Sullivan republican. [volume] (Laporte, Pa.) 1883-1896, 1892-10-07
9 q 9
WHO SHALL VOTE ?
Taken from Pennsylvania state
Reports. Vol. LXXl. y. SO7
Comprising Cases Adjudged In
the Supreme Court of Penna.

at is evid mt that the term sin
hahiiant" oil "resident" in these
clauses cannot mean one sojourning
temporarily, or for some special
p rrpose, but refers 10 one
who has a permanent abode; the
domicil of the senator, representa-
tive, governor or judge. "Inhabi-
tant" (says Webster), "a dweller
one who dwells or resides pcrman-
emily in a place." The judges of
this court sitting in Pittsburg for
weeks, at the time Of general elec-
ton, though in the prosecution of
their business, yet away from home.
have never dreamed they had a
right to vote there. No one doubts
that one domiciled in another state,
but resident here for special pur-
pose of business or pleasure, is in
eligible to election as senator, rep
resentatve, governor or judge. 1t
is equally clear, that the electors OF
the state are those who have their
homes within it, and not elsewhere
Their domicil is there, and their
Eome is the place where they
permanently reside, and to which
they intend to return when away
from it. 1t is also clear, that one
domiciled in another state cannot
ne an elector here, though he be a
resident here tor some temporary
purpose, or on some special business,
and though lis stay lay be pro-
longed upward of 4 year. There
fore, when the Constitution declares
that the elector must be a resident
Of the state for one year, it refers
beyond question, to the state as his
home or domicil, and not as the place
of temporary sojourn. This
being tue character Of the state
residence, it defines, as we have seen
the district residence for both are
members of the same sentence and
are qualified by the same words,
having resided" without repetition.
The elector must, therefore, vote at
home, not only in the state but in
the district where his home is.
In these days of swift travelling,
one voting in the morning one hun
dred miles away from home, where
he is temporarily sojourning, might
vote again at homo before night.
lie has not lost his domicil, where
his family and chief business are, 10y
his temporary sojourn en- some
spec cial employment.
Undoubtedly lsays Judge King),
residence is question of intention.
In cases involving it, the inquiry is
quo ammo tue party either moved
70 or from the state. And upon the
solution of this question, depends
the fact, whether the petitioner has
gained or lost a residence But be.
fore this question can arise an actual
removal must haze taken place. A
mere intention to remove not consum-
mated, can neither forfeit the party's
old domicil nor enable him to ac.
quire aew one. Removal out of
the state, without an intention
permanently to reside elsewhere
will not lose residence, nor will n
mere intention to remove permanent
ly, not followed by actual removal,
acquile it Case of James Casey, an
insolvent debtor, | Ashmead 126.
These EXTRACTS will enable us To
undo rstand clearly the term resi-
dence, as denoting chat home or
domicil which the third article OF
the Constitution applies to the free
men of the Commonwealth. 1t
means that place where the elector
makes his permanent or true home,
his principal place of business, and
his family residence, if he have one
where he Intends to remain indefin-
itely, and without present inten
tion to depart; when he leaves it
he intends to return to 1t, and after
his return he deems himself at home.
1t remains now to apply these char
acteristics of residence to the case
in hand. The stated case expressly
declares that the students referred
To in it, came to Allentown from
other counties, for no other purpose
than to receive collegiate educa-
lion, but intended to leave after
graduating. 1t is evident that the
college was not their true and
permanent home their stay there
woo not IN he definite. as the nla..e