National Republican., 1882-07-08
THE RIGHT TO VOTE
OF THE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
Their Political Status in tho State Elections
High Legal Authority on tho subject-0pin-
Ions or Jerry Black and Others
State Courts Arc No Bar.

In tho interest OF many clerks and employees OF |
the general government in this city. who are
liable TO have their right Of franchise questioned
by Democratic registers of voters under the new
registration now pending in the State Of Maryland
the following authorities and opinions upon the
subject are published. 1t has generally been con-
sldered that persons appointed to public office un
der the authority of the United States and taking
up their residence In Washington for the purpose
Of executing the duties Of such oilce, M & 40 not
thereby, while engaged in the service OF the gov
eminent, lose their domicilo in the place where
Sso nsy before intend makes makes H%sy %ysnnsCn in sm0hE
nsaI residence question whSn iSn
opinions have been given by the most eminent!
legal talent OF the country. In many cases actual
after il is once acquired, but Is retained amino solo
by the mere intention MOTTO changeit lsoeJudge
Parker Atherton vs. Thornton, storry,s Conflict Of
College vs. Cove Thompson's Digest, u. c., Ma5sa-
chusetts Reports, vol. II, on domicile, &c.l
OPINIONS OF WEBSTER AND CLAY.
| II was held by persons of no less eminence and
legal ability than. Daniel Webster and Caleb
Cushing late United States Attorney General, that
no clerk in the employ of the United States could
be DISTINGUISHED by the mere fact Of his living IN
| Washington with his family, and they even held
that the exercise of the elective franchise in the
| municipal affairs OF the District Of Columbia did
| not impair their right TO vote for President in
States where they had resided and had their resi-
dence.
JEREMIAH s. BLACK,
ax-Attorney- General, in response to letter to
| him upon the subject while he was Auorney-Gen-
| eral gave opinion, in which he held that a
| person who leaves his residence or place OF domi-
Gle and assumes the duties OF Federal officer at
Washington amino rercrtendi," tho original resi-
| dcnce continues in law, and that even the exer-
else Of the franchise at the mere charter election
| of Washington for municipal officers Is not that
exercise Of the franchise right contemplated by
NJ
| domicle upon appointment TO Federal office, and
does not impair the right to vote at general cleo
was submitted to Judge Wright and other In
dianians to their town and county officers in the
fall of 1863 and the right of the clerks to vote at
the State election because Of voting in Wash.
| ington for municipal officers, was no longer
The following decisions and references have a
| direct bearing upon the question:
Aperson who removes to westminster, and holds
Gle in the place OF his residence unless In
snds 10 pna. Tsss s "a pa m
A NEW HAMIsHIRR CASE
| In the case of Atherton VS.. Thornton, N. II.
| Reps vol. s. page ITS, 1t was submitted In evil
| family and had his domice in Merrimac, County
of Hillsboro'. previous 10 July, 1880, when he was
| appointed to an office in the Treasury Department
OF the United States, and went to the city of Wash:
ington, and in November following he removed
| his wife and one child Qeavlng one with his
| lived in hired house until the summer of 1881,
when in consequence of the i'll health of his
G and ns ed 10 his
fendant (Thornton) went to the Merrimac, and on
ington with his family, and kept house there until
| the 7th of September, 1882, when on account Of
ns in b his & family II ne sbSen 10
| Conn, where they remained until September l,
| 1888, when they returned to Washington, and he
| again commenced housekeeping there. In April,
| 1881, his family returned to Merrimac. Thornton
had paid taxes in Washington during this time.
| He had oflen declared that he did not intend to
make Washington his permanent residence, but
| that he intended to return to Merrimac TWAS
decided in this case that Thronton retained his
| dOmcile in Merrmac, Judge Parker holding that
| the domicie which Thornton had acquired at
Merrimac had been retained, notwithstanding his
| personal residence with his family in Washington
| THE sAME DECISION IN OHIO
| Also the case reported In the court of common
| pleas of Belmont County, State of Ohio-Cnn-
ningham Hazlett VS.. Jacob Hoover ct al The
| the Auditor Of the Post. Office Department. and
claimed residence at Morrlstown; Ohio, where
offered his ballot at the October election of 1868
| and II refused on the ground of non-resi-
Suit was he ne Judges +y S OF
| court used the following language:
Plaintiff, ,uld not his residence in this county
S and vng Sd dwelling thsfS with lis
family ifthe removal was Tor te,mIporary n purposes.
home nnd g. acquire new one one e sEe Tesaenee @ or a
his true, hxed Permanent home. and to which, when
ever he Is absent he has the intention OF returning.
makes it the residence but is the fact coupled with
| the intention of remaining there.
| Verdict was rendered for the plaintiff
| LIKE CONSTRUCTION IN MICHIGAN
| In 1870, also, Edward Hodges, then clerk in the
Interior Department, was refused to register at his
home in Michigan. He brought an action f., for
damages and recovered a verdict. Judge Holt
wealth 81 Pennsylvania e Jones, Pa, Repor'sl
| ef-Justice Gibson one OF the ablest luristj In
the country, presiding, said:
distinguished counsel who 81, has argued in this case
S @ 10 nye Sss NJ se yhe con
a ,hink ~ M no greater
officer In the District of Columbia.
| IN NO INSTANCE
| has an examination of the facts and law bearing
upon these cases of government employees residing
light Federal action adverse to the rights claimed
by the clerks, while numerous cases similar to the
| foregoing can be cited Attention is also invited
| to the doctrine held in the cases reported in
Wallace, 2e1 2 Michigan lDouglassl, 522; Bin
l33 and Congressional contested cases, 1924, page
o. After the above, should any judge Of election
or inspector entertain any doubts of the law in
cases of clerks employed by the general govern
ment, the following action by the Judiciary Com
mlttee of the House of Representatives, Forty
third Congress, second session, is submitted:
FoRTYTHIRD CoSGREss-SEcoND SESSION,
| HOUSE, OF REPRESENTATIVE
Right of Franchise January 20 1875. Laid on the
| table and ordered to be printed.
| Mr.. Finck, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following report:
',The Committee on the Judiciary to whom was
| referred the petition of William b. Brown and fifty
Others asking for the passage of law TO protect
employees Of the United states In their right OF fran
elise IN their several States Notwithstanding their
temporary absence in discharge OF their duties, re-
port:
That the committee entertain no doubt whatever
that persons who into the District of Columbia
for temporary purposes merely, for discharge OF
duties Of clerkBhps or other employment under the
government. without any intention OF abandoning
their former place of residence do not forfeit thelI
former citizenship but continue TO be entitled to the
full exercise of the right of franchise, in the
manner II they had not so come into this District
that LEGISLATION Is necessary this subject, and
ask be discharged from the further consideration
of said petition"
Mr.. Finck, who made that report, was Demo
crat
An Awful Disaster.
There was an accident up the road the othel
day, and when the Derrick reporter arrived at th'
scene of the wreck and desolation, and profanity