Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1893-10-20

/ the HeLt succeeding election m Noveza5eT."
This affidavit br. Mudd never made. 1t is
true he removed back 70 the county six months
before the next election, but that act will not
save him. The making Of the affidavit Is i'm
perative. Mr.. MHdd by his removal to WASH
ington city where he became a householder
without making the necessary affi-
davit ceased to be citizen
and although be has removed back be cannot
vote until be shall have remained in the
State one year and cannot be eligible as q
Senator until he shall have resided theirin for
three years. His election, il elected, will only
be farce. His Democratic rival will.coafest
and win the seat in the Senate. The follow
ing case-S,erling VS.. Honor aud Al reported
in 74th Nd. is directly in point and We give in
| full the opinion of the court:
"The appellant VAS refused registration as
voter ~ the appellee, who is Registration
Officer of rsngier district, because the appel
liant in August, 1890, left this State, and took
up bis abode in Washington city, aud cid not
when leaving this STATE make the sihdavit ) e.
Quired Of him by the Act OF 1890, chap. 57j,
At the hearing in this court, the appellant
testified that he was born a:id raised in this
COUNTY, and never hal ANY other home except
ia temporary one in Washington city; that
having been appointed to clerkship in the
Census Office, which appointment was marked
'iemporary") J, he went 10 WashiTgton on the
l2th day Of August. $780, and rema9ned there
without his family, d'schirging his duties I'M
I'll the last OF September or hrst " October
when be .ent for his wife, aud shef and her
child came 10 Washiagien; that ri rented
tenement and weat to housekeeping. and kr:.i
house until the first of Feoranry HlEIawihg
| (l89il when sue took their cluld anH return.
/. I'd To Somerset chnnty,5 and their FURNITURE
was all sent back to ooarrset c0uatu Short
F. /. after wards he was rlks1 sick anN fhe.isst
i Of FeEruary he IetuEned to SaindrssN cnlfn tS
and has remained there ever since That Is.
cuntiauouaiy tar SIX months ptecs us Inc
coming electior. &
lie did not MAKE ard sie the aili vii with
| the CLERK OF tie Circuit C,nfl of hk Maienti0n
10 retura to Somerset caln'y, aud ~ lie bal
no design Of al,an i1ni1. his resi-N e in tie
: State. MS Is rsqiirci by the Ael q semhis.
/ lie testified thnt in leaving tie ia he had
j,is dHsisl ~ siia,alnt.
iaiFsA sa.lrt fsllrf tBAt adJsr llItS q sds ssi
: that sist, nent. was not rvc,isa lie Is s.. .denc
: oi,uis ~ F,iise In liz, pnsnz as gS5.,H,tet'
Qesl. nsc To maze. a;i1 invs ins4r tine fiii,vi
kwhien n relnrls ,ic m.ly evidence, b his ~
fh'iI OF what his ssFs'se 'aas ii DIX zap al
ABODE Washington; aud .ilanes tse Holi.ssiJi
TO ke and hie such affidavit cda,n ts<li'.ti
dsnae oi.an iaient ~. .sida3 lon lbs kys.,. rar,
IN the Site; ana e,li,. sse,il Ink, / vas no
Z i,sie. NJ! Sterling did iestse lie kiasc an
: ,.Ii la { n's famii, to WasLins I'm IL here Ii
4, took up an -bois as iIJaseuot Ter; lTh.i 40
4 the law treats as raisns "a pres Liib .i,Ju .
. iulentIon To chan re his Residence uals.ss salts
!. inc.,ir,ly explained fos to II plaintt aud Ii
!, rebut this presl Ii pti0n, il required j. ads.
- Wit already mentioned, and made, as We hav,
= said, the oiuIssi0n 10 take aud file -ti IL Oati
- with the clerk "A conclusive presumption Of i'll
:. teulion to abandon resieuce in tie State II
!. follows, that, as tue appellant did not make
n sud file that affidavit, tie Register WAS righ
* in refusing him registration, ualess the appel
=, t.int belongs 10 cla,s which the Act Of As
Is s.mbly was not intended to affect and on
whom the Act does not and cannot operate
This the appellant contends j. the case be-
cause he says the Act Of Assembly imposes or
4 him impossible condition, III requiring o.
