Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1888-12-27

What are the facts?
Walter s. Cowen was born and reared
at ST. Clairsville, and this town had been
always his home, and the home of his
ancestors for two generations. Twelve
or fourteen years ago he was partially
paralyzed, which compelled him to sur
render clerkship in one of the depart
ments at Washington. He was married
here, here his wife was born, here her
home had always been. In February,
1885, they removed to Cincinnati, where
Mrs. Cowen had secured employment in
the office of the Clerk of the United States
Courts. The following spring Mr.. Cowen
registered and voted at Cincinnati, again
in the fall, and again in the spring of
1887. In the summer of the last named
year he concluded to purchase small
business which he thought his crippled
condition would enable him to carry on,
but failing in that returned to st. Glars
vile. Before returning here, he and his
wife and child had been living in furnish
ed rooms. These rooms were surrender
ed, Mrs. Cowen obtained boarding in the
family of Mr.. Governs uncle, and he re-
turned to st. Clairsville, he and his wife
agreeing that thereafter this town should
be their home. The child spent the win
ters with the mother, and the summers
with the father When Mr.. Cowen ar
rived at st. Clairsville, in the latter part
of September, 1887, he announced to his
friends that he was back here to stay,
that thenceforth this was his home. At
the November election following he pre-
sented himself at the polls and rendered
his ballot. A challenge followed, on the
ground that he was not a resident of this
precinct. These questions were put to
him, after he had been sworn:
Have you resided in this county for
thirty days last past?
Have you resided in this precinct for
twenty days last past?
Are you now an actual resident of this
precinct?
To all of these he gave affirmative an
swers. No other testimony was offered,
but one of the judges volunteered the
statement that he had "other informa-
" ton. The vote was rejected. This oc-
CURED soon after the opening of the polls.
About II o'clock Mr.. Cowen returned to
the polls and again offered his vote, and
it was again rejected. On neither occa-
sion did the election officers tender him
the final oath, as the law requires they
shall. About 3 P. NJ. he again went to
the polls, in company with Mr.. James
NJ. Rees, rendered his vote, and demand
ed that the final oath be administered.
Mr. F. D. Bailey, one of the judges, an
grily refused, and flung the book down
upon the table in a rage, but another
NIr. George 5. Lentz) picked it up and
read the oath to Mr.. Cowen. Here it is:
SEC. 2942. If the challenge be not aCith-
dTG1Cn after the person offering to vote
has answered the questions put to him as
aforesaid, one of the judges of election
shall tender to him the following oath:
You do solemnly swear (Or affirm) that
YOU are a citizen of the United States, of
the age of q years, that you have been
an inhabitant of this State for one year
next preceding this election; that you are
now an actual resident of this precinct;
and that you have not voted at this cleo
tion.''
Nor was any significance attached to
this section:
SEC. 2943. If any person refuses to
take the oath rendered, his vote shall be
rejected: and after such oath has been
taken the judges shall nevertheless refuse
to permit such person to vote if satisfied
from record ecidellce, or the testimony
adduced before them, that he is not a
legal voter; and they may administer the
necessary Oaths to all witnesses brought
before them to testify to the qualifica-
tions of person offering to vote.
There are only two questions to be de-
termined in considering this case.
l. Does the husband or the wife de-
termine the residence of man for voting
purposes?
2. Was it necessary that Mrs. Cowen
should surrender her employment at Gin
cinnati and return to and remain at st.
Clairsville?
The election law (Sec. 2946) says:
All Judges of election, in determining
the residence of a person offering to vote,
shall be governed by the following rules,
50 far as the same may be applicable.
/. That place shall be considered the
residence of a person in which his habi-
tation is fixed, and to which, whenever he
is absent, he has the intention of return
ing.
4. The place where the family of mar
ried man resides shall be considered and
held to be his place of residence, except
where the husband and wife have separ-
ated and live apart, etc.
These two are the only rules bearing
upon this case, and it was upon the last
one the judges of election relied for re-
jecting the vote. Consider them together,
in the light of the facts presented at the
time of offering the vote, and substanti-
ally stated above. Had Walter S. Cowen
"fixed habitation" at Cincinnati. to
which he expected to return2 Not at all
No one pretends to say that he had. Had
his wife and child such residence there