Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1878-12-19


he does not thereby become a voter in
Falls township.
If a apauper can voluntarily go from
an>outlying township to Falls town
ship, and become a resident therein,
land he can and if a pauper can go to
the Infirmary on his own vOlition and
become an inmate therein, then he may
determine to remove to Falls township
and become a resident thereof, and de-
termine to become an inmate of the In
firmary, and remain therein as long as
he can, and if upon such determine
tion he acts, he has changed his resi-
dence to Falls township and he may
vote therein, unless the fact that being
in the Infrmary and subjected to the
rules thereof, he is disqualified.
Can pauper Oh his own volition
become an inmate of the Infrmary?-
We have seen thai he can on his own
volition remove to Falls township and
reside in the Infirmary, he may exer-
else both rights at one and the same
time and become voter therein, for
there is no law disfranchising inmates
of the Infrmary, or paupers ia Falls
township. Has he the volitiOn to he
come an inmate? He is pauper re-
quiring public relief; he notifies the
Trustees of the fact; the Trustees shall
give notice to the Directors of the In
Urinary; these shall direct the Super
intendent to receive the pauper; the
| Superintendent shall receive the pau
per and the Directors shall furnish
transportation.
Such pauper, then, has become an
actual resident of Falls township on
his own volition, because he may be
discharged from the In6rmary on GER
tain contingencies. He is not deprived
| of his vote, otherwise original residents
of Falls township who may be inmates
of the Infirmary may not vote. This
is not contended for; the discharge
provided for is ''from the ILfirmary,"
not that they may be returned to the
townships from which they came.
If this be so then pauper resident
in another township may be removed
to the ILfirmary, and change his resi-
dence to Falls township in and by one
and the same act; any such inmate
having come into the township, and
into the Infirmary, intending to make
Falls township his permanent home,
and intending to remain in the 1nfirm-
ary as long as he could, has become an
actual resident and can vote therein.
How is it different, supposing he has
been put in the Infirmary by compul-
sion and against his will? Is he, by
Aeh means and under such circum-
stances, deprived of his power of voli
ton? If this be so, it is because his
personal liberty, or, rather, the liberty
of his person has been interfel ed with.
Suppose an officer goes into Washing
ton. township to arrest a man to bring
him to GAINESVILLE, and to put him in
Jail; before his arrest, such man could
determine to remove to GAINESVILLE, and
a removal in pursuance of such deter
mination would change his residence,
and that. too, whether the removal was
made before the arrest, or by his family
after his arrest. There is no reason
why, on being arrested, he might not
then Or thereafter, determine to remove
to GAINESVILLE to make it his permanent
residence, and, if, in either case the re-
moval is had in pursuance of such
bona tide intention, his residence would
be changed and lie would become a
voter in GAINESVILLE in twenty days, and
that. too, whether he was in Jail during
the twenty days or not. If in such
case person arrested could contem-
poraneous with his arrest and impris-
Onment determine to become resident
of GAINESVILLE, and remove his family at
the same time and thus become a voter
in GAINESVILLE, so can one do who against
his will has been put in the Infirmary.
If person has the power to exercise
this volition after his personal liberty
has been interfered with, he may Go so
at any time thereafter and while he is
still restrained of his liberty
If being removed into Falls town
ship, he may at any time determine to
make it his permanent home, then this
case rests upon the truthfulness of the
statements by the witnesses that Falls
township was their home. If they
severally have exercised their volition,
and Intentionally made the township
their home in which they are domiciled,
then they had the right to vote there.
The claim of the Contestor being
based upon the inability of the inmates
to exercise any such volition, and the
fact that they severally had exercised
it to the best of their ability being con-
ceded, upon this branch of the case
find they had the right to vote in Falls
township.
1t must be observed that while it is
held that inmates of an Infirmary may
vote in the township where the Infirm
ary is, such right is not because they
reside therein; it is not because they
have voted there unquestioned for many
years; hot because being mainly old
and infirm it may be more convenient
for them to do so, but that, though they
be inmates of an Infrmary, they have
the same right to change their 'resi-
dence" that other citizens have, and
where in good faith they have done so,
they may vote therein; and that, too,
whether the removal of the residence
was contemporaneous with becoming
inmates, or subsequent thereto; the
several persons having answered that
they had no other homes to which they
had any intention to return, it not be-
ing shown that tkey had any to which
they had any right to return, they hav-
ing answered that they regarded Falls
Township as their permanent homes,
they are in contemplation of law "Gctu-
al residents" that they might there
fore vote. In short, as to the inmates
of the Inirmary, their place of "actual
residence" must be determined as in