The herald., 1898-10-25
SOLDIERS HOME VOTE
II r ****** + + + **********f + + +
BIZ ABBOT KINNEY

The question presented to the superio
court of this county, Where should tn
occupants of the National Soldiers hom
vote. has at last been answered. Ih,
court says that they shall vote massed il
1.-THE institution and in the five precincts 10
Gated on the National home grounds ant
not in the precincts from which the inmates
came, as provided in the state constitution
On the Federal question the court admits
that the Soldiers home is United State
property. The court admits that the stat,
could have ceded the jurisdiction over thi.
home to the United States. The court ad
mits that had such cession been made by the
state the occupants of the home would moi
have been entitled to vote at the home ii
local elections any more than the soldiers
in the home at Washington can vote in
Maryland affairs.
The court admits that three state acts
exist, the intention of which was to cedt
by general laws exclusive jurisdiction to the
United States over establishments of the
United States in California.
The court admits that these state laws
would apply to the Soldiers home if they
were valid and applied to anything.
| The court thus traverses and denies the
points presented by my patriotic friend
General Jones. The seven distinguished
lawyers who are of record against the case
'oeclher WIN tne fourteen other volunteer
assistant lawyers, are left completely
stranded by the court. Not one of theil
points is sustained by the court. The court
| respectfully and regretfully says that it can
not agree with their points. Between the
lines of the decision it is easy to read real
regret that these distinguished and learned
Republican lawyers had to be throw,
by them declared to be worthless
Such, however, was the cruel ne
cessity forced on the court. The courts de
cision is declaration that the distinguished
| Republican lawyers were wrong on every
point of the Federal question. The court,
tain the demurrer
The inadvertency of the numerous law
yers on the military massed voting side was
cured by the ingenious originality OF the
court. The blow delivered by the court
upon the distinguished Republican lawyers
point on the Federal side of the question
that the court would sustain.
The courts decision is based on point
not made by the attorneys. The courts re-
lance is upon the proposition that the gen.
eral laws of California ceding jurisdiction to
the United States over lands acquired for
Federal establishments are invalid and of
no effect. The court says that no cession
of jurisdiction by the state to the United
States by general law is. valid. To be valid
such cession must be by special act, spe
officially designating the territory ceded, and
at or after the cession. Such is the court $
opinion. The general laws of the state
granting jurisdiction to the Federal govern
ment over its establishments are all in
valid.
The United States government insists
upon exclusive jurisdiction over its forts,
arsenals, lighthouses, postoffices, mnts and
over all other buildings and establishments
1t may create or maintain
Section 355, Revised Statutes, specifically
prohibits. the expenditure of public money
upon such constructions until the state has
consented to the cession of territory in
volved
Under the county courts decision the
government is decided to have been deceived
in relying on the general laws of California
IN the expenditure of public money on pub
lic buildings in this state. Such money has
been Illegally expended and the Federal gov
elnment has not the jurisdiction which its
laws and policy demand.
The courts decision is far-reaching and
has the most important and serious conse-
quences. According to this ruling, Califor-
MIA has misled the United States government
by it's general laws ceding jurisdiction over
territory used for Federal buildings into an
Illegal expenditure for the erection and main
tenance, of such buildings. California has
buncoed the United States. Surely this is
a remarkable and unpleasant position for
honest AMI self-respecting Californians to be
placed in.
The court not only denies the points
raised in the case by the Republican LAWYERS.
but It also condemns the competency of sew
'ral Republican legislatures that passed the
general acts of cession of jurisdiction de-
clared to be invalid
The amendment or entire notification OF
legislative acts by our courts has become SO
common in California that we NAV COM
the condemned legislature, but
we cannot feel surprise that their laws are
declared to be null and void SO we find
That neither the various legislatures passing
The several general acts of cession OF iuris-
liction to the Federal government, nor any
Of the numerous Federal officers expendinr
money under them, nor the Federal law
officers passing on the titles, nor the Fed
aral congresses appropriating the funds to
be spent only after the states consent to
The cession, knew what they were about. 1t |
is reserved for our county court to inform
Ill of these public officers that they knew
nothing about what they were doing.
1hls interesting originality is accentuated
by our county courts positive reversal of
the supreme court of the United States.
his reversal of the supreme court is not
'nly upon the main question Just discussed.
out also upon the question of the meaning
ot the reservation by the state in the code. |
II service OF civil or criminal process, and
he effect of such reservation. Our court
ays that this reservation defeats the valid |
ty of the cession entirely. All that can be |
said about the authorities on the question
If the validity of general laws of cession
jurisdiction and consent before the |
purchase is that they are all one way, and |
I'll and singular against our county court.
There is not even dictum in favor of their
position.
The same unanimity of authority main.
aims that the reservation OF the right to