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

and although be has removed oaek ne eannut
vote until be shall have remained in the
State one year and cannot be eligible as
Senator until he shall have resided theirin for
three years. His election, IL elected, will only
be farce, His Democratic rival will contest
and win the seat in the Senate. The follow
ing case-Sterling VS.. Honor and al reported
in 74th Md. is directly in point, and We give 10
full the opinion Of the court:
1.-THE appellant was refused registration as
voter by the appellee, who Is Registration
Officer of Tsngier district, because the appel
liant in August, 1890, left this State, and took
up his abode in Washington city, and cid not
when leaving this State, make the affidavit le-
quired Of him by the Act Of 1890, chap. 5I3.
At the hearing in this court, the appellant
testified that he was born aud raised in this
county, and never bal any other home except
n temporary one in Washington city; that
having Teen appointed to cierkshiP IN the
census Office, hieh appointment was marked
Temporarily he went 10 Washington Oh the
18Th day Of August, 1880, and remained there
withOu, his family, discharging his dntifs un-
til the last OF September or hrst OF Oftober
when he cent for his wife, aud sue amt her
child came to Washington; that be refted u
teue,nent and vent to i.oase-k-epiili, sut kert
hou,e dn,il the Grst Of February following
I'd TO Somerset ctSlnt: and Their furN iture
WA all semi back to Suusrset scO.nty =. 4 hort
IL ,f,etyvn rAs he was tnkaa sick, ALL I'd last
-6f ssi,ruaty he returned 10 Sonets9f q nti,
and has r1ni4iied .thtIb ltgvr SINCE y / ~,
contn uousl, 'iar SIX months pfece iih The
Comiag e'Gciion. 49,, ar
iie a,d i,jt m..ss ..ii'ile tie afIiivl With
the CLERK ut lhc Circuit Court q his sni I'pl
ia return to Somerset cona'y, ana ma ma
n drs,ku Of nhan iJnin, his re-ile..ce tie
State as il rtQniiel bl the .lcl u .ssse lhls.
lie,,issiiiied that.a lrssing Tie Sl4.tel had
IL, dSsi. of sal,aiidot ing bis, gesideqH y
lsitAis suart 'ruls finat0nsiei The i $50
that stat nlepi was not rec iva Is,u z "
q BIS pnTp0se III Inc premises. I'm "a
desiH ned HI make. ard dies m.,Ae Tie a -. ,v
! ., hIen iiregHres .'.e Gully eticenge, ;ab 4
| ililt OF " hat h.s pnFwse vas u ;laing III /
abode 81 ,Sasbingluss ami Is is lhpsos, on
10 make aud iie surh affidavit ronclasi !, pv
dcnc of I'M iatrAi IN l., aitin len ,his KS i,sJ
la the STATE isli eGi;.ysSeIi tIat W. no
,na,ie Mi Sterling did ieate ne Sta n
ia tale his family to Masl;in ,tpn sd r.. b
took mp IN abode ds IA lio1sehos her, III i Il
tie. law treats as faislnS a preslu, d, m !
: Intention to change his fesidruce ual,s s,lj,
Iaeu'rlly explained How 10 expIaa il MIN
rebut this presumption, it required tic titf
| VT already uaTrtione'i, and male, ~ Il has,
said the OMISSION t0 take aud hlc Il, ,ata
with the clerk conclusive presumplidl olia.
tentiou to abandon resiieuce in tue s IS "a II
follows, that, as the appellant did not mike
and file that affidavit, the Register Wa righl
in refusing him registration, unless the Is mel
tant heloags to,a class which the Act i A.
sembly was not intended 10 affect Id 90
whom the Act does not and cannot Oh .ns
This the appellant contends is the case b.
cause he says the Act of Assembly imposes on
hun an impossible condition, ID requiring OF
him the oath prescribed 10 the Act, which
oath he cculd not truthfuly make in other
words, he insists that as he left the State on
the 18th hf august, less than (3) months re-
manned before the next election ia November,
and be could not swear to an intention TO re-
turn within six months preceding the mex.
e ection, MS the law required For this reason
| his counsel contends that the law was void
pro tdato, 1. e., AS TO him, and all in coasim,li
cdSu. This view Ne cannot accept: and u
proper construction Of the statue. and the aft
davit it provides 10 be taken. Will not Justify
| its adoption. Tue manifest intention OF the
| Legislature was 10 provide fer the cases of all
persons already out of the State without de-
signing to lose their residence when the law
was passed, and all persons leaving the State
after its passage with bona J7de intention Of re-
| turalng within definite PeIiod. vi those al
ready out OF the Stale the oath was TO be made
and filed within 80 days after the laws pass
age; and Of those leaving the State after the
| laws passage and taking up abode else v here
within 10 days after leaving the State, if not
made at or about the time OF leaving. .fany
of the first class mentioned made the oath.
there would be six months before the next
election. Ifany of the second class made tbeosth
later than early in NsS sixmonths could 10
elapse before the next November election. IL
cannot be supposed that the Legislature meant
TO make law applying only TO those who
left the State between the 9Th of November and
the 9Th of May, and that it should not amply
to those leaving between May and November
Such an absurd and az reasonable design can
not be ascrbed to the Legislature; and vet
that is exactly what the appellants contention
asks us to say is necessarily implied by tie
wording Of the statute, and unayoidsbly de- |
duced from it. The appellants counsel ad-
mits the Court of Appeals has upheld the law |
as valid and constitutional, and has enforced
1t 10 several cases; but these cases were not
like this; and that the language OF the statute
makes an impossible demand, and is, there
fore partially void. We do not think bis con
struction OF the Act and Oath right, nor his
deduction reasonable. liz SoutherIand vs
Norris (0nte p 32s) the Court Of Appeals su.-
the law and also in Lancaster Us. Herbert. &C.
ante p. 334) In TIGER &c. %. Thomas
ante p. 342) it was also treated as valid.
Having been SO sustained and enforced the
Act must be given construction which vii
make its provisions reasonable consistent
and capable Of uniform enforcement. Ifit is
void 10 the respect contended Tor, it must be
struck down entirely. A cardinal rule Of con-
structon is to ascertain the meaning Cf the
Legislature as fairly indicated by The lam
guage used 1t clearly indicates that party
leaving the State and taking up an abode out
side it, without desiring to abandon the State.
should not do so if he bona Jfde made The aft.
davit prescribed for him to take, and then
bona tfde followed it up b. coming back as the
law required. 1t is as clearly indicated an
intention that the extreme limit Of such abode
outside the State, should not exceed pern,u
which would leave SIX months Def ire Tue ele..
ton which was six Months after making affi
davit Hence it provided thu. the pers,a.
should nut only swear TO an hteaiinn 10 re-
tulu on or before si1 months before such e Cd
lion, tut that ne should retura aui l.sui,..
bis abode in the , ate six months b-.itt SUI
election Il intended Al ttrsuus wle s. l-i.
the State to have. The prisileGe OF sta. IN.
away after tskins Tie o. b prescribed aniii L
six m ntlis only rem .iie'l i'll the election il
November, which MAS at least sir mouths AZ