The herald., 1898-10-20
VfTfRANS' rights
REGISTRATION As VOTERS
HELD TO BE LEGAL
OPINION JUSTR RENDERED
ISSUES RAISED By HON ABBOT
KINNEY DISCUSSED

x0S Y Ed 0AAOGO p AVA" 3~
KINNEY DISCUSSED
JURISDICTION NOT EXCLUSIVE
Superior Court sustains . Demurrer
Filed in Opposition to Complaint
in the Test Case
An opinion delivered yesterday by Judge
M. 4. Allen. and concurred in by Judges
Lucien Shaw, Waldo M. York and w. d.
Clark, sustains the demurrer of defendants
to plaintiffs amended complaint in the test
case instituted by Hon. Abbot Kinney
against L. E. Newlin, county clerk, and
others, to determine the right OF inmates
of the National Home for Disabled Volun-
teer Soldiers at Santa Monica to registra-
tion as voters. The opinion, which 10 very
lengthy, recites the issues suggested by the
complaint, in which the prayer was that
such entries In the Great Register be can
as well as alleged uncertainty and ambiguity
Of the complaint. The court holds that the
primal question involved was whether o.
not the United States has exclusive juris-
diction over the premises occupied BY the
Soldiers home. If 80, residents therein
could not be regarded as voters in this state,
and hence their names would have no place
on the Great Register of this county. :,
The court holds that when title to lands
is acquired by purchase upon the part OF
the general government, by and with the
consent of the legislature Of the state with,
in which the land is situated, the federal
jurisdiction is exclusive of all state authori.
ties This consent, however, must be abso-
lutte, for it may well be doubted whether
congress is by the terms of the constitution
at liberty to purchase lands for forts, etc.,
with the consent of the state legislature
where such consent is so qualified that it will
not justify the exclusive legislation OF con.
gress there. Without the requisite consent
Of the state, the rights acquired by the gem
eral government in such purchase are held
to be proprietary merely.
The first contention of counsel for de-
fendants is that the title to the lands upon
which the home is situate has not been a.
quired by the United States, either by pur-
chase or otherwise. The objects sought to bo
attained, the peculiar obligations under
which the government rests as to the Ie-
cipients of the benefit, and the providing OF
ali funds for building or maintenance being
by the general government, indicate that
the ownership Of all these lands and build
ings is in the United States, and that such
was the intention in the Transaction. These
officers hold but naked legal title in trust.
Counsel next insist that by the deed it is
affirmatively shown that the lands were not
ohna and IN ha oou in which tho vxy<Nrd
purchase is used in the constitution. With
this the court does not agree. The consider
alton was benefits to be derived by adjacent
lands, which constituted valuable consider
alton. 1t seems beyond controversy that by
the payment Of valuable consideration by
the government for the lands the title there
to must Of necessity have been acquired by
purchase, and such purchase as is meant by
the language Of the constitution.
The further contention 10 made by counsel
for the defense that the character of the
buildings shown to have been constructed,
and the purposes for which the land was &C.
quired, are not within the purview of the
constitution of the United States, which
as one Of the powers which con-
gress may exercise exclusive legislative juris-
diction over all places purchased by the con-
sent Of the legislature Of the state in which
the same shall be. With this the court is
unable to agree. A fair construction of that
article of the constitution would indicate
that the phrase 'needful buildings is not to
be construed as needful buildings for the
specific purposes enumerated in detail in the
but needful buildings of any
character which the government may de-
sire In the exercise Of any of its govern
functions. II such be a correct con.
of the constitution, the govern
ment possessed the constitutional right to
purchase the land required, and the state,
Il it so desired, possessed the legal right to
consent thereto.
The next and most difficult question pre-
sented arises in the determination of the
advanced by counsel for the de-
Tense, that the legislature has never con-
sented to this purchase.
The constitution does not attempt to
make it obligatory upon the states to con-
sent. We may infer that it was presumed
that the legislature should examine into the
necessities, the manner of the requirement
of the title, the specific purposes for which
the property was intended, and the inter-
ests of the state, and if, in the particular
instance, it was deemed advisable to sur
render sovereignty, should consent to such
purchase.
The court, in its summing up, says:
"My conclusions, therefore, are that it
affrmatively appears from the complaint
that the consent Of the state of California
to this purchase has never been given in
the manner contemplated by the constitu-
tion of the United States, and that, there
fore, exclusive jurisdiction of the United
States has never obtained upon such terri
tory, and that the premises upon which such
home is located are a portion of the state
of California, subject to its laws, except SO
far as they might interfere with the objects
Of the government in the erection and
Of such home.
"If it be- true that these defendants other
than the clerk do not have their abode
without the jurisdiction of the state, but
are abiding within an election precinct Of
the state, are they shown by the complaint
not to be electors entitled to register? It
is averred that they are at home of the
kind and character described, kept at the
expense of the national government. under
authority of an act of congress; that thev
are domiciled there with the intention Of
remaining only so long as they are so kept
and maintained, or, in other words. their
domicile is permanent if their support and
maintenance be permanent. No fact ia
averred to indicate the temporary charac-
ter of their support, and the complaint
must be construed as indicating permanent
support and residence.
ri do not believe that the complaint shows
these men to be objects of charity, that the
words supported at public expense as sp-
piled to paupers, can be applied to them, nor
that this home is an asylum in the sense
used in our constitution. Il is significant
that in their original formation they were
designated as asylums, but that congress
saw fit to eliminate that designation and