The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-10-10
THEY MAY VOTE.
Soldiers at Home Given Right
to Cast Ballots.
They Must Be. Counted in Leav-
enwOrth County.
REVERSES ITSELF.
Tribunal Had Decided They
Could Not Vote.
Court Knocks Out All Special
Legislation.

The veterans in the Soldiers home at
Leavenworth can vote in L.eavenworth
county. The supreme court so decided
today. In so doing it reversed a former
decision of the supreme court, and
frankly admits it, although 1t says 1t
hesitates to do so.
The court virtually says that the state
law permitting the inmates of the home
to vote does not conflict with the con-
stitutional provision which says that
persons who go to aims houses or asy-
lums do not thereby acquire residences
there for voting purposes. The decision
is that the Soldiers home does NOT come
under the class of aims houses OF asy-
lums or eleemosynary institutions be-
cause the inmates are free to go OF come
as they please.
The decision is rendered in the con-
test case brought by John NJ Cory
against Drake d. Spencer over the OF
fee of county treasurer of Leavenwortn
county Counting the vote of the Sol
olers home Cory, the Republican can
didate, was elected. The vote was 81
counted by the canvassing board and
Cory was declared elected, but Drake,
the Democratic nominee, contested, and
the contest court and the district court
both decided that the old soldiers could
not vote, thereby giving Drake the Of
decision and orders that the office pe
given to Cory. It says:
The real question presented is the
right of 7S5 members of the National
Soldiers home situated in Delaware
township, 1eaVenWOrth county, to vote
at such election. OF these votes 1862
were cast for Cory and % for Spencer.
The contest court sustained objection
to 741 of the 762 votes cast for Cory on
the ground that such members were not
til r.G IL --l,s~. i
county. This was also the conclusion
of the district court in the trial of the
case.
''The persons whose votes were thus
excluded had not prior to entering the
home established a residence in that
". some from different parts of this
state, others from the state of Missouri
and possibly some from other states. 1t
is contended by the plaintiff in error
that one who abandons his residence
with the intention of never returning
and takes up his residence in the home
with the intention of remaining there
permanently acquires the right to vote
there.
1--WE admit that we approach a dis
cussion of this question with some hesi-
tation, not because we entertain doubts
about the correctness Of the cOncluS-
ions we have reached, but because of a
former decision of this court upon this
precise question. which we are satisfied
is wrong. Lawrence VS.. Leidigh. So
Kan 594) AS a matter of judicial
policy it is oftimes better for the highest
tribunal to adhere to a construction
once given to a statute. although er-
roneouS which by lax of time has be-
come settled law of the state. than TO
disturb business conditions and posi-
bly, vested rights, by reversing its own
Judgment Generally when such mis-
takes grow into the law the people may
be relied upon to make the proper cor
rections by legislative enactments and
the injuries consequent upon such
changes being made by the court be
thus avoided This remedy. however,
is not efficacious when mistakes have
been made in the Interpretation OF
constitutional provision.
''The following are the agreed facts
upon which the question is presented:
That all of said persons at the time
thew move from their places before
coming to the home abandoned their
old homes with the intention of making
the home their permanent residence
1.-The logic of the contention of the
defendant in error is that the co<sti-
tutional provision providing that no
person kept at an aims house or
asylum has right to vote under the
decision of Lawrence VS.. Ledigh. The
conclusion reached in that case that
by accepting the benefits of the home
he forfeits his right to a vote while he
continued to enjoy its privileges. Con-
ceding for the purpose of this case that
the home is an e1eemosynary institution,
an aims house or other asylum main
tanned at public expense. does the con-
stitutional provision, either in direct
terms or by implica ton. deprive per-
sons while maintained therein from
acquiring voting residence?
This provision of the constitution
does not prevent one from acquiring a
voting residence if such be his <urDose.
He is as free to change his residence
as if he were a recipient of this
bountv