172 POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



modified form, is probably the situation throughout the State of 

 Massachusetts. 



In Pennsylvania the State Constitution makes the payment of 

 a State or county tax, at least one month before election, a pre- 

 requisite to the exercise of suffrage ; and as the poll tax involves 

 the smallest amount of tax that a citizen could pay, it was ex- 

 pected that almost every man would pay it. But, in point of fact, 

 it was found that thousands of citizens neglected to do so, and the 

 political campaign committees, irrespective of party, recognizing 

 this fact, have adopted the policy of furnishing voters whom they 

 desired to influence with receipts for the payment of their poll 

 taxes ; and this practice has attained to such magnitude in recent 

 years, that the two leading party organizations in the city of 

 Philadelphia alone purchased in the year 1894 over ninety-five 

 thousand such receipts. Obviously this is a form of bribery which 

 is forbidden by the spirit if not by the letter of the law ; and to 

 meet such a situation of affairs the Legislature of Pennsylvania 

 has recently (1897) enacted a law forbidding the payment of a poll 

 tax by any other person than the elector against whom such tax 

 is assessed.* 



Neither of the judicial authorities above referred to seem to 

 have grasped the great principle essential to the continuance of 

 every truly free state that the poiver of taxation should not he in- 

 voked for police purposes, hut be strictly limited to the raising of 

 revenue to meet legitimate state expenditures. 



* During the American colonial period some attempts were made to compel the exercise 

 of suifrage by imposing a fine on citizens neglecting to vote at regular elections ; the fine 

 imposed in Maryland on citizens in default of such action having been one hundred pounds 

 of tobacco. But since the adoption of the Federal Constitution no legislation of like 

 character is believed to have taken place in any of the States until 1889, when Kansas City 

 adopted a charter provision imposing a tax of two dollars and a half on each citizen who 

 should fail to vote at a general election. This provision coming up for review before the 

 State courts of Missouri, was affirmed in the first instance by a Superior Court judge, who 

 took the ground that " in the enlightenment of the present age it is in the power of the State 

 to compel its voters to exercise the election franchise, and if the State can do so the city is 

 invested with the same power." After enumerating many things of an arbitrary nature that 

 are done to maintain good municipal government, the judge said that he could see no legal 

 objection to the use of the taxing power for the purpose of securing a full and perfect ex- 

 pression of public sentiment and the election of competent and worthy men to public offices. 

 The position was an advanced one, he admitted, but not an unreasonable one, in view of the 

 fact that " the highest type of government is attained when every voter casts his vote, and 

 that vote is counted just as it is cast." On an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, the 

 provision was, however, declared unconstitutional, the language of the decision being as 

 follows : " Taxes may be levied," it said, " in money or in services having a money value to 

 the public, and he who pays in money does not necessarily have to pay more or less than 

 he who pays in services, and vice versa, and it is upon this principle that these taxes are 

 upheld ; but who can estimate the money value to the public of a vote ? It is degrading 

 to the franchise to associate it with such an idea. The ballot of the humblest in the land 

 may mold the destiny of the nation for ages." 



