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

| Inc supreme Court OF Oolora0O IN q Caoe
recently decided held in an action against a
common carrier that the failure OF a rail-
road company TO carry the plaintiff TO q
certain place and return him home IN tune
TO vote At the general election. causin 9
| tho loss Of the plaintiffs vote. could not DO
counted a. an element OF damages where
his right to vote was not questioned. and
that no humiliation or indignity was offered
him. since the defendants failure TO return
him Ia time Was purely accidental
The ease was Morris W. Colorado Md
land Railway. and in its decision the Court
J said
The right Of qua lined elector TO vote Il neither
= property right nor . right Of person SADder>on
- Baker. - Nd 81. Is eve n. IN and authori .
! ties quoted 10 can In no sense be aid % be
asNrt % commercial value. u Il privilege be
importance Il not such privilege IS can be
measured paid for IN dollars and eents OF
specuated upoa for pecuniary gain. 10 Il po.
litica privilege a. disting uiShed nom a property
ur personal right 10 II Only where the right
i,ssh has beea assaulted and denied with . per
ulclous purpose that . cause % actiuh arises
The damage Il then % an exemplary or punitive
nAiure. visited the eytldoer for bis mIscOnduct
rather than a. . compensation TO the party Uho
has suffered the loss I he wrong primarily Il
against me pubic. no, the individual The darn
age 10 for general prosectioa. 20 deter others
from the commission % like offences
The Court declares that in this case there
II neither averment upon which to base
nor proof TO support exemplary damage
and there ~ no proof OF actual damage ex-
cept the bare fact that the vote was lost
In general the law implies damage and per-
mlts recovery where one IL Injured IN re-
spect OF property or person IS the result %
negligence by another. however uninten-
,ional the injury. IL IL otherwise where
one loses his vote through the fault Of an
other, unless the loes was occasioned by
design In snch . case malice IL the gist OF
the action. Not only must the party have
been deprived of bis vote but slch result
must have been brought about through
vicious motive
The Court continues
We have been unable IN md q single reposted
case IN which vote has been lost through alleged
breach of ropuaet where an attempt has been
msde 60 have the loss included as an slsmeat Of
dATsge In suit for such breach. nor has the diIi.
Sencs Of vigilAni counsel oeea able 10 discover
one. While thia fact l. not conclusive % the
rght u Il 81 east persuasive the belief mat the
right DOES not eHiSL and surely not where the loss
vas M, deliberately and Wilfully inten TONED
Cases eited. except one hereinafter discussed
iaVolVe actions against election ofneers ana ~ In
tho~e malice IL essential To give cause Of aeilon
all the more should this be true where the snit ..
against . party IN purely private capacity.
The case referred to by tho court as moat
nearly In point 10 Grimm vs. Rising 81 al
III Met" Mas. 400. whore aasessora failed
to assers property OF plaintiff and thus
kept him Oh tho list a. a quaIihed voter.
The plaintiff lost his vote as the indirect
though logical and natural result Of the
failure OF the defendants TO asse-s his prop
ery lie brought suit for this loas. aileg-
log failure and neglect on the part OF the |
assessors to perform their duties In the
lace OF iis former decisions holding elec ton |
Judges liable for Incorrectly rejecting q
vote. although done without malice the
supreme Court Of Massachusetts sharply
dls'in guished this case and denied liability |
on The part 81 The assessors Chief Justice |
shaw. writing the opinion. said
The case q q srit aEaInS' selectmsn 20, refusing
the vote Of quAlined voter and that % as.~~-or.
aesIeeuhS 10 tas . ciuSsn. by neans ~ witch n.
Is denelcn' IN one ~ the qualifications Of a voter
are mAhifestiN pTite dis'lnauishable In the
'or1asr 'he 'eler'n~n sct directly upon the
pArN- claim ~ right % vote Nhich = REGARDED
- a 'aiIable personal right AMI ~ his vote i
refused. snpposlng him Entitled 20 vote n i r.
Ssrasd In Av AsA direct ,ipI,'l,n - his personal
ght nut although sS>r~>u-S uHr a duty "a |
'hsir consult snts ant mo public "a ass-ss taS
Ipon every ono uAbI- To- - Nation vet the rtght
n an tndiS ~ - b~ 'As-I Z. not prtn, ,.rtr |
beneficial Tighi 10 him aud bN emitting him |
.Aey do him nO direct wrong 10 u op~Tass
Indirectly - deprive him ~ rri,ii~v-. h~ror-
nn-t Ne shown IN he done for that OF some oth er
'in-trT ~ wrong puTpOse
Inc count IL therefore % the oplntoa tha, the |
,s-esssr- are not liable TO an action by IN ,adI
ihuAl who IN fact vas Habl- 70 taxation for III,
property ~ poi for simply onlttins TO ts1 him
ihless u b sho~a that they omitted to tat him
Sihuily. purpo-~ly Win design to deprtYe
lin Of his vote. or unless hey had actual kooul.
'dss of ME HaOiity N taxation - plain aad oh
tors hat sinister purpose and Wtl'Ii nni.sioa
q Ah MIN In pursuance ~ such purpose may |
y reasonably Inferred by Jury IN such |
Ase u would 10 prope- to IrA,e the evidence 20 |
igrH. Win dlrrr'ions 20 md for the plsinttn
2 hoy should md hat me As>essors wtIftty
."ritt-i o. tAN nc plslnu-. knowing hifn To b.
'aole - 'aAstion f1r the purpose af d~pTtyinr |
I'm Of his tixht ~ vote or OsherE'sr - in,urs
ND Oppr~ss him
The supreme Court Of Colorado con.
ludes that tho Massachusetts cas-. - a
lose parallel TO the one a. bar. becaus.
here the court decided that unless ~.
'lain'tn vas omitted from the taI roll for
he DurpO~e ot depriVing him Of his vote
here could hs no recovery In the cas-.
4 bar. although the carrier agreed to re,
he plalniin home In time 10 vote there il
10 cause 81 aCtiOn because such action vas
lot wilful or brought about nv desKn !
----