if he be personally present in a place and elect that as his home, even if he never design to remain there always, but design at the end of some short time to remove and acquire another. A clergyman of the Methodist church who is settled for two years may surely make his home for two years with his flock, although he means, at the end of that period, to remove and gain another. So of the principle upon which the contestant most relics in the present case. He claims and many expressions can be found used by commentators and in judicial decisions which seem to support the claim--that personal presence in a place with intent to remain there only for a limited time and for the accomplishment of a temporary purpose, and to depart when that purpose is accomplished, will not constitute a residence. This is true as a general rule. It is true of those persons, probably the greater number, who, while so present and engaged in business, have some other principal seat of their interests and affections elsewhere. Most men have some permanent home, the claims of which outweigh those of a place of temporary sojourn. The place where a man's property is, where his family is, the place to which he goes back from time to time whenever no temporary occasion calls him elsewhere, the domicile of his origin, where the permanent and ordinary business of his life is conducted that is to the ordinary man the place of his home. But we are now dealing with a class of persons who have no property, who have no family, or whose family moves with them from place to place, who have no place to return to from temporary absences, the domicile of whose origin is in another country, and has been in the most solemn manner renounced, and the ordinary business of whose life consists in successive temporary employments in different places. Suppose a man, single, with no property, to come from Ireland and be employed all his life on railroads or other like works in different places in succession. If he does not acquire a residence he can never become a citizen, because he never would reside in this country at all. It seems to us that to such persons the general rule above stated does not apply, where a man who has no interests or relations in life which afford a presumption that his home is elsewhere, comes into an election district for the purpose of working on a railroad for a definite or an indefinite period, being without family, or having his family with him, expecting that the question whether he shall remain or go elsewhere is to depend upon the chances of his obtaining work, having abandoned both in fact and in intention all former residences, and intends to make that his home while his work lasts—that will constitute his residence, both for the purpose of such jurisdiction over him as residence confers, and for the purpose of exercising his privileges as a citizen. Of course the intent above supposed must be in good faith, and an intent to make such district the home for all purposes. The party's intent to vote in the district where he is, he knowing all the time that his home is elsewhere, will not answer the law. The rule is stated by Chief Justice Shaw, in Lyman vs. Fiske, (5 Peck. 234,) as follows: "It is difficult to give an exact definition of habitancy, In general terms, one may be designated as an inhabitant of that place which constitutes the principal seat of his residence, of his business, pursuits, connections, attachments, and of his political and municipal relations. It is manifest, therefore, that it embraces the fact of residence at a place with the intent to regard it his home. The act and the intent must occur, and the intent may be inferred from declarations and conduct. It is often a question of great difficulty, depending upon minute and complicated circumstances, leaving the question in so much doubt that a slight circumstance may turn the balance. In such a case the mere declaration of the party, made in good faich, of his election to make the one place rather than the other his home, would be sufficient to turn the scale." The article in the appendix to vol. 4 of Dr. Lieber's Encyclopædia Americana, title Domicile, written by Judge Story, is, perhaps, the best treatise on this subject to be found. He says: "In a strict and legal sense, that is properly the domicile of a person where he has fixed his true, permanent home and principal establishment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning." It is often a mere question of intention. If a person has actually removed to another place, with an intention of remaining there for an indefinite time, and as a place of present domicile, it becomes his place of domicile, notwithstanding he may have a floating intention to go back at some future period. A fortiori would this be true if his "floating intention" were to go elsewhere in future, and not to go back, as in such case the abandonment of his former home would be complete. In the Allentown election case (Brightly's Lead. Cases on Elections, 475,) it is said: "Unmarried men, who have fully severed the parental relation, and who have entered the world to labor for themselves, usually acquire a residence in the district where they are employed, if the election officers be satisfied they are honestly there pursuing their employment, with no fixed residence elsewhere, and that they have not come into the district as 'colonizers,' that is, for the mere purpose of voting, and going elsewhere as soon as the election is held. The unmarried man who seeks employment from point to point, as opportunity offers, and who has severed the parental relation, becomes a laborer, producing for himself, and thus adds to the productive wealth of the community in which he resides, being willing not only to enjoy political privileges, but also to assume and discharge political and civil duties." A fortiori would this reasoning apply to the married laborer who takes his family with him. The habits of our people, compared with many other nations, are migratory. To persons, especially young men, in many most useful occupations, the choice of a residence is often experimental and temporary. The home is chosen with intent to retain it until the opportunity shall offer of a better. But if it be chosen as a home, and not as a mere place of temporary sojourn, to which some other place, which is more truly the principal seat of the affections or interests, has superior claim, we see not why the policy of the law should not attach to it all the priviieges