The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-11-23

In enacting this provision the Legis-
lature reco@nized that the exercise of
the right Of suffrage should be favored
and not discouraged. and that the
method Of determining the existence
of the right should be simple. II is
true that the determination of the
board of aldermen as 10 the payment
Of Doll tax by the signers of the Pc
tition does not involve the right to
vote but only the right TO call an cleo
ton. But = matters no thai the
right to vote is not directly involved.
The right 10 petition is a legal right
conferred by the act and this Court
says depends upon the right TO cast
q toto. Cnder the Courts construc-
ton of the statute resident of the
city Of Raleigh. or Of any other city,
although a registered and qualified
voter. NAV be denied q voice in call
ing an election, because the board of
aldermen in an eX parte proceeding,
when he IS not present, with no evil
dence before L save the tax list of the
sheriff. may fird that he is not a quail
flied voter.
\ supposed state of facts will show
the Injustice o. TIE Courts construc-
ton: A has signed the petition for an
election the sherffs tax list does not
show that he has paid his poll tax;
the boar, OF aldermen en such mega
tive and incompetent evidence erase
his name from the petition; on the daN
Of election he presents his tax receipt,
or makes oath that he has paid his
poll tax and votes al the election
which he was denied the right TO call.
I'm tbs case tho voter is refused the
right of petitioning for Il municipal
election in which he has the rioht to
vote.
AS further evidence of The i'm
pertance of this machinery for deter
mining tho qualifications of voter. IL
is provided by the general election law
that tho failure of the sheriff to give
a tax receiDt is q misdemeanor, and ne
is REQUIRED upon application and afti-
daNit of The applicant that his receipt
mas been lost to provide duplicate
receipt The act. however provides
no penalty for mistake IN the list of
persons who have paid their poH tax,
and does not even REQUIRE the entry
to be made or the tax books, other
than the ,isc 70 be furnished the Clerk
OF the Court which was not referred
ia by the board of aldermen in this
ease. That the ta-' books are subject
10 mistakes cannot be doubted Is the
voter then 10 be given no opportunity
10 correct such mistake, OF make oath
To the payment Of his Doll tax ana
be entitled thereb TO sign the pett-
lion? II seems 70 MO 20 be a strained
construction o. ho legislative inten-
ton TO hold that in the face OF
the specific machinery of the gem
eral election law for determining the
qualification Of "A voter. they should
empower the governing bodies OF
towns and cities TO adopt any method
they should see tit to adopt 10 deter
mine so important matter. Is the
voter. whose right To sign theFpetition
is attacked. given the right by the
terms Of the statute, either express or
implied to be present when the mat
tar is considered? Is he entitled TO
any hearing? Is he entitled TO notice?
Can he present his. tax receipt or make
oath that he has paid his poll tax.
Gan he show thai he 8 exempt IRON
polI TAX? The statute gives no such
right. Then | must assume that these
rights are denied him. and this as
sumption is supported by the facts IN
this case. The report of the Commit
tee of the board of aldermen of the
city of Raleigh. in explaining the
method pursued in determining the
10 correct such mistake. or make oulh
qualification of the SignerS of the pc
titjon saws: 1--WE examined the tax
books Of tho sheriff % Wake county
for the wear 1904 and found that TWO
hundred and siXtvsiX (2b6o persons
\Nh
books failed to pay their Doll taxes for
tho year 1904 on or before May LIST,
I o05. of these 266 names we find ll3
on the petition of persons whose
names are on the registration books
who failed 10 pa their poll taxes lor
the wear 1904 on or before May lst.
1906"
Is their conclusion justified? They
say they examined the tax books onE.
They made such examination III the
absence of the voter, and yet on this
sort of incompetent evidence they con-
clude that Che poll tax has not been
paid and deny registered voters the
right to petition for an election. HAS
The right of suffrage so far lost us
sanctity that it's exercise can ne 'il3nc
dependent upon conclusions Drawn
from such evidence? Books, possibly
incorrect, a committee, possibly m'S-
taken, and from this the conclusion
ie drawn that 113 petitioners, all OF
whom arc absent. have failed to pay
their Doll tax And this unWarranted
method is endorsed by this court be-
cause Mr.. Webster defines voter TO
be: "Onc who votes, who is entitled
TO vote" 1t appears TO me that TINS
is forced construction and thal IL
could MOI have been the intention OF
the Legislature TO empower BOARD OF
Aldermen To determine III an eA-pdIle
proceeding the qualifications of one
Offering himself as voter, when the
general election law was SO solicltous
in protecting the registered voter
right TO prove his qualihcauon
That the construction of a statute
should be reasonable is familiar learn
ing That it should be construed IN
the light of existing legislation on the
same subject is also well settled:
What is "a reasonable construction OF
the statute before us? The Legisla-
ture intended to provide a simple,
convenient and cheap method OF pc
titioning and calling an election:
petition of a specified number OF cltI-
zens was open to the objection that
women and children who are cltizens
in the broadest sense OF the WORD,
might sign it; q SPECIFIC NUMBER OF
qualified voters was mconvenient be
cause, as | have pointed out, it would
involve a cumbersome and TEDIOUS
method of determining VINO are quail
fled voters The Legislature met THESE
objections by adopting the only alter