The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-01-14

OPiniOI Oi N~tltcl JuSliCC A4toCi oOh ~ moves all doubt. Referring to the effect of the nineteenth amendment on the sur- frage sections of the Alabama constltu- tion, Chief Justice Anderson said;
 COURTS OPINION
 "The said amendment, by it's own force and effect strikes from section IF of our state constitution the word
 male as used in defining who are or may become electors as well as where used in other parts of our organic or statutory laws when used in connection with the right and qualification to vote and also strikes therefrom the use of the masculine pronoun wherever it ap- pears as to make the same include and applicable to both sexes. And as the said amendment prohibits a dis crimination against women by section TT, and perhaps other provisions of out state law, it likewise prohibits discrimination against men by sections IFS and f94 of our constitution, and has the same effect upon these provisions as to the elimination of the male sex when used in section TIT and other pro- visions.
 The result is that upon the final ratification of the nineteenth amend ment it had the effect of making our organic law as we'll as statutory laws @pFtiS"pic lo ilSIi dUu women. allKG ana placed all women in the state upon the same. footing with men and those who
 were over 21 years of age and under 45 prior to October l. 1920 were so to speak put in the same shoes of a man who became 21 years of age between
 the ratification of the amendment and said first day of October, 1920. Tn other
 words. if the man became liable to roli tax payable October l. 1920, and q p1 inuIIpnf ba f;rs,t of +1a February, the women who were over
 2l and under 45 years of age are like
 wise liable for said poll tax as a con- dltion precedent to tie right to vote
 in succeeding elections.'
 The decision of the supreme court means much hard work for the various tax collectors until midnight of Febru- afy l. Few women have pald their poll taxes, knowing a test had been made and there was serious doubt that they were due poll tax until October l. l92l. In a few counties, notably Mobile, the women's organizations voted to pay the poll tax any way realizing the money would be used in the education of the children whether rald under legal liability or not. The courts ruling was in the case of Mrs. Mary Lou Graves of Montgom- cry vs. A. H. Eubank, tax collector of Montgomery county. In order that the issue might be raised, the tax collector
 refused to accept the poll tax rendered by Mrs, Graves. She filed a petition for writ of mandamus requiring the
 acceptance of the money. The decis-
 ion of the supreme court will give all tax collectors full authority and will
 place upon them>the legal duty of col lecting the poll taxes from the new class of voters
 LIST OF DECISIONS The decisions announced by the su- 1 preme court Thursday follow:
 Anderson, c. J.-Maryland Casualty company vs. state of Alabama appeal from Montgomery circuit court af- firmed. Mary Lou Graves vs. A. H. Flu bank, tax collector, appeal from Mont
 gomery circuit court; reversed and re, manded. Louisville and Nashville Bail road company, ct al vs Eddie Heidt- mueller, administrator, appeal from Cullman circuit court; reversed and re- manded.
 Sayre, J.-Board of revenue of Jeffer- son county vs. city of Birmingham, ap- peal from Jefferson circuit court; re- versed and remanded. One Ford auto- ! mobile (Andy Alfred. claiman) vs state, appeal from M V. Henry vs state