Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1882-10-06

old gentlemen and generally put on all
who applied. Upon remov' mo from III.
county IN 1873 he took lis family with
him, and they have all since resiaed reou-
larry in Washington excep when thew &C.
Customary matte lort visits to his father
'"o county. He was stricken
,ioll, ing 'es .siration lists two years ago
~ ''e 'es ,strar, and took the initiatory
steps 7" appeal to the court. but abandon
S appeal and acquiesced in the deci
81 N of the officer. In answer to a ques..
ton by his counsel he said that if he were
to get out of employment in Washington
he would leturn to the It'll district of this
county and live with his father in law and
and that it had always been his intention
to ''claim his residence" here.
1t was contended in argument in behalf
of the registrar that the animus recertendi
which upon being afirmatively proved,
the law recognized as emitting a party
temporarily absent from his domicile to
retain his right OF citizenship at the place
of such domicile must be an absolute and
unqualified intention to return at all events
and must not rest upon the contingency
of getting out of employment; and that
the appellants having been employed as
carpenter by the Government was not such
government employment as had been re-
cognized as forming an exception to this
rule. 1t was also commended that by a two
years residence here in the pursuit of his
trade, during which no claim was made
either in the petition or evidence of the
animus renanendi, Norris did not acquire
the right of citizenship in Maryland, and
that he was enormously registered at first ;
that the theory of the new registration
law did not recognize the fact OF former
registration as any evidence whatever of
a right to be registered, and that, even if
1t were so, Norris's acQuiescence in being
stricken from the lists more than mega
tived any presumption which could have
arizen from such registration. 1t was in
oise0u tual luo ldCt tual Tue parry udu
not voted in Washington could not be
considered as evidence of a claim of citi-
zenship elsewhere, because the right OF
suffrage did not exist in Washington
The court after several hours deliberarion
sustained the appeal.
We ali due Difference to the Court we
question the correctness of the decision
in either of the above cases and respectfully
submit that in view of our close proxi-
nifty to Washington, the establishment Of
such lax rue upon The question of citi,
zenship is fraught with great danger to
the community. There is large floating
population in that city, many of whom
may have at some time lived in this coun-
ty three or four years, or may have been
raised here, but yet who are now in no
way identified with our county, and who
may be, entirely hostile to its interests
1t is manifestly and gravely wrong that
such people should be allowed to come
here At election time and by their votes
neutralize those of our best citizens whose
interests are entirely conferred here
We shall endeavor to pursue this sub
ject further hereafter, and hope that it
may be so arranged as 10 have q reconsid-
Grafton of these cases, so that certain and
definite rule upon so important a point
may be established.