The herald., 1898-10-04

! OF the United States.
Third, comes the act Of March .. 1897,
which cedes Jurisdiction over lands held
| for military purposes or Defense" Gen.
Jones denies that a soldiers home In which
| the men are in uniform. enrolled and un-
| der military law, Is for military purposes
| 1t Is not important to question this. for
| the other laws cede jurisdiction clearly
enough. But In making his point Gen.
Jones quotes the Michigan case In which
| 1t. is decided that the Soldiers home. as he
quotes 1t. ''is purely eleemosynary In char
acter." The Michigan case. by the way
sustained my contention In every partic-
| ular. In another place Gen. Jones con-
| tends that the Soldiers home is.not cleo
mosynary in character and Is not support
ed at public expense. His argument in this
demonstrates the untenable character of
fds contention. He takes position in one
place only to attack and overthrow II In
another place. First that the word "asy
lum" In the act Of 1896 creating the SOL
diers' homes was changed to home" by
the act of 1878. To this we might say that
rose would smell as sweet by any other
name.
Second. that the pensions of those having
pensions in home may be wholly or IN
part retained for the home. The answer
to this is that in Santa Monica no pen
| sions are withheld for home purposes.
Third that donations may be received by
the home. Donations do not support the
Soldiers homes anywhere. These homes
are. in fact. supported by the public funds.
Donations are not a drop In the bucket
| In fact at the present time there are none
going to support the home.
General Jones refers to the uniform de-
| cisions in other states, which holds that
| inmates Of Soldiers homes must vote in
the precincts from which they came, and
cannot obtain a voting residence while oc-
cupants Of the home with apparent ap-
lproval. He explains this by saying that
the decisions he cites were in regard to
state and not to national Soldiers homes
Why soldiers in a national home should
have the privilege of voting in mass as an
| institution to control community Of which
they are not a part and soldiers in a state
home should not does not seem clear.
But General Jones goes on to cite with
apparent. approval also, the case in 1O5
Cal, Stewart vs.. Keyser. In this case
the state court decided that the inmates
of the state Soldiers home at Yountville
could lose their old voting residence and
gain a new one while inmates of the home.
by declaration of intention. General
Jones in this endorses decisions the re-
verse of each other and absolutely hostile
The California case has been generally
criticised by lawyers and by some supreme
courts and always in condemnation, as far
as I know.
The California decision Is extraordinary.
-
common law" and to its formal embodi-
ment in the state constitution, which is In
short that persons massed in armies or in
institutions are in fact part Of the army or
the institution, and are not part of the
community where the army is or where the
institution happens to be located, and that,
therefore, while SO situated, such persons
neither gain nor lose residence for the
purpose of voting. No denial Is made of the
propriety and justice of the principle. 1t
| is not attacked. The court then proceeds to
| interpelate into the constitutional prohib-
ition, that these persons can neither gain
nor lose residence for voting, the declar-
alton or intention of the soldier or inmate.
Upon a favorable declaration, the court
says, he can vote. The effect Of the de-
cision was to admit to the franchise in
Napa county, not only the state Soldiers
home, but also the Napa college and in
frmary. 1t absolutely nullified section 4
| of article of the constitution. 1t abso-
lutely overthrows the principle of common
law upon which this is founded. The de-
cision is remarkable for other reasons,
which we need not now examine. agree
with General Jones as to It's scope. He
says that It "does not preclude the gain
ing Of residence for the purpose of vot-
ing by soldiers, college students or the in
habitants of veterans home or infirm-
ary upon proof of their intention to ac-
uuire a domicile In the county Of which
they are inhabitants"
We have seen by the results of the Napa
case that all Of the members of all these
institutions made the necessary declara-
ton and did vote, and that the vote of all
did determine the election Of a county off,
Ger whom they did not contribute to pay,
and with whose business they had nothing
to do.
Thus. under this decision, an army can
be stationed here and carry our election
upon a declaration Of intention Of the SOL
diers that this is their future homo. 1t is
a wild and dangerous departure from safe
ty and justice. A garrison Of United States
regular soldiers in fort n the northern
part of this state did once vote and did car
ry an election The practice is likely to
come in, under political pressure, to vote
soldiers. The decision encourages such an
effort. We see. too, that the disgracefuI
primary IN Alameda, m which soldiers from
Camp Barrett were voted in uni.
form was not hostile to our state courts s
halt <ho s<ox>
confirm that decision. 1t must reverse IT.
self for the sake Of its own good name
and for the safety Of free institutions
1t has already been pointed out that de-
cision that the National Soldiers Home al
Santa Monica is not national property and
is not under national Jurisdiction involves
unpleasant consequences. The public money
spent there has been, in this event. unlaw.
fully spent; every judicial trial, every ar
rest and every Imprisonment at the home
has been unlawful. Action for damages
will hold in every such case. There Is abb
solutely no state authority for the judici al
and military management Of the home
Besides this, under our constitution, pol
tax must be collected. and all the property
In the home and the home itself must be
taxed and the taxes collected for ten years
back The county officers will be forced
to DO II. These are not the only embar.