National Republican., 1880-08-25
POLITICAL ST1TUS or DEPARTMEN7
CLERKS
The Law, Practice and Decisions In Such
Cases.

of the republican party to power to claim that
the employees Of government i'm the depart.
ments here who were housekocpe RS here have
forfeited their right TO voto in the states to
which they claim state allegiance. This Is q
question which has been legally determined by
the courts in several states, as will be seen by
the following resume of facts and cases, which
has been compiled by II. G. Harmon, esq, for
TIE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN. It will be read
with interest by all those who claim residence
in the states from which they were appointed
and who contemplate going homo TO vote:
There are many clerks in the employ of
the general government In this city who are
anxious TO exercise the elective franchise at
the coming presidential election, but who,
having been told that by removing their
families TO this city, paying taxes here, etc,
thoy have lost their domicilo at their former
place Of residence, feel somewhat in doubt
what to do. Some of these men were denied
the right to vote at the recent state elections,
and simply because they were living in and
around Washington with their families. That
these men may not thus bo disfranchiscd by
a set of copperhead judges, would call their
attention to the following decision and refer
enccs: "a person who removes TO Washington
and holds public Office there does not thereby
lose his domcle in tho place of his former
residence, unless he intends to permanently
reside at Washington" - Sec Gichrist's Digest,
page 1913, 2d par. In the case of Atherton VI
Thornton, n. ii. Reps, vol. s. page 17S' 1t
was submitted in evidence that defendant
(Thornton) resided with his family, and had
his domicle in Morrimac, county OF Hills
borough, previous to July. 1880, when he was
appointed to an office IN the treasury depart
ment of the United States, and went to the
city of Washington, and in November fol.
lowing ho removed his wife and one child
(leaving one with his mother at MeTrmac)
a = L., ,,, htYa1
house until the summer of 1881, when, in con-
sequence of the ill.health of his wife, she and
the child returned to his house in Merrimac,
and there boarded with his mother. On tho
1st of October, 1881, the defendant CThorn-
tom went to Merrimac, and on the 22d of
November, same year, returned to Washing
ton with his family, and kept house here
until the 9TH of September, 1892 when, on
account of sickness in his family he aban'
doned housekeeping, and his wife and chill
dren went to Newton, Conn, where they re-
mained until September !, 1883 when they
returned to Washington, and he again COM
menced housekeeping there. In April, 1884,
his family returned to Morrimac. Thornton
had paid taxes in Washington during this
time. He had often declared that lie did
not intend to make Washington his pcrma'
nent residence. but that he intended to return
| 10 MerrimaG. II was decided in this case that
| Thornton retained his domiCile in Merrimac,
Judge Parker holding that the domicilo which
| Thornton had acquired at Merrimac had been
retained, notwithstanding his personal resi-
donce with his family in Washington.
It has been generally considered that per-
sons appointed to public Office undor the au'
| thoritv of the United States and taking up
their residence in Washington for the purpose
of executing the duties of such Office do not
thereby, while engaged in the service of the
government, lose their domicilo in the place
| - IaI V,Y1ng Nl,aVv ~
moving there, intend to make Washington
| their permanent residence,
| In many cases actual residence Is not indis'
| pensable to retain domicile after it is once
acquired, hut it is retained, amino solo, by the
mere intention not TO change it. lSce Judge
| Parker, Athorton VS.. Thornton, Story's Con.
| nict Of Laws 30.l55 Piclierings Report, 377,
Howard College vs. Cove, Thompson Digest,
| D. C., Massachusetts, Reports, vol. II, on domi-
cie, etcl 1t was held by persons of no less
eminence and legal ability than Daniel Web
ster and Caleb Cushing, late United States mt.
| torney. general, that 10 clerk in the employ OF
| the United States could be disfranchised by
the mere fact of his living here with his FAM
! ily, and they even held that the exercise ofthe
elective franchise in the municipal affairs of
the District of Columbia did not impair tho
right to vote for president in states where they
| had resided and bad their residence.
Since writing the foregoing, and in support
| of the doctrine enunCiated in the case OF
| Athenon VS., Thornton, | find a case reported
| in the court Of common pleas of Belmont
county, state Of Ohio-the case of Cunning
ham II zlott VS.. Jacob Hoover ct al. The
plaintiff was discussing officer in the Office
of the auditor Of the post0tlico department,
and claimed residence at MorristOwn, Ohio,
whore he resided prior to removing TO Wash
iugton. He offered his ballot at the October
election OF 1868, and it was refused on the
ground on non-rosidence. Suit was instituted
| against the Judges of election for damages In
| charging tho Jury the court used the following
| language: "Plaintif could not lose his rc3i-
doncc in this county by the mere fact Of remOv'
| ing to Washington, marrying wife and liv'
ing or dwelling there with his family, If the
removal was for temporary purposes, and II
was not the intention 10 relinquish the former
home and acquire new one. Tho residence
Of person in its legal sense is the place where
ho has his true, fixed, permanent home, and
| to which, whenever he Is absent, hu has tho
intention of returning 1t is not the mere
fact of inhabitanCo in place which makes it
the residence, but Is the fact coupled with the
| intention of remaining there"
Verdict was rendered for the plaintih, l
also hnd that in 1870 Edward Hodges, thon a
clerk in the interior department, was refused
to register at his homo in Michigan, He
brought an action for damages, and recovered
a verdict, Judge Holt presiding,
! In the ease Of Jones VS.. the commonwealth
of Pennsylvania I'd Jones, Pa, reports Chief
Justice Gibson, one of the abcst juHsts in the
country, presiding said; "a distinguished
counsel, who has argued in this case, was not
thought to have lost his residence by residing
with his family as American minister near the
court OF St. Petersburg, aud think no greater
consequence has ever been attributed TO the
residence of federal officer in the District of
Columbia"
In the examination Of the facts and law
bearing upon these cases, of government en-.
ployes residing 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
hr,n iudiciaily determined, and indicative
Of the opinions Of tho election officers Of the
states, am advised Of the eases OF Ii. S, Cum
minus and Charles f. Herring esq Mr.. Cum
mmgs was appointed u clerk in the treasury
depa 'tmcnt from Exeter, \, H. during tho
tarly uaIt of the war. lie married in this
city, ANA in March, 1870 was elected to tho
New Hampshire legislature, Mr.. Herring,
NOW deputy second auditor Of the treasury,
/ ,pog unp,i,ltnl g., ,nipl in Ia. trpasury a 1SRl