Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1905-04-20


that is by Judicial proceeding within
thirty days after the list is posted. Il
the list can be impeached for the pur
pose of adding names improperly omit
ted only by a judicial proceeding
how can it be impeached for get
ting rid of a name or voter except by
judicial proceeding? Can any record
in the clerks Office of any court of law
be impeached otherwise than by judi
cial proceeding?
The Hon. ]. C. Wysor was a member
of the Constitutional Convention and
a member of the committee that framed
the suffrage law. In communication
addressed to the Richmond Times-Dis-
patch on the Slst of December, 1904, he
said:
1.-The only safeguard in the COnstitr-
ton against one man paying poll taxes
for another is the six months provision.
The reason for this provision was that
it was thought a man would hesitate
risking his money six months with the
view of influencing the vote of another.
1t is true the constitution provides that
the voter shall personally pay his taxes.
But this amounts to little or nothing.
The constitution does not forbid man
lending or giving another the money
with which to pay his poll taxes. A
loan or gift makes money the absolute
property of the recipient, and if he uses
it in paying his taxes, he personally
pays them. Of course, pretended
loan or gift, made to corrupt and pur-
chase the voter, is against the constitu-
ton and does not qualify the voter.
From the above reasoning Of Mr..
Wysor it is clear that no right is placed
with any person to challenge a voter
who is on the Treasurer's certified list,
on account of the manner or time of
paying his { the voters } poll taxes. II
the voter has received a loan or gift
contracting to sell his vote therefor, ne
can and may be challenged for accept
ing a bride, but no authority can be in
voked to make him submit to an exam
nation under oath to prove or disprove
the charge. The law is well settled in
this State that no man can be compelled
to testify for or against himself when
he is charged with criminal offense.
Mr.. Wysor, who helped to make the
suffrage law, and who is, therefore,
best qualified to say what was and is the
intention of the constitutional provision,
declares that one man has the right to
give or loan another the money to pay
his poll taxes, and that the voter has a
right to receive andu the gift or loan.
This is too plain legal proposition to
be disputed by any one, except fool or
blind partisan.
What is the purpose of the Attorney
General in publishing his recent opin-
ion? Primarily it must be intended to
brighten Republicans and make them
over-cautious in assisting or receiving
assistance in the payment of poll taxes.
1t is also intended to create the impress
sion that the Democrats will not assist
their voters. But from reports that
are received from Tidewater Virginia
and other sections of the State the
taxes of plugs and repeaters are being
paid by the friends of Democrats who
will be candidates Fat the approaching
primary.
Our Roanoke contemporary is again
seeking to alarm and cast odium upon
the Republicans of the Ninth District. 1t
speaks of ''Ninth District Republican
methods as of something that is peculiar
ly illegal and immoral. The Republicans
of this district have avoided "any meth
cd of poll tax payment save that which
is in strict conformity with the spirit
and letter of the Constitution. They
have done no violence to either law or
morals and will not be frightened by
Democratic threats or imputations.