in reason, law, or NOR
ais. Mr.. Wysor was evidently of the
belief that the views of the Attorney
General were in conflict with the
Constitution. And the Democratic
managers in this district knew that If
they undertook to challenge Republican
voters the Democrats would be chal-
lenged by the Republicans. The pay
ment of poll taxes in the district had
been as largely INDUCED in by the
friends of Mr.. Wysor as it was claimed
had been done by the friends of Colonel
Slemp.
Section SO of the Constitution pro-
vides that, "After the first day of
January, 1904, the treasurer of each
county and city shall, at least five
months before each regular election,
file with the clerk of the circuit court
of his county or the corporation court
of his city, list of all persons in his
county or city, who have paid not later
1nan six months prior to such election,
the State poll taxes required by this Con-
stitution during the three years next
preceding that in which such election is
held"
The same section of the Constitution
provides that the clerk shall within ten
days after receiving the list make suffi-
cient copies for each precinct in his
county or city to be posted at such pre-
cincts by the sheriff of the county or
sergeant of the city, as the case may be.
The clerk is also required to keep in his
Office copy as record for inspection,
the original list returned by the treas
urer to be filed and preserved among
the records. In the second paragraph
of Sec. SO of the Constitution we find
this language
"The clerk shall deliver, or cause to
be delivered, with the poll books, at
reasonable time before every election,
to one of the judges of election of each
precinct of his county or city, certi-
fed copy of the list, which shall be con-
elusive evidence of the facts therein
stated for the purpose of voting"
The facts stated in such a list are,
that A, B and others named have paid
their poll tax for such year or years,
six months prior to the election. These
facts being stated, the men named in
the list are entitled to vote without any
challenge as to the payment. If the
right exists with a judge Of election or
a citizen to challenge a voter on such a
list as to the manner Of payment, it will
also exist to challenge him as to the
time of the payment, or to deny that
any payment had been made.