which belong to residence, as it is quite clear that it is the residence in the common and popular acceptation of the term. The case of Barnes vs. Adams, (3 Con. El. Cas., 771,) does not, when carefully examined, conflict with these rules. The passage cited from that case is not a statement of the grounds on which the House or even the committee determined the case, but is a concession to the party against whom it was decided. It therefore, if it bore the meaning contended for, would not be authority in future cases. But the language, taken together, it seems to us, means only that going into an election precinct for a temporary purpose, with the intent to leave it when that purpose is accomplished, no other intent and no other fact appearing, is not enough to gain a residence. In this view, it is not in conflict with the opinion here expressed. It is true that, as was remarked in the outset, a former residence continues until a new one is gained. But in determining the question whether a new one has been gained, the fact that everything which constituted the old one-dwelling house, personal presence, business relations, intent to remain-has been abandoned is a most significant fact. 5. We have, then, to apply these principles to the evidence in the case. The contestant claims that three principal classes of persons who voted for the sitting member were disqualified by reason of non-residence, viz: persons who came into the district for the purpose of working on the railroad; students at the university, who came from other districts solely for the sake of pursuing their studies, and paupers supported in a poor-house common to all the districts in the county, who came to the poor-house from another district, and voted in the district where it is situated. The cases of the railroad laborers and contractors should be disposed of by the following rules: Ist. Where no other fact appears than that a person, otherwise quali fied, came into the election district for the purpose of working on the railroad for an indefinite period, or until it should be completed, and voted at the election, it may or may not be true that his residence was in the district. His vote having been accepted by the election officers, and the burden being on the other side to show that they erred, we are not warranted in deducting the vote. 2d. Where, in addition, it appears that such voter had no dwelling house elsewhere, had his family with him, and himself considered the voting place as his home until his work on the railroad should be over, we consider his residence in the district affirmatively established. 3d. On the other hand, where it appears that he elected to retain a home, or left a family or a dwelling place elsewhere, or any other like circumstances appear negativing a residence in the voting precinct, the vote should be deducted from the candidate for whom it is proved to have been cast. The principles applicable to the students are not dissimilar. The law, as it applies to this class of persons, is fully and admirably stated by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in an opinion given to the legislature, and reported in 5th Metcalf, and which is cited with approbation in nearly all the subsequent discussions of the subject. Under the rule there laid down, the fact that the citizen came into the place where he claims a residence, for the sole purpose of pursuing his studies at a school or college there situate, and has no design of remaining there after his studies terminate, is not necessarily inconsistent with a legal residence, or want of legal residence, in such place. This is to be determined by all the circumstances of each case. Among such circumstances, the intent of the party, the existence or absence of other ties or interests elsewhere, the dwelling place of the parents, or, in the case of an orphan just of age, of such near friends as he had been accustomed to make his home within his minority, would of course be of the highest importance. See Putnam vs. Johnson, 10 Mass., 488. The case of the paupers presents greater difficulty. Under the laws of Pennsylvania it is conceded they may be entitled to vote. In several contested election cases cited by the contestant, it is stated by the committee that, in the absence of statute regulations on the subject, a pauper abiding in a public almshouse, locally situated in a different district from that where he dwells when he becomes a pauper, and by which he is supported, away from his original home, does not thereby change his residence, but is held constructively to remain at his old home, Monroe vs. Jackson, 2 Elect. Cas., 98. Covode vs. Foster, forty-first Congress. And there are some strong reasons for this opinion. The pauper is under a species of confinement. He must submit to regulations imposed by others, and the place of his abode may be changed without his consent. Having few of the other elements which ordinarily make up a domicile, the element of choice also, in his case, almost wholly disappears. There are also serious reasons of expediency against permitting a class of persons who are necessarily so dependent upon the will of one public officer to vote in a town or district in whose concerns they have no interest. On the other hand, the pauper's right to vote is recognized by law. It can practically very seldom be exercised except in the near neighborhood of the almshouse. In the case of a person so poor and helpless as to expect to be a life-long inmate of the poor house, it is, in every sense in which the word can be used, really and truly his resi dence his home. And it is important that these constitutional provisions as to suffrage should be carried out in their simplest and most natural sense, without the introduction of artificial or technical constructions. It will, however, be unnecessary to determine this question, as will hereafter appear. of constitutional qualifications of voter. temporary, of voter from his home...... ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE UNDER U. S. 253 84 6 34 ..240, 241, 242 243 11 ACT OF CONGRESS, KNOWN AS “ENFORCEMENT ACT” .... its application to laws of States not founded on distinction ......12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 17a 435 proof required to sustain indictment under.. TION TO DESERTERS applies only to persons duly convicted.... ·ACT OF CONGRESS regulating election of U. S. Senators.... (See Appendix, Page 485.) 18 .... 201 concerning presidential elections. (Appendix, p. 493.).... |