Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1908-07-25

THE PERSONAL TAX DECISION.
In the Law and Ohancery Court OF Ncr'
folk on Thursday, as stated in yesterday s
Gazette, Judge w. M. Martin handed
down his decision in the poll tax mand-
anus case, ruling that the word ''per-
sonally" in the constitution of Virginia
means the bodily presence of voter In
the payment of poll taxes, and directed
that the treasurer of the city of Norfolk
file revised list, certifying only to those
who have paid their taxes six months
prior to the next election in bodily pres
ence. Following notice of appeal Judge
Martin suspended Judgment, pending
another hearing by the State Court of
Appeals.
The decision of the court as handed
down is as follows:
Section l63 of the constitution OF Vir-
ginis provides that the General Assem-
bly, shall levy State capitstOn tax OF
81. so on every male resident of the State
not less than twenty-one years Of age,
except those pensiOned by the State for
military service, and this State poll tax
is required to be paid to the treasurer of
the city or county in which the citizen
resides.
Under this law persons so assessed
with poll tax may pay it either in per
SOD, by going himself to the treasurer
and handing MIN $3.50. or he may send
the amount to the treasurer by sn agent,
aud the payment to the treasurer by the
agent is payment by the principal. /
know of no other way in which pay
ment of the poll lax can be made by the
ptrsou assessed, and such person may
adopt either mode of payment. Upon
the receipt of the tax by the treasurer
in either of the above mentioned ways
the tax is paid,
Section II of the constitution of Vir-
ginia only allows those persons to vote,
who, among other conditions therein
mentioned, have personally" paid all
State poll taxes assessed or assesssble
against them within the time mentioned
in said section (unless txempliied in
section 22), and section 3S of the con-
sttuliOn as recently cou'trued by the
Court of Appeals in the csss of TszewelI
vs.. Herman, requires the easursr 10 re-
turn to the clerk of the court q list of
those who have "personslly" paid their
State poll taxes, within the specified
| time.
Under this requirement OF the Con.
stitution ] am OF the opinion that the
list to be returned should only embrace
such persons as have paid to the lrss-
surer Gin person" said poll taxes, and
that he should not embrace in the list
the names of those persons whose poll
taxes have been paid to him by q mes
senger or agent of the psriy sssesstd,
for there being but two ways for the
party TO pay this taxi. e., 10 person
or BY agent, and the law requiring the
return of q list of those only who have
paid "persOnally"-it seems to me that
it excludes from that list those who
have paid by agent.
The reasoning of the Court of Appeals
iu Tazewel vs.. Herman sustains, |
think, this view of the meaning of the
word personally" as used in section
2l Of the Const tuition. In thst case
the court says:
"Where a person is authorized to
make payment snd there is nothing
requiring that the payment shall be
made personally" be can make it
either in person, or through some friend
or agent, compensated or uncompensstsd,
upon the familiar principle that acts
done by one in behalf OF another are
valid if ratified either expressedly or by
implication" aud the cOu,t then goes
on to decide that in order to entitle a
person t. vote bis poll tax must be
personally paid, and states tbst the evil
sought to be remedied was the payment
of the poll tax of voters by other per-
sons than themselves. The court
nowhere refers to the estate or funds
from which the poll tax wss paid, but
- l. 70 CbioaNo Ifl-Gau