Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER VIII.

TAXES AND SUFFRAGE.

From the principle laid down in cases already cited, that the legislature cannot add to the qualifications or restrictions imposed by the constitution on the exercise of suffrage, it follows that the payment of a tax can be made a prerequisite to the right to vote only in those states whose constitutions contain provisions of that character. Some of the state constitutions contain such provisions, and they have given rise to litigation.

The old Pennsylvania constitution provided that every freeman, of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the state two years next before the election, and within that time paid a state or county tax, which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election, shall enjoy the right of an elector." In Catlin v. Smith the plaintiff brought action against an election officer of Philadelphia for refusing his vote. The declaration set forth his qualifications as to residence, and alleged that he caused himself to be assessed on the 29th of October, for a tax that had been laid on the county, but not assessed on him, six months before, and that having paid the tax on the 29th of October, he offered to vote the next day, but that his vote was re

[ocr errors]

jected. The court held that the rejection of the vote was right; that to entitle a citizen, otherwise qualified, to vote, the tax must be assessed on him individually at least six months preceding the election.1 The present constitution of Pennsylvania provides, as to all persons of twenty-two years of age and upwards, that to entitle them to vote, they shall have paid within two years a state and county tax, which shall have been assessed

1. Catlin v. Smith, 2 Sergeant and Rawle, Pa., 267. Three opinions were read. Tilghman, C. J., said: "Why was an assessment, six months prior to the election, deemed necessary? It was not merely to induce the citizens to pay their taxes; the object was of more importance; it was to secure peace and certainty, and prevent tumult and confusion at elections. Six months before the election, when the passions were not inflamed with the approaching contest, every man might give in his name to the assessors, and thus a register would be formed, showing, with certainty, every person 'who was entitled to vote;' but as the election drew near, the minds of men became heated, and great exertions were made, attended often with tumult, to procure votes, by causing persons who had no property to be assessed. I believe this often took place on the day of election, involved the inspectors and judges in difficulties, for want of time to ascertain the qualifications of men thus suddenly brought to the polls, and, of course, was productive of altercation and hot blood. These were the evils to be prevented; and they will be prevented if no person is permitted to vote unless the tax was assessed on him six months before the election." Yates, J., putting it on another ground, said: “The object of these special provisions unquestionably was, in the language of the old constitution, to allow only those to give their suffrages who 'had a sufficient evident common interst with and attachment to the community,' and who, therefore, must necessarily participate in the prosperous or adverse fortunes of the republic." And Brackenridge, J., speaking of the object of the taxation clause and the policy it was designed to subserve, says: "It must have been to provide against the very thing that has here happened, a moneyed man procuring votes, on the spur of the occasion, by getting individuals assessed and paying a tax for them. In this point of view, it is anti-republican, and I am inclined to reject a construction that will have that operation."

at least two months, and paid at least one month, before the election. The phraseology of this provision keeps it within the principle of the decision quoted from Catlin v. Smith.

The case of Humphrey v. Kingman decides that the payment of state and county tax, by one otherwise qualified, entitles him to vote, though such taxes were illegally assessed upon him;1 and in Draper.v. Johnson it was decided that, although a tax assessed upon one person, be be paid for him by another without previous authority, yet if the person assessed acknowledge the act and engage to refund the person paying, he acquires the right to vote as fully as if he had paid it with his own hand.2 But where it appeared that the person from whom a tax on land was first claimed, refused to pay, denying that he owned the land, and afterwards, the tax having been paid by the owner, refunded it without acknowledging his liability, but merely for the purpose of voting, his right to vote was denied.

In Massachusetts it is held that persons exempted from the payment of poll taxes by reason of old age, are not entitled to vote, unless they have paid a property tax.3

1. Humphrey v. Kingman, 5 Met., 162.

2. Draper v. Johnson, 1 Cong. Elect. Cases, 702.

. 3. Opinion of Judges, 5 Met., 591.

« PreviousContinue »