Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1909-04-01
THs POLL TAX DECISION.

must be given to the words personally
pay" as applied to the poll tax qualifi-
cation for voting. The opinion of the
court, by the use of many words, reach
es the very reasonable conclusion that
these words, personally pay" do not
mean that the individual voter is re-
quired to pay his poll taxes in physical
person to qualify him for voting. The
court declares that ne has a right to pay
such taxes in the ordinary business way,
by sending the money, a check, or a
postoffice money order through the
mails or by an agent to the treasurer.
but that such payment must come from
his own personal means.
This opinion of the court is based up
on the supposed intention of the franz
ers Of the State Constitution, rather
than upon the lack of authority or le-
gitimate power of convention to write
in the organic law a provision that
would not only be obnoxious to common
business transactions but contravene
the fundamental rights of citizens.
The Democratic press of the State is
giving its hearty approval to the ruling
of the Court of Appeals. This approval
is somewhat ludicrous in view of the
fact that the court, in its opinion, treats
suffrage as a right and not as privi-
lege. Heretofore the Democratic pa
pers have commended that suffrage was
privilege for which all good citizens
should be willing to pay the sum of one
dollar and a half per head per year.
This contention was made in support of
dhs iniquitous provision of the poll tax
qualification for voting. The court
speaking of the meaning of the words
personally pay" says:
Docs the use of these words in the
CO stiiution, where the right of fran
caise l. dealt with, mean that in order
20 enti5le citizen of the State to vote
ne must in person, in bodily presence,
pay to che treasurer of his city or coun-
y the coll taxes required of voter as
cond' ion precedent to his right to
-agister and vote, or do these words
mean only that the tax must be paid by
She voter out Of his own estate or
means, and not by another out of that
jther's estate or means?'
The court held that the intention of
he makers of the Constitution was to
require voters to pay their poll taxes
With their own means, and to prevent
politicians from bribing voters by
paying their taxes for them. The court,
speaking of Article II of the Constitu-
ton, says:
at was unquestionably the purpose
of that article to exclude from the cleo
torate Of the State that class of citizens
who are not entitled to have the right of
franchise by reason of not having suf-
ticient evidence of permanent common
Interest with, and attachment to, the
community (Sec. 6, Bill of Rights
The court holds that it was the inten-
ton of the Constitu tional Convention to
exclude from the class of citizens de-
clared in the Bill of Rights to be en-
titled to the right of franchise, only
those registered voters who permit
others to pay their poll taxes for them
for corrupt and illegal purposes. 1t also
holds that it was not the intention of
chat able body of men who framed the
Constitution to make it even possible
that hundreds and thousands of the
best citizens of our State may be de-
prived of their right of franchise. ="
From such lamentable result in thou
sands Of instances there would be no
escape, if the word personally used in
the Constitution be restricted to in
propria persona.
So, we have the Supreme Court of
the State holding that Constitutional
Convention had authority to treat a j
fundamental right as privilege, apd
extend that privilege to only those yho,
according to their view, have sufficient
common interest, ETC." The section of
tie Bill of Rights quoted from reads as
follows:
"Sec. 6. That all elections ought to
free; and that all men, having suffi-
lent evidence of permanent common
interest with, and attachment to, the
community, have the right of suffrage,
and cannot be taxed, or deprived Of, or