.o him the oath prescribed 10 the Act, which
h, oath he cSuId not tralhfuliy make; in othel
v words, he insists that as he left the State Oh
u the 18th bf August, less than (3) months re-
v manned before the next election in November
h. and he could not swear to an intention TO re-
ri, turn within six months preceding the mex
= ection, MS the law required. For this reason
40 his counsel contends that the law was void
~ pro tdato, e., as to him, and all In consihii
ii casu. This view We cannot accept; and
v proper construction of the statute, and the aft
No davit it provides to be taken, will not iustif,
i. its adoption. The manifest intention OF the
!. Legislature was to provide for the cases of al
=. persons already out Of the State without de
= signing to lose their residence when the lau
10 was passed, and all persons leaving the Stats
I, after its passage with bona ade intention OF re-
ID turIing within definite peIod. Of those al
a. ready out Of the State the oath was 70 be mad,
IL and filed within 80 days afier The laws pass
go A. L. 1.
10 laws passage and taking up abode else here
- within 10 days after leaving the State. if moi
made at or about the time Of leaving. .fany
"a of the first class mentioned made the oath
e. there would be six months before the nexi
of election lfauy of the second class made theoath
i. later than early in MAY sxmonths could 20
10 elapse before the next November election. II
cannot be supposed that the Legislature meant
10 make law applying only to those who
left the State between the 9th of November and
the 9Th of May, aRd that it should not apply
as TO those leaving between May and November
Be Such an absurd and ui reasonable design can
70 not be ascrlbed to the Legislature; and yet
|. that is exactly what the appellants coptention
n asks US to say is necessarily implied by tie
e wording OF tn. statute, and unavoidsbly de-
: duced from it. The appellants counsel sd-
Il mits the Court of Appeals has upheld the law
as valid and constitutional, and has enforced
|. 1t 10 several cases; but these cases vera not
e like this; and that the language OF the statute
a makes impossible demand, and ia there
fore partially void. We do not think his con
e struciion OF the Act and oath right. nor bis
0 deduction reasonable. ID Switzerland ps
, Norris dnts p. 32sl the Court OF Appe.Is sus-
the law; and also in Lancaster Is. Herbert &c.
: (Gnte p. 334.) In 7ieer SC. "a. 7Iemas
c (dhte p. 342) it was also treated as valid.
Having been so sustained and enforced the
I Act must be given a construction which vii,
: make It's provisions reasonable, consistent,
l and capable Of aniorm enforcement Ifit is
D void IN the respect eontended Tor, it must be
struck down entirely. cardinal rule of com
I struction is to ascertain the meaning ~ the
! Legislature as fairly indicated by the Ian
guage used. 1t clearly indicates thai a mari,
/ leaving the State and taking up an abode oai-
D side it, without desiring to abandon The STATE
should not do so if be bona Jfde made tbe Aft.
davit prescribed for him TO take. and then
bona Fde followed itup BY coming back A. the
law required. II Is as clearly indicated an
intention that the extreme limit Of such abode
: outside the State, should not exceeu ! ,,.r,,a
, which would ltave SIX months bef re ~. 49,.
ton which was sir onths after m,k,.,r IN
+ davit. Hence it provided tin: ths ,'s,.,,
should not only swear to an intent,on y, r.
+ turn on or before slx mouths before s,ch !. 90.
/ lion, but that he should retur,, mi r.I,,,,,
i BILE abode In she Sixte STA months se,...as,,,
election. II intsnded Al. ltrsous us..s.,,,,
the State to have the prisiie.e of .,ia
away after taklns the oa.h prescribed ,,oi,,
, six m.nths only reHlaiaed iii The OIL a,.a IN
November, which VA al least sir n.