Evening journal., 1913-09-25

collector tax duplicate showing taxes
levied in June, 1913, and then payable by
the taNables. But taxable should not
be considered TO be delinquent until an
opportunity be afforded him to pay ms
tax. His qualification TO vote in June,
1918. was not dependent ON his having
paid tax which he had no sure oppor-
tunity TO pay until August, 1913. This
is a reasonable Interpretation to give the
qualifying statute II was but fair. and
therefore right. for The election officers
To adopt the assessment of 1912. when
gave larger aud more reasonable OPP
portunitv TO taNabic- 10 quality as
voters. than they wouid have had If the
assessment of 1918 had been used, ior N
the latter case they would have had only
three weeks time IN which 20 10 quality.
For these reasons. il seems clear that
the right assessment list was used.
Eligibility Discussed.
As Ia the eligibility of the several rcr'
son. named in the bill. there seems 60
be no rule applicable to all cf them. n
was the manifest object OF the law
under consideration 20 give 10 thc rr-i-
dent tlNpa yers of the town, win bear
The burden ol taxation. tii rigat 10 's.
eide whether the bones should be issued.
Two qualifications are imposed on
leach voter 0) residence; and t2l.
the payment OF all taxes assessed
against him The defendants urge
that there is another qualification,
viz. ihat the name of the voter must
appoar on tho assessment list as q
taxable. IN whose name property has
II been assessed and on which the tax
hoe A,r,, putd flfc fl
taking the act too literally and over
: looking. It's real purpose, as above
stated Unless a tax he assessed tC
/ him. i. e., i'm his name. and the tar
! be paid. a property owner resident
in the town is. according to this
view disqualified. The only princi'
pie Of general application in this case
is one which disapproves that con
lclusion
Qualification of Voters.
II is urged that the assessment
hist is the only sure guide and tha
lotherwise the election officers mus
decide questions Of law as TO title
Ito land, the respective rights Of trus
ltee and cestui que trust and thu
like. and that At the polls there 4
mo suitable opportunity to hear AM
decide such questions, which may b
complicated But there is nothini
Ito prevent them from ascertainini
lin advance Of the election day tn
lqualihcation of voters by means of al
lantecedent registration. or investiga
ltion by inquiries in doubtful cases, o
some other reasonable method. Thel
again there is no real reason why al
In. -. ,If.tht1ffsr rrlafrl
have in fact arisen, as appears IN tn
bill in this case. should not havl
been rightly determined by the cleo
tion officers at the polls on the da
of the election by the advice O
lcounsel. Endless confusion woul
not necessarily result from thi
course, and it would not be quite i'm
lpossible under such conditions to hol
lthc election, as claimed by the dc
Pendants counsel Besides, il woul
mot be Just TO a resident owner 0
Hand in the town 10 deprive him @
lhis opportunity to voice his wishe
effectively. because OF mistakes q
Others IN the manner Of assessing hi
property, over which mistakes he ha
mo control. A liberal. rather tina
"a strict rule OF qualification Of voter
representing property should preva
/ At an election when those who pa
the debts through the taxation O
. their property arc voting whether tn
! debts shall be contracted.
: II seems necessary. then, to col
: slider, apart from the contents Of Il
5 assessment list. the right of each {
the FIVE persons named in the bin
vote
! Allegations of Bit.
If the allegations OF the bill
: taken strictly, il may be held thi
il does not allege facts which sho
that either Sarah A. Cleaver, II
Dunlap. John Lang or Mary j. Gri
fenberg, we're qualified voters, for
is not shown that either Of them wei
residents of the town. or that IN
taxes assessed against the proI
, erty in which they claim an interei
, were paid Nor does IL show th;
their names we're on the assessmeI
list made in 1913 as taxablos. 81
, no point of this is made by counse
, who are seeking a just settlement an
Z not temporary advantage. whic
an amendment would cure. Bi
sides, if the complaints he CORE,
in urging that Hagan had no rigl
to vote. and his votes we're decisiN
, of the issue. then these inadeguaci,
of allegation are immaterial to a
/ feet the main result.
s Case Of Hagan.
AS 10 William A Hagan. Il al
pears that his name was on the al
scssment list as the owner of rel
estate in the town, and he vote
. though il was known TO the electiC
officers that on April q. 1913. whiC
I was two months prior to the ele
! tion. that he had sold and convey,
, the property; and further. that if h
( 90 votes cast in favor Of the issue
\ bonds had not been cast, the resu
!. would have been different The vot'
p should have been rejected. B
J. cause his name was on the list
;. owner. which he was not in fact {
c the day of the election. did not quail