National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1880-09-29

often declared that ne uid not Intend 10 make
Washington his permanent residence, but that he
intended 20 return 70 Merrimac. II was decided in
this case that Thornton retained his domicile IN
Merfimac Judge Parker holding that the domice
which Thornton had acquired ot Merrimac had
been retained. notwithstanding his personal real.
denco with HIS family in Washington.
IL has been generally considered that persons ap-
pointed to public Office under the authority Of the
United States and taking up their residence IN
Washington for the purpose OF executing the du.
ties of such Office do not thereby, while engaged In
the service of the government lose their domicile
In the place where they before resided unless they,
on moving there, Intend to make Washington their
In many cases actual residence Is not indlspensa-
bic 70 retain donicile nfcr II is once acquired,
but II Is retained dnfgo 500 by the mere intention
not TO change It. lSec Judge Parker. Atherton vs..
Thornon Story's Conflict Of Laws, S0-ijj. Picker.
ings Report, 877, Howard College vs. Cove Thonp-
sons DgostD. G., Massachusetts Reports vol H. on
domicc, otcl II was held by persons of no less
cminenco and legal ability than Daniel Webster
and Caleb Gushing, late United States attorney
general, that no clerk In the employ of the United
States could be disnpnchised by the mere fact Of
his living here with his family and they even held
that We exercise Of The elective franchise IN the
municipal affairs Of the District Of Columbia did
not impair the right TO vote for president In states
where they had resided and had their residence.
Since writing the foregoing, and in support OF
the doctrine cnumciated IN the case Of Atherton w.
Thornton, find cuse reported in the court of
common pleas of Belmont county state Of Ohio
the cnsc Of Cunningham lnzlett W.. Jacob Hoover
ct al. The plaintiff was discussing officer IN the
Office of the auditor OF the pOsioiicc department
and claimed a residence at Morrlstown, Ohio,
where he resided prior TO removing to Washington.
lie offered his ballot at the October election of
1865 and 1t was refused on the ground of ofnonresi-
dcncc suit was Instituted against the judges Of
election for damages. In charging the jury the
court used the following language Plaintiff could
not lose his residence IN this county by the mere
TACT OF removing to Washington, marrying n wife
aud living or dwelling there with his family, If
the removal was for temporary purposes and 1t was
not tho intention TO reinquish the former home
and acquire new one. The residence oil n person
III It's legal sense is the place where he has his true
hNed, permanent home. and TO which. whenever
he is absent he has the intention of returning, 1t
is not the mere fact OF inhabitanco in n place
which makes II the residence butt the fact coupled
with the Intention of remaining there"
Verdict was rendered for the plaintiff / also
find that In 1870 Edward Hodges, then clerk in
the interior department. was refused to register at
his home In Michigan. He brought an action for
damages, and recovered verdict Judge Holt pre-
siding
In the case of Jones vs. the commonwealth OF
pennsylvania I'D Jones, Pa" reports) Chiei-Justce
Gibson, one OF the ablost Jurists III the country,
presiding, said "A distinguished counsel, who
has argued In this case. was not thought to have
lost his residence 10y residing with his family as
American minister near the court OF ~ Petersburg,
and think 10 greater consequence has ever been
attributed 10 the residence of federal officer in
the District of Columbia"
In the examination of the facts and law bearing
upon these cases, Of government employees rcsid-
ing temporarily IN the District OF Columbia, can
find no instance of federal action adverse to the
rights claimed by the clerks, In addition to the
cases that have been judlciolly determined and
indicative of the opinions of the election officers
of the states, am advised of the cases of II. s..
Cummings and Charles f. Herring. esq. MIR.
Cummings was appointed clerk in the treasury
department from Exeter. N. H., during the early
pnrt of the war. lie married in this city, and in
March, 1876 was elected to tho New Hamp-
shire LEGISLATURE, Mr.. Herring deputy sec
pointed to office in the treasury IN 1856,
married in Washington In 1873, aud In 1873 his
name was dropped from the poll-lists of the town
Of Natick, Mass Mr.. Herring presented the law Of
MS case 10 Tie proper authorities ana IL de-
cided that his dOmicile was In Natick, and conse-
quently eutltled 70 register and vote there which
he did ut the fall election OF 1878. The demo-
Gratis OF New Hampshire clustered somewhat about
the election OF Mr. Cummings but finally subsided
when told by their own party lawyers that the
doctrine III the Thornton case, eighth New liamp-
shire reports, was unqucstionably sound law.
Hany lawyer or Judge of election entertains ally
doubts of the law In cases OF clerks employed by
the general government, his attention is not only
invited to the language used in the cases cited
above, but TO the doctrine held In the case reported
IN first WAllace-26l: second Michigan douglass
j22 first Binney-3i9: fourth McLean-97i; third
| Harrison, New York, 139, aud congressional con-
tested cases 1924, page 30.
| The following Important decision of the Judi.
Ciary committee OF the house of representatives
| bears upon the same question:
FoRTY-THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION,
House OF REPRESENTATIVES. I
| REPORT No. l2l
Right OF Franchise-JanuRry 26 1875. Laid on
| tho table aud ordered to be printed
Mr. Finck from the committee on the Judiciary
| submitted the following reports
The committee on the judiciary, to whom was
referred the petition of William B. Brown aud
hhy-ionr others, asking for the passage OF law TO
protect employees Of the United States In their
right of franchise In their several states notwith.
standing their temporary absence in discharge Of
| their duties, report:
That the committee entertain no doubt what.
ever that persons who come into the District OF
Columbia for temporary purposes merely for dis
charge of duties ofccrkslIips, or other employment
| under the government, without any intention OF
abandoning their former place Of residence, do not
forfeit their former citizenship, but continue TO be
| in the same manner us If they had not so come
into this District that no legislation is necessary
on This subject, and ask to be discharged from the
| further consideration of said petition"
| Mr.. finck, who made this report, was demo-
crat.