The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1916-03-02

SouIt aoloS Unanimously That Logis-
| latCre Intended an Freemen to TX
press Wishes by Vote on Questions
of Statewide Importance.
MONTPELIER, March ?. - The pay
ment or non-payment of taxes is not a
qualification for voting on questions
of statewide importance in Vermont.
The constitutional rights of the citi-
zens TO exercise the right of suffrage.
regardless of what the legislature NAV
do in the way of enaeting laws TO the
contrary, are safeguarded in a decision
handed down late last evening by the
Vermont supreme court The decision,
prepared by Justice John N. Watson.
Is eoncurred in by the full bench.
/ Thomas Martin, who had not paid his
taxes on Feb. 10 Of the present year,
petitioned the supreme court to issue a
writ Of mandamus to compel the board
of civil authority in the town Of Brook
field to put his name on the check list.
The board had been guided by an act
Of the legislature which would dis
franchise delinquent taxpayers.
7 In letter to Secretary Of State Guy
w. Bailey, two days too late to per
NIT voters to take advantage of the
opinion, Attorney General Herbert G.
Barber of Brattleboro held that failure
to pay taxes on or before Feb. Is dis
franchised voters.
The board of civil authority in
Montpelier went on record as disre-
garding the opinion Of the attorney
general and the boards in other places
announced that non-payment Of taxes
would not disfranehise a voter from ex-
pressing his opinion, through the bal
lot, on the two statewide referendums
TO be voted upon next Tuesday. the
Perry prohibitory act and the direct
/ primary measure.
\ special session OF the supreme
court was convened Monday and argu-
ments were made for and against the
petition of the Brookfield man who de-
manded that he be allowed to vote not
withstanding that he was a delinquent
taxpayer. Following is the full opinion
Of the supreme court:
IAe opinion IN Full.
Thomas W. Martin vs. c. Z. Fullam
and other members Of the board OF
civil authority of the town Of Brook
field, opinion by Justice Watson.
Each, the primary act AMI the pro-
hlbitorv act, is n public law relating
to a public subject affecting alike the
entire state. The subject matter OF
each is one in which. from q legal
S41nIrnfn~ ha ~~
state are equally interested. Each act
has become a law to take effect at
future time irrespective of what the
result of the vote on the question sub
mitted by the referendum may be, but
the time of taking effect is contingent
upon the result Of such a yotei The
subject matter Of each enactment is Of
such public importance that the legis-
lature in its wisdom, deemed il ad-
visable IN this manner 10 ascertain the
real public opinion concerning the act,
and upon that public opinion as it NAV
be expressed in the way provided for
was made to depend which OF the two
times specified the act shall take ef-
feet. Such, in short, being the nature
and importance of the act. was IL the
intention of the legislature TO get such
an expression of opinion BY vote OF all
the freemen of the state. all Of whom
are equally interested therein, or was
1t the intention of the legislature TO
get such an expression of opinion from
those only who by law are entitled 70
vote in town meetings on matters re-
Iating exclusively TO the town or city
In which the votes are eivens If the
latter and not the former was the in
tention, then II was the purpose OF the
Legislature TO get an expression Of
ioplnlon concerning the two public acts
OF statewide interest and Importance.
from portion only Of the freemen ~
the state, excluding from the privilege
OF expressing such an opinion 4 Dor
ton of the freemen because. and only
because, they failed TO comply with a
law affecting so far as the individual
freeman IS concerned the interest Of
the particular town or city in which
he resides. While it NAV not be a
constitutional privilege to vote upon
these two questions submitted bv Che
legislature, il would not be going FAR
astray TO say that when such an ex-
preston of opinion by way of referen-
dunn IS provided for by the Legislature
1t becomes public privilege OF free
men or the state TO have the right OF
expression of opinion thereon. II II
may properly be elassed as such priv
hege, then to deny a freeman the
rl9ht TO vote thereon in the manner
gwen to other freemen OF the state
Tor some reason not recognized BY the
constitution, raises the grave question
whether his constitutional rights are