Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1916-03-02
DELINQUENT TAX
PAYERS QUESTION
IN SUPREME COURT
Decision Expected To-day Bear.
ing on Rights of Freeman
to Vote on the Two
Refcrcndums.

Montpelier. Feb. 2s--Suprcme court,
convened in a special term for the ex-
press purpose of deciding whether dclin-
oucnt taxpayers arc entitled to vote ON
the two refcrondums, the primary cleo
ton bill and the Perry prohibitory meas
IRE, took recess at three o'clock this
n afternoon after listening to arguments
on the petition brought by Thomas w.
Martin against the board of civil author
ity of the town Of Brookliold for writ
Of mandamus to compel tho board 20
place his name on the check list. until
nine O'Clock tomorrow morning, when,
it. is expected. a decision will he given.
Lieut. Gov. Hale *. Darling represented
the petitioner and Attorney John n.
Harvey of Barre the Brookcld author-
tics. each taking half hour in which
to present his argument.
Lieut.. Governor Darling held that the
vote on the primary bill or Perry meas
urc, which are Identical as relating to
the method OF voting, could not he legal
unless submitted TO the class Of people
to be affected by the enactmcnts. lie
said that the petitioner was duly
qualified freeman who had resided in the
town for 10 or f. years, but had failed
to pay his taxes before February 10,
1916 He said that the sole question re-
lated to the qualifications of a voter on
the rcferendums, and argued that 1t is
a Statewide, not a town meeting, propo-
sition.
He referred to the years of 80 aud
1909 when, in the former instance pro-
hibition was first introduced in the state,
and when the local option law WIS en-
acted and submitted the proposition that
the LEGISLATURE would NOT have been UNI
fair and fail to allow the same class of
voters to register their opinion on TIN
same question at this tim" as in those
wears lie said the fact that the questions
were to be voted on town meeting daN
instead Of on a special date did not
decide the qualifications of the voter and
the date was set as a matter of con
vcnience. Arguments were also made
| to show that general election and free
mans meeting meant tn" same thing. the
words having been changed in 1907 when
| the statutes were revised.
Attorney Harvey took up the Perry
bill first. because he said it was
passed by tho Legislature before the
primary bill. and then went on to show
that the sections relating to the form
of ballotinG were taken from the ref
lercndums voted upon in 1919, the
state House referendum and the pri-
mary bill. He pointed out that those
referendum measures failed to mon
ton anything about freeman ano
that only persons qualified to vote II
a town meeting registered their opin
ion on the bills. The Legislature o
1915 had precedents upon which t
base the present rcfcrcndums and in
stead of specifying that freemcn Wer
to be allowed to vote chose to lnser
the same sections as in the 1913 meas
ures. He believed that if the las
, General Assembly had meant to haN
had "A general election that the legls
lators would have named the town OF
ficials who have to take part in sue
ran election to make it legal 1t wa
his argument that the Legislature in
tended only tax paying iHcem'n I
vote on the refcrondums and felt tina
the acts indicated their intent
In replying to his opponents contention
Attorney Daring said that in 1913 littl
interest was taken in the State House rel
erendum and the question Of who Shout
vote was not brought mp. He disposed G
the 1913 vote on the primary by sayin
that it was simply a straw vote take
to obtain the sentiment of the people
chief Justice Munson said at the concll
sion of the arguments that court Woul
come in a. nine o'clock tomorrow fore
noon,