Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1911-09-15

lile with the Corporation Court OF the |
City of Staunton, list of all per-
sons in his city who had paid the |
State poll taxes required b ythe Con-
stitution of this State, arranged al
by wards, stating the
white and colored persons separate
", and verified by the oath OF the
said Treasurer:
"It thus appears that the exact
question in issue now was present.
ed then. Although the issue re-
NAMED the same, the position of the
parties has changed.
ITO the petition of 1909 a demur-
rer was filed prepared by able coun-
sci, among whom were counsel for
contestants here. The defendants
there meeting the claim of contest
ant as hereinbefore set out, said that
said position was not sound "be-
cause the Twelfth" allegation in
said complaint that the treasurer of
the City of Staunton did not at least
five months before the last preced-
ing regular election prior to the said
election on July %, 1909, file with
the Corporation Court of the City of
Staunton list of all persons in this
city who had paid not later than six
months prior to said election the
State pol taxes required by the Con-
stitution of this State during the
three years next preceding the year
in which said last preceding election
was held arranged alphabetically by
wards stating the white and colored
persons separately and verified by
the oath of said Treasurer, and that
/ the said treasurer of the City of
Staunton did not at any time prior
to the said 22nd day of July, 1909,
Gle with the Corporation Court of
the City of Staunton list of all per-
sons in his city who had paid the
| state poll taxes required by the Con-
Constitution of this State arranged
alphabetically by wards stating the
white and colored persons separate
ly and verified by the oath of the
said treasurer, does not state any
good and sufficient ground for set
ting aside or annulling the said cleo
ton. But, if the said treauserer Of
said city did not file list of all per
sons in said city who had paid theil
state poll taxes, as required by the
Constitution of this state and thu
statutes and as above stated, and thi
fact disqualified all persons in thi
ity from voting, then the said com
plainantsa were disqualified from fill
ing said complaint and contestin!
said election, and these defendant
for this reason also here demur t.
said complaint"
1.-THE defendants here make tn
same objection to the claim of pet
TONERS that the foregoing quotation
shows the defendants made to tn
petition of 1909.
'This court is therefore Gale
upon to decide the same issue tina
it decided two years ago. Its de
cision in that case was reduced t
writing, and is as follows:
cit is next said that the treasure
= of the City of Staunton did not, 6
: any time prior to this election, eitl
err prepare or publish the list {
qualified voters who had prepare
2 their poll taxes according to law.
The substance of this charge i
hat there were no qualified voters
the City of Staunton, if we disregar
the numerically unimportant nun
Der of old soldiers who may vote.
we assume, for the sake of argumen
that this provision of law is not
y trectory but mandatory, then petition
ers themselves have no right
g maintain this proceeding. The ST
tute requires that they themselvt
10 must be qualified voters They al
Il stopped from denying that they ar
Il when they are asking for the reli
= sought here. They might, had the
S Jeen so advised, in some other ma
1t ner resisted the results which tn
IL election upon it's face indicate
It should follow; but they cannot
ID it here. The demurrer to this spec
l. fcation must be sustained
d I'VE know of no reason for d
le parting from the position then take
N We believe that the law today is
4 we believed it was two years ago
re "The proceedings governing loo
IN option elections are statutory. Su,
r, elections are had upon the petite
a. of qualified voters This mu
II mean that those men at whose i
10 stance the election is ordered, m;
ID vote in it. 1t is further provid,
IS that it's results when held may
IL contested by fifteen qualified VIC
n ers." Qualified voters here mu
Or carry the same meaning that
1, carries when provision is made f
i'd petition asking that elections be G
Of dered. Since this is statutory pr
~ ceeding any petition filed by tho
lie who do not come within it's provisi,
OF must be dismissed. If petitione
Mt mere do come within this provision
lie this statute, then those who vot
e. at the election of August the list we
e. also qualified voters because, as
of have seen, it is admitted that the
re petitioners possess no qualificati
r save those possessed by every vot
e. in the land.
rs "The conclusions here reached a
I'd those which were reached by Jud
ne Campbell of the Circuit Court
n Franklin county in a local opti
ed election contest held in that coun
is in 1909. He there said:
ed If this contention is sound a,
S. Preston's name was not on sa