The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-09-27
the RIGHT To VOTE.

The Suprema Court OF Colorado in a ease
| PNrently decided held In an action against
common carrier that the failure Ut rail-
road COMPANY 80 carry the plaintiff - a
cert ain place and return him home IN time
TO vote NJ the general elertion. cau-tn
F., the loss OF the rlsint n's vote, could not be-
counted ~ an element OF damages whore
| hi- right TO vote uas not quest ionsd. and
hat no humtliat Ton or indignity Was offered
| him. since the defendants failure TO return
him in time was purely accidental.
IN. ,n-@ Was Morris " Colorado Md
Iaud RAILWAY. aud IN ~ decision he Court
-as
The rlsh' o'a lined slrctor 10 yotr T. neither
= uraprrN riEht nnr right Of per~oa Anderson
~ BAAer = Nid alI IS Cyc % ~. and authoh
~, quoted o. can IN SrnS- be said 20 b.
as>-i 10 commercial value n = n privilege be
stowe, BY law. which. although ~ paramount
importance i not such q privilege - can ~
measured or raid for Ia dollars ami csnts or
sp-cula,~d upon for pecuhlATy gain ~ %
liical privilege A. distng ul~hed from property
or personal right 10 u Only where the right
iisef hiss been assaied aud denied with a per
nriou- purpose mat q cause OF action arises
Tue damage 4 then Of An exemplary punitive
nature ,.i' a thu sViIdo-r for his ~ iscondurt
rather than a compensation 20 the marty nm
has suffered the loss y he NrnnE primarily b,
lgains' the puhHc, not The individual inc dam
,gr T. foT general protection. 20 deter Others
The court declares that in this case there
IL neither aVerment upon which 10 base
nor proof to support exemplary damage.
aud there 10 no proof OF actual damage eI-
cept the bare fact that the vote was lost
In general the law implies damage and per
mite recovery where one IL injured In re-
spect OF property or person - the result OF
negligence by another. however unintsn-
tional the injury. lt 10 otherwise where
am lnaaa y.nfa - H. l..,nR 81
other. unless the loes was occasioned by
design. In such q case malice IL the sist Of
the action. Not only must the party have
been deprived Of his vote but srIch result
must have been brought about through
vicious motive
The court continues
We have been unable To ind = single reported
caSr In which vote hAs brcn lost through alleged
breach OF contract Where's an attempt has becn
made 20 have the loss lnriudos element Of
damage In suit Foe such bresrh. has the am.
gence % NlEllant counsel b~en able ~ discover
one. White this fact l. not ooaciusive of the
right n i a. least persuasive 10 the belief that the
right does not sKiSt and surely not where the loss
SAs not dellb~rNtsly aud Wtlfuliy int-ntoned
CN~rs cited. except me hereinafter di~Ti~~e-i
Involve actions against elcctioa orlrcrs aud N In
iho~e ualic~ l. essential 70 give cause of action
all the more should this he true WHERE the suit :,
against party In purely private eaparity.
asarly in point - Grimm W RbinE ct al
~ Met Mass 11s'. where assessors failed
To assess properly Of plaintiff and thus
kept him on the list a. u qualified voter.
The plaintiff lost his vote the indirect
though logical and natural result Of the
failure OF the defendants to Assess his prop
ertv lie brought suit for this to-- alles-
ing failure and neglect on the part % the
assessors to perform their dutis- In the
face Of tS former decisions holding clect ION
judges liable for incorrect TeieCtinK \
vote. although done without malice the
Supreme Court ~ Massachusetts sharply
distinguished thi- ,a-- and denied liability
on he part of the assessors Chief Justice
shaw. writing the opinion. SAID
Inc cas- ~ suit against srlertu,en for refusing
ne vote ~ duaiined vot-r. and that ~ ass-ssors
neg'e~iinE ~ tsN ciusrn. ~ means - which ne
l. de'cicn' IN mo ~ ne qualifications Of vote.
NJ" manI'e.uN unite dis'nEulshAbIr In the
''-m"r the >ri"c'mcu srt directly unon The
uAr'E r.aln ~ righ' - vote witch - regarded
80 auAhl~ lrr>,n,. yighi and n he ,ot. l.
~ ~e'i suppr,lug Mn. ru'iiI-d 10 VOTE o. T. r.
sardei .n direct ioia ton ~ 'his personal
right iH' although A~s~~~prS owe q duty 90
their constituents and me public 20 asSrxs IA
Ipon rN'ry unr liable - taxation vet me riVht
- an indivii a. - - aS~d = not prI-ra f,rte
bcnr1ciNl right - him and by uniting him
they do him M direct wrong ~ n operaNs
Indirectly - deprive him Of = privilege before
must b. shown to he done Tor that some 9th er
sinister or wrong purpoSs
me court l. therefore ~ the ooinlon ;hA' the
asS"SSors are not liable 20 an action by an indi
fIsi mo IN fact Was liable 10 taxation for MS
rrnrrrty poll for simply omItunx 20 tsS him
unless " h. shown hat they omitted To "a, him
Nifuily purpoS~ly or with design 10 drnrive
him n hts vote or unleSs they had actual knowI.
edge ~ his nsbin'v ~ taSAtIon ~ ptain and Oh
F'uI- ihA' Sinister nu-no>s and WiIful omission
m az MIN In pGrsIancr u such purpose may
- reasonably inferred ~ a jury In such
cas-" ~ would be prupr- - leave he o., idsnre Ia
'url Win directions 10 md FOR ne nlaintin
y they shoId md hat the sss~>sors wifrIly
omitted - al no nlaintT ag him 20 ne
lisble tn 'AsAu"n for the purpose NJ drprI, lnS
him % his hight - vote or otherwise 20 iniurs
ana "pprrs- him
Tho Sfprems Court % Colorado con
dudes thar the Massa, hu ~atts Casa - "A
close parallel 10 the on. a. bar he,ause
There the court decided that unless tn.
plaIntn was omitted from the tan roll for
he purpose % deprvihR him Of hi vote
there could BE- no recovery In the case
a. bar. although the carrier agreed ~ get
The plsinttr HON" IN time TO vote there IL
no cau-. ~ action hecau~e such action vas
no' wilfil ~ brought about nv design
--
toasalaT Notes
1eraHss no price Of tnrrran rau c,tro, ~.