Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-03-11

effect has been entirely misunder-
stood. For never before has II becn
regarded m applicable to elections
generally. School elections have never
been conducted with any regard to
It. Indeed. that tho Legislature OF the
state never regarded the act an appii-
cable TO school elections In manifest
from tho fact that for many years
women were admitted to the suffrage
at school elections. If voters Mt
school elections were required by the
act In question to be registered. az In
now commended. the curious fact |
stands out, viz: That the act does not |
permit the registration OF women UNI
der any circumstances. This cir |
cumstancc clearly shows that tho
Legislature has never regarded tho
general registration law ns applicable
to school elections.
Furthermore. rs showing ths legis- |
lntlve view that tho general registra-
ton law IL not applicable. to elections
generally, II IL to be noted that on the
various occasions when the question
of the licensing OF the manufacture
and sale OF intoxicating liquors has
been submitted to the people under
tho local option provisions of our
Constitution, In each instance tho
Legislature has specifically provided
for u registration OF the voters prcli-
minary To tho election. Tho law also
provides for special registration for
special elections to iii vacancies In
certain offices. If the general regis
tration law were applicable to all
elections. II might be said that there
was no reason why the Legislature
should have provided for special regis
trations I'm the instances just referred
to.
But Il may be said that nothing
can be dcduced from this except that
for particular reasons OF policy tho
Legislature saw tit In the instances
named not TO rely on the general net,
but to require II special registration.
However this may he, tho general
act itself contains evidence within It
self that II was never intended to
apply generally To all sorts of cleo
lions. IL IL does SO apply, Il can only
be by Implication But all the I'm
plications are to the contrary In the
hrst place. there Is no express pro-
vision extending It to elections gen
orally. referring especially TO school
elections. there Is no machinery for
placing the registration books I'm the
hands OF officers who held school cleo
tons. Registration Is arranged for
and recorded In books by election dis
trlcts. and such districts do not have
their boundaries CUterminous with
school districts. Some OF the school dis
, tricts Of the state In fact spread over
, portions Of more than one election dis
. trict. This situation would leave the
, question OF a voters right 20 vote at
, a school election In pals, subject to
proof I'm each instance outside OF the
registration book. a circumstance not
consonant with the general theory OF
, the registration law. Is Il reason
, able, therefore. to suppose that the
registration act was meant to apply
to school elections? shall not
lengthen this opinion with an analysis
OF the general registration net for tho
purpose of showing why by it's own
, terms II cannot be said that Il Ia i'm
- phedly applicable to school elections
p In this state. careful reading of its
, provisions indicates clearly that Il
, was never intended TO apply TO such
elections.
q Il hold that a qualified voter' with
q IN tho meaning or the school law
- lChaptcr $50. Volume 80. Laws of
6 Delaware) does not moan a register
, ed voter under tho constitution and
laws OF this state
!, The seventy-eight voters who are
g, said not 20 have been qualified to vote
;. at the school election at Claymont
having no disqualification other than
a the alleged one OF not being registered
: were entitled. therefore. to have their
votes counted. This being so. the
!, motion To discharge the rule should
be granted and the demurrer to the
bill should be sustained.
1t was also urged that the co,,r,
4 Is without Jurisdiction. As was said
I AT the outset. this objection should
Il logically be disposed of first. For I,
. sustained. the other objection need no,
be considered. notwithstanding
mink the objection to the Jurisdiction
A is well taken, l nevertheless. In vie,,
q or the immediate importance OF the
y main question. deemed 1t best TO stat,
"a my views with respect thereto. Tn,
= more was / inclined 10 pursue tbi,
!, course. because II tho complainant
i should desire to appeal 10 the Suprem,
& Court. he can. in case the Suprem,
= court should sustain the Jurisdiction
r then secure final decision on tn,
- main question.
o. IT Is well 10 again mention the fac
n That the tax complained against I,
q not averred to have been assesse,
a against real estate. Nor is Il ayerr.,
! to have been assessed against persona
.e property. The bill and It's exhibit,
70 fail to disclose the nature OF IN,
N property assessed. Solicitors for III,
complainant. however. argued the cas-,
y on the theory that the pleadings pre-
:, sent case az tax assessed on rsa
3 property. Though this assumption &
- erroneous. yet shall accept II as truc
D. Tor j assume that the facts would war
oil Continued on page 10.