The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-09-24

comSistes of thss aas boSs had prosidsS the first primary showed that Messrs. :. Ftnkles. Farish and Rawls had each received approximately three hundred votes. Ffnklea and Parish then be- came entrymen for the second primary. After beginning the contest. however MT. Finklea became convinced ql m sne cratic nominee for Tax Assessor. inas-
 much as. according to his contenuon:
 the Democratic State Convention had
 pss%ary S,.n the ss sssy S0 Mas
 urged upon the Chairman Of the the called a meeting of that body Mr recognixsd as the nominee of the party and the second primary was declared MT. Finkisa. although about go years of age, was in the predicament of having paid only the poll tax Tor
 the year 1907. However. he paid up all arrearages in october, 1905, just
 eral months after the primary in which
 not not paid ali poll taxes due from him
 on or before Feb. l. next preceding the election. Mr. Parish instituted con test proceedings on the ground that
 Mfr. Finkiea was ineligible to office; and, on appeal. the Supreme Court held
 that MT. Finklea not eligible ,ha ,,,n. to tns ne
 the general election. The election was not declared void, however, but the
 contest proceedings were oismlsseo, because it was held that, inasmuch as the law provided for contest in the name of qualified elector only, Far l fsh could not maintain the action, as he had not paid all poll taxes due from him.
 At the time of the contest. and also
 both the primary and general elec-
 tions. MT. Parish had paid prior to
 Feb. ], 1908. the year of the sn, election: or.
 the fractional part of the year 1903, beginning June 26, 1908, when no be-
 came 2l years. and ending Sept. 30.
 MT. Justice sayre handed down the April 2l. 1909. Chief Justice Dowdell and Justices Anderson and Mcclellan
 resenting MT. Parish applied for . re-
 hearing. urging that poll tax for fractional part of a year was not con
 templated by the Constitution Of l; lsoi, the legislative construction of the Constitution, as emb odied in the Act of
 1907. Section {, which provided that
 One coming of age sos sfss ter sss for
 the fractional part of the year ending September 30. thereafter. This section of the statute could only be iegisla- I1V6 COnStEuCtiOu OI tuc SOh01sAst~Ht for otherwise 1t would be an endeavor to raise the minimum age limit hxed by the Constitution, and thus would contravene It's terms. Justice Sayre said: section can have no effect to change the meaning or operation of the Constitution"
 On May Il. 1909. the Supreme Court denied the rehearing. MT. Justice Sayre adhering to his former opinion, but dissenting opinion was filed by MT: Justice Denson, which was concurred in by Justices Simpson and McCielian.
 We thus have a divided court on this question, three of the justices holding that MT. Parish was qualihed, because
 no poll tax was due for the fracuonal part of the year. However, the opln- ion stands the law of the State. end no young man should be mislead into voting and thus commit felony.
 Tn view of the importance or the question, I have subjoined copy ot contestant's brief on the application for rehearing. and also the opinion and dissenting opinion of the Justices Of the Supreme Cour>. If The Adver. tiser can spare the space, one can o1. tain a ciearer conception of the points raised in the brief and the questions decided by the Supreme Court
 Nfonroeyille, Ala. Sept. 22. 1s0s.