The herald., 1898-10-04
MILITARY POLITICS
BY ABBOT KINNEY

Gen, Johnstone Jones Is the first person
| to attempt legal defense Of the voting of
soldiers or of the inmates of institutions
as massed in garrisons, camps or instftu-
tions and not as individuals according to
| law.
1 am glad to see such a temperate discus
sion of this important question.
Gen. Jones has probably neither read my
articles on this subject nor the brief In the
case. 1t is doubtless for this reason that
so much of his attention is devoted to de-
Tending points not attacked.
In the first place, it is not proposed to
disfranchise anyone. Gen. Jones thinks 1t
| is What Is asked of the courts Is to en-
force the principle Of common law as to
the franchise and Its formal statement In
the state constitution. This Is that under
certain conditions persons entitled to the
franchise are protected from losing their
political residence by reason of absence on
the one hand, while on the other communt-
ties are protected against the massed vote
of men In institutions or armies control
ling their local affairs.
Gen. Jones makes point on disfranchis
ing men because they are poor, and quotes
the dissenting opinion in the Michigan case
TO support his contention. No such point
exists in this case. The constitution docs
not limit the franchise on the ground Of
poverty. The constitution, therefore, does
not invite attack for what 1t does not do.
What the constitution prevents Is the
voting in mass of men in armies, ships or
institutions so as to constrain communities
of which they are not an integral part. 1t
nowhere says that these persons shall not
vote, but 1t does say that they must vote
where they came from and as individuals.
1t protects them from losing the right to
such proper vote by declaring that absence
from a voting precinct under the enumer-
ated conditions does not lose residence
for the purpose of voting. Persons so sit
uated neither gain nor lose political res
idence.
Institutions where persons are kept at
public expense are in this designated class.
So are institutions of learning. So are SOL
diers and sailors. So are civil employees
of the government. So are those confined
In prison, whether on suspicion or con-
victed of minor offenses. This principle of
law is to prevent the constraint of COM
munity by massed voters of any kind, who
are not; in actual interest In the communi-
| ty. A university is deemed as much within
| the scope of this principle as an institution
whose inmates are kept at public expense.
The question of wealth or poverty or even
of public support in the matter of aid to
the individual as is so largely done by our
county supervisors. is "aliunde." 1t Is
foreign to the question. A poorhouse Is not
picked out and put into a separate voting
class on account of the misery or depend
ence of its inmates, nor Is a soldiers
home supported by public taxes. These
are simply included in a general class COM
prised of mcssed bodies of men, whose
vote under such conditions would control
communities to whose duties and burdens
they were alien. This principle of law is,
| founded on the highest and most just view
| of the rights and duties of the franchise
in a free government.
| Gen. Jones takes up the question Of
| whether this National home is or Is not
| Federal reservation. He denies this on
| two grounds. First, that the land does not
and never did belong to the United States,
and, second that this state did not cede
| its Jurisdiction to the Federal govern
ment.
These points are simply technical!ties.
The truth is clear and plain to everyone.
We all know that the National Soldiers
| home does belong to the United States;
that it is supported by the United States
and controlled by the United States. We
| an know that the managers are appointed
by congress and are subject to the orders
| of congress We all know that the man.
| ayers do not own the National Soldiers
home. We all know that the National Sol
diers' home is public institution started
supported and controlled by the nation.
| The case in 10 Ohio entirely disposes of
| this point. This was a case in which
National Soldiers home for disabled vol
unteers under exactly the same title, board
Of managers and control as the National
home here, Identical in every respect, had
been ceded as to jurisdiction by Ohio to the
| United States. But, according to Gen
| Jones, the home belonged to a corporation
| and not to the United States. Why, then,
should the state have ceded jurisdiction to
a government that did not own the land in
ques ton? OF what validity or Importance
could such a cession be? 1t is clear that
the supreme court of Ohio decided that the
act of Ohio was valid and appropriate and
that the transfer of the land originally to
the National asylum for disabled volun-
teers was a transfer to the United States
and that the United States and no one else
owned the National home The supreme
| court Oh tuS Cullcu oldtcS Clleu lIllS
| case and approved 1t in the strongest Ian
guage. We have thus the authority of the
supreme court of the United States In say
| ing that a deed to the National home for
disabled volunteers is deed to the United
| States and that state act of cession Of
Jurisdiction to the United States Of such
| lands is valid and enforcible.
Gen. Jones denies that the political code
and legislative acts of California cede
Jurisdiction of the National home at Santa
Monica to the national government. These
| are all general In character. The first of
| these cedes jurisdiction to lands ceded,
purchased or condemned by the United
| States. Gen. Jones says that the Santa
| Monica lands were given and not pur-
| chased, and consequently are not covered
| by the cession. The law knows but two
methods of land transfer-by descent or
the operation of law, or by purchase. Pur-
chase, in the law, covers all donations,
| trades, buying or acquisition other than
| by descent. Blackstone makes this very
| clear Purchase" in q statute covers gifts
as well as purchase In the common accep-
tation of the term. Then the general has
| to get over the act of March 81, 1891. In this
| California cedes Jurisdiction to the United
| States over all lands that have been or