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

No@S0N IN enSn property Tor puDkc
uses, without their own consent, or that
of their representatives duly elected,
or bound by any law to which they have
not, in ike manner, assented for the
public good"
This section of the Bill of Rights the
Court of Appeals finds attaches suf-
frage as right to class of citizens.
What class? All men having suffi-
cient evidence of permanent common
interest with, and attachment to the
community" The late Constitutional
Convention assumed authority to say
that only such men in Virginia as were
able and willing to pay for the privi-
lege should exercise the sacred funda-
mental right of suffrage bestowed on cit
liens by the Bill of Rights. This conven-
ton, in the making of the new suffrage
laws, violated every principle of the sec
ton of the Bill of Rights quoted above
How can suffrage be treated and
acknowledged as fundamental right
acquired by and attached to citizenship.
II it can be lightly transformed by
usurping legislative body into a privi-
lege-to be sold to and exercised by a
preferred class of citizens? This trans
formation has been undertaken by the
late Constitutional Convention through
the use of an arbitrary and partisan
misinterpretation of what the Bill of
Rights declares is evidence of good
citizenship.
By the making of the prepayment of
poll tax prerequisite to voting those
who are disfranchised by the provision
are put in a position to be taxed with
out their consent, the prepayment also
being requisite to registering. This is
clearly another violation of the Bill of
Rights. The disfranchis ed citizens are
also forced to obey laws to which they
have not assented for the public good
which is still another violation of the
Bill of Rights. This outrageous infrac
ton of the fundamental rights of citi-
zens was emphasized by the proclama-
ton of the Constitution which arbitra-
rily deprived them of their most val
liable right. the right to vote, instead
Of securing their consent thereto by
submission to the people for ratifca-
ton or rejection.
The Court of Appeals very glibly
quotes the Bill of Rights to show that
it was not the intention of the trainers
of the Constitution to deprive thou
sands of citizens of the franchise by
requiring them to pay their poll taxes
IN physical person In arriving at this
conclusion they were greatly aided BY
the argument of the Attorney General
of Virginia, VIM. A. Anderson. who
was a member of the Constitutional
Convention and helped to frame the
suffrage laws. The Court adopted his
views as TO the intention of the fran
ers as to what construction should be
put upon the words personally pay
And the court asserts that the purpose
Of the clause was to prevent bribery.
Suppose the court had pursued that
question Of bribery a little further and
investigated more closely into the real
purposes Of the poll tax qualification
for voting? How would it have con-
strued that part of Sec. % of the Con-
stitution which says: 1.-The collection
of the State poll tax assessed against
any one shall not be enforced by
legal process until the same has become
three years past due" Here is a pre-
MUM. a bride offered to voters to
disqualify or disfranchise themselves
by neglecting to pay their poll taxes.
Can there be any doubt of the vicious
intention of this clause? Is it not in
tended to reduce the electorate by hav-
ing men avail themselves of what is
pretended to be a benevolent stay law,
but what is in reality a certain vote
killer?
The pretense has been made that the
suffrage laws of the new Constitution
were framed for the purpose of purify
ing the electorate. This is not true.
The chief object was to so fix them as
to make the State permanently Demo-
cratic. That is why the drastic regis
tration laws were supplemented by COM
pick provisions making the poll tax
qualification. Attorney General Ander-