The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-03-10

The case of the United States of Amer
lea vs. Smith and Roudebush was disposed
of in the United States district court yes
terday, and the complaint or indictment
against them was dismissed.
This is case OF more than usual impor.
lance, rs an article of the constitution OF
the state was involved, as well as an act or
the Pop legislature which Judge Will
Jams. III his decision, knocked higher than
kite
During the election of 1892 Smith and
Roudebush cast their votes in Wright's
Station precinct of Grand View township.
in Ford county, this state AT that time
they were inmates of the Dodge City Sol
diers' home, but the home was located in
the precinct and township mentioned.
During a sitting Of the grand jury
held in 1893 the two men were iu-
dicled for illeg lily voting for representa-
tive in congress for the Seventh congress
ional district. J. w. Ady was then dis
trict attorney but by the turn about Of Of
fetal fortune he became the att orney ior
the defense of Roudebush. He explained
his position to Judge Williams yesterday
and said that Mr.. Perry, his successor
was perfectly willing for him to defend the
case He also stated that the action taken
was that OF a grand jury aud not bis as
United States Attorney while he WAS act
ing as such. judge Williams and = United
States attorney both said that there was
no apology due from Mr.. Ady. that he was
honorably engaged in his profession as the
attorney for the defendent.
Previous to entering the soldiers home
Roudebush lived in Harvey county
while Smith lived in Douglas county, both
Of them beng legitimate voters of the
state.
Mr. Perry stated that it was not his pur-
pose o cause the defendants { o be punished
for firt,r hut hat m. "a
purpose of getting an Interpretation of the
law from the United States court.
The constitution Of the state provides
" no can vote aud who cannot vote. Among
the latter are those confined in peniten-
tiaries and asylums or inmates of an aims
| house and supported at the public ex-
p,nse.
Mr.. Perry contended that soldier s
| home was an aims house or an asylum in
| the sense of the constitutional provisio :
| and that inmates OF the home could not
vote for that reason.
Mr.. Ady contended first that the de-
| fendaLts were citizens of Kansas
ana were legitimate voters Of the
state when they entered the home.
Mr.. Roudebush when he entered the
| home took his family with him and he
was given a cottage of his own and a
patch of ground. He was surrounded with
| all the habliments of home and had no
other home. He gave the history of the
home how 1t originated and all the laws
passed SO far concerning it. He called the
| attention of the court to the law passed by
the Populist legislature in 1898 providing
| that no inmate of the soldiers homes OF
| the state could vote. He characterized
| this law AS the most barbarous act passed
| since the fugitive slave law. He said it
| not only DISTINGUISHED the unfortunate old
soldier, but separated him from his wife
aud children for. according to the law, nc
old soldier can be accompanied to the
home by his wife unless she was over &C
years of age and then married
to him certain length of time. He con-
| tended that when the provision OF the con
| stitui ion was passed referring to the pro
| hibition of inmates of aims houses and
asylums To exercise the right of suffrage
| it did not or could not contemplate
soldiers homes. for the constitution was
| adopted in 1861, before soldiers home:
were in existence or thought of.
Judge Williams, in deciding the case,
did it very briefly. He said that the law:
should be construed literally in the in
| teres. # suffrage, and he did not hesitate
| to state that the defendants were entitled
to vote, and would SO decide.
The decision of Judge Williams annul
the act of 1893. The constitution provides
who should aud should not be clothed wit!
the right of suffrage, and the Legislature
had no authority TO pass AN act maxim!
PROVISIONS OF the constitution Imperative