The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1898-09-02
The National Soldiers
Home In Politics
BY ABBOT KINNEY

| at Santa Monica illegal. Either one Is suth'
Client to enforce the proper rule for tho
use Of the franchise by occupants OF the
institution. That rule Is that those de.
string to vote should go to vote or be en-.
ablsd to send their vote to the political
residence which they had on entering the
home.
| Supported by Federal taxes, governed by
federal officers under the national military
Law and located on land belonging to the
United States and improved at public ex-
perse for public use, the benefciaries OF
the soldiers home have no right to impose
burdens upon the local community OF which
they are neither Supporters nor a part and
from whose obligations and laws, while IN
the institution, they are exempt. (See
Section 4S35. Rev. Stat. on application of
military law
| These reasons are:
First-The national home for disabled
volunteer soldiers at Santa Monica is a
Federal reservation. 1t Is national terri
tory. 1t Is not part Of the state OF Calf
| fornia any more than the District of Co
lumbia is a part Of the state OF Maryland.
| 1t Is a Federal reservation just as the ma
tional home for soldiers in Ohio Is a Fed
eral reservation.
| In Sinks vs. Reese, 10 Ohio BOG; "a Am.
Reps. 397. It was decided that the national
soldiers home In Ohio. was a Federal reser-
any capacity had no political or voting
| residence In the state OF Ohio.
That home is under the same manage
ment as that at Santa Monica. The presi-
dent of the United States, the chief jus
an
and eight others selected by congress man
age that home as they do this. The state
Of Ohio ceded the territory occupied to
the United States. The state OF California
has done the same as to this. and all other
property acquired by the United States in
California, and built upon by the Federal
government. (See Statutes 1891. p. 262:
Political Code, 80; Political Code, 34.)
Statutes 1897. p. 81: This last cedes ex-
elusive jurisdiction to the government OF
the United States over all lands held for
military purposes. The national soldiers
home comes under this head, for. by act
Of congress. these homes are made subject
to the military law of the United States
and they are for the compensation and
comfort OF those who are of the military
service. All occupants Of these homes are
enrolled as soldiers or sailors.
The soldiers home must be a Federal
reservation; otherwise the Federal tax
money spent on their home is spent In vlo-
lation of a plain Federal statute. This
statute 10 as follows:
Rev. Stat U. s.. Sec. 355:
No public money shall be expended
upon any site or land purchased by the
United States for the purpose Of erect
ing thereon any armory, arsenal. fort,
fertilization. navy yard, custom house,
lighthouse. or other public building of
any kind whatever. until the written
opinion Of the attorney general shall be
had in favor Of the validity of the title:
nor until the consent Of the legislature
Of the state In which the land or site
may be, to such purchase, has been
given.
The state Of California has given NO
special consent to the acquisition OF this
home by the government. The legality
of the home and the legality Of the expendi-
ture Of public money upon 1t must then be
due to the general laws of California. This
Is clearly provided for outside OF the
statute Of 1897 and that OF 1881. p. 2e2. as
follows:
Section I. The state Of California
hereby cedes to the United tSates OF
America exclusive jurisdiction over
such piece or parcel Of land as may have
been or may be hereafter coded or con-
veyed to the United States. during the
time the United States shall be or re-
main the owner thereof, for all pur-
poses except the administration Of the
criminal laws of their state and the
service Of civil process therein.
If these statutes do not cede this con-
sent Of the state to the ownership OF this
soldiers home to the United States the en-
barrassing situation Is created Of misap-
preparation OF public funds and an entirely
illegal expenditure Of the tax money by the
home governors in defiance Of Section 35S.
Under such an Interpretation OF the state
law as is necessary to deny the cession OF
this property by the state to the Federal
government, every dollar expended on the
home buildings has been unlawfuily spent
This is preposterous. We all know that
the Santa Monica home is and has been a
lawful Federal reservation and that the
money for the veterans has been law
fully spent. Indeed, It must be so recog-
nized, regardless Of petty office-se eking
schemes 1t must be SO determined, both
as a matter of right and law and also as
matter of the safety of the home itself.
Inc interest anu WclidIc VI Tie olu SUluleTs
is jeopardized by any denial that the SOL
diers' home is a lawful Federal reserva-
ton properly acquired and improved ac-
corddng to law.
The decisions as far as I know all hold
that a residence in a Federal reservation
is not a political residence or any other
residence in the community where 1t is
located. See Commonwealth VS.. Clary, {
Map. r.; Storey (par. 122O: Kent, Com
42s ct seq; U. 8. VS.. Davis, 5th Mason 1856
U. s. VS.. Cornell, Sd Mason GO; Met. $50;
Mitchell vs.. Tibbiss, II Pick $685.
| The last case known to me is that OF
Mcmahon VS.. Polk, decided by the supreme
court of South Dakota, reported in 70 N
w. n. This was an election case In which
a person residing on a Federal reservation
sought to vote through such residence at g
state election. The court declared the vote
| to be Illegal. Storey cited supra says in
speaking Of those residing on Federal res.
ervations:
The inhabitants of these places cease
| to be Inhabitants of the state, and can
| no longer exercise any civil or political
| rights under the state.
| The reason that the Federal government
demands exclusive jurisdiction over Its
public buildings and military or other res
ervation Is to prevent clash between
Federal and state authority and to main
tain the discipline and control OF the Fed
eral public service.