The herald., 1898-09-04

out families with them. They are entirely
exempt from the payment of any bond
on the district they might impose and free
from any tax they might levy. Members
of a community may pay taxes directly
or they may as laborers pay them indi-
rectly by increasing the tax paying power
of the community. The old soldiers are
in neither of these positions, but are, on the
contrary, supported by the public taxes.
The question ot whether a political resi-
dence can be gained by person while oc-
cupying an institution of learning or an
institution supported at public expense
has been repeatedly tested in this country.
| The decisions are uniform everywhere
| outside of California that an institutional
residence, whether in an educational or In
| an elymosynary institution, gives nopoliti-
cal residence. In the case of soldiers
homes under state support there are nu-
merous decisions In point.
In Silvey VS.. Lindsay. 107 N. Y, IS, the
court of appeals of New York decided that
a residence in soldiers home conferred no
right to vote. This was a case in which an
ex-soldier and resident of New York city
applied and was admitted to the Soldiers
home at Bath, N. Y. He desired to vote
and declared it to be his Intention to make
the Soldiers home his permanent resi-
dence In the opinion Of the court 1t is said:
We have no doubt that the institution
| in question is within the purview Of the
constitutional provision. 1t Is an asy-
| lum supported at the public expense,
and its members are within the mischief
against which that provision is aimed
the participation of a body of uncon-
strained men in the control through the
| ballot box, of municipal affairs, in
| whose further conduct they have no In
| terest and from the mismanagement OF
which, by the officers. their ballots
| might elect, they sustain no injury.
The New York constitution uses the iden-
| tical language on this point as does ours.
There are several other New York cases
in regard to various institutions supported
by the public. Amongst these is one on the
Soldiers home on Staten island. These
decisions all take the same ground. The
appellate court of New York is considered
one of the strongest courts in the United
| States.
| In Walcott VS.. Holcomb, 81 Mich, 361
% L. R. A., 215, the supreme court of Mich
igan takes the same view as the New York
! court.
| Lawrence VS.. Leidigh, SO Pac. Rep, 600.
| was decided by the supreme court of Kan
| sas January 2Sth, 1896. In this the case
! of the Soldiers home inmates was stronger
| than in other cases and as strong as 1t
possibly could be. The case was presented
on a stipulation as to the facts.
| The home was a state home. supported
by public taxes, but 1t was not conducted
| on the communal plan, but cottages were
| built and the old soldiers brought their
families, wives and children, to live with
| them and made the home home fact. IT
was stipulated that those seeking to vote
! intended to make the home their home
while they lived. The court decided tina:
a residence for the purpose of voting could
not be gained in this home. The Kansas
court disapproved the California case OF
Stewart VS.. Roper 105 Cal 459
From the authorities given two PROPOSE
tons are clearly established:
First-A residence within territory ceded
to the United States is not residence with
In the state of the character required to
qualify a person to vote. This has not
been controverted in any case, even in Cali
forna. Also that a national soldiers
home under the same title and management
as the Santa Monica Soldiers home is a
federal reservation ceded. by the state; de-
cided in the Ohio case, and
Second-The constitutional provision that
"for the purpose of voting no person shall
lie deemed to have gained or lost resi-
dence = while kept at an aims house
or other asylum a. public expense" renders
1t impossible for an inmate of a soldiers
home whose residence was in different
precinct before his entry into the home, to
| acquire a political residence while an in
mate of the home.
Now we come to the California cases.
The first of these is in Is Cal. p. 48, People
ex REL, Ounnan v. Riley. This was case
in which 4S votes were cast by the soldiers
of Company D, U. s. A., 45 of which were for
one candidate. The case was not decided
on the point raised, that these soldiers
could gain no residence while in the United
States service. The proof that they were
soldiers was not deemed sufficient, but the
court in its decision intimates that 1t would
have decided against the soldiers voting