The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1906-11-08

evenings and nights, and irregularly
take their meals.
800 Inmates, or members, who
work for stated pay and reside within
the Home where they eat and sleep.
"(6) Inmates, or members who re-
side, eat and sleep within said Home,
but do not work"
1t is further agreed "That some of
all classes are natives of Tennessee, and
Washington county, Tennessee, while
others of all classes come from differ
ent States of the Union, and are here
by reason of the existence of said
Branch Home, to receive its benefits,
having become members of the same"
We are of opinion that those falling
under the paragraphs numbered /, 2,
and 6 fall within the operations of
the principles above laid down, and
that they are not legal voters. We are
of opinion, however, that those de-
scribed in paragraphs numbered and |
are residents of the State of Tennes-
see, and of Washington county and !
where they have resided in the man
ner stated for the length of time pre-
scribed by the constitution, they are
legal voters if they have otherwise
qualified themselves, We do not think
that one living in Tennessee, spending
his evenings and nights at his home
with his family, would lose his citizen
ship and right to vote, by taking all of
his meals across the line in Kentucky,
or in any of the adjoining States near
whose lines he might reside
Before passing from this branch of
the case, we should notice point made
by the defendants counsel to the effect
that if the clause in the Tennessee Act
, of 1901, concerning the voting priv
ilege of the inmates of the Home is
void, then the whole Act is void. In
: support of this contention, we are re-
ferred to Weaver VS.. Davidson county,
104 Tenn, 317, and Jones VS.. Mem
9 phis, 101 Tenn, page 1879. The sub
stance of the decision in these cases in
respect to the matter referred to is that
s where a clause is so interviewer with
g other portions of the Act as that we
cannot suppose that the legislature
would have passed the Act with that
clause omitted, then if such clause is
e declared void, it renders the whole Act
!. null. We do not dissent from the
= principle, but we think it not appli-
cable to the present case We do not
doubt that the legislature would have
g passed the Act in question, ceding the
@ land to the United States for the pur-
q pose of Soldiers Home, without the
y clause in question. That was intended
u to preserve what was supposed to be q
l. privilege in favor of the occupants OF
n the Home. IL did not affect the sub
,. stance of the Act itself, or its pur-
;, pose.
q AS to another point made by defend
II ants counsel, we need not DO more
o than refer to the fact that the constitu
% ton of Kansas, and the constitution oil
some other states, contain in substance
" provision that for purposes of votine
;e no one shall be deemed to have gained
i. or lost his residence, while kept in q
public, charitable institution, or other
similar character. Corey VS.. Spencer,
o Kan, GO l.. r. A. 275; Powell VS..
J. Spackman, Idaho, "a l.. r. A. 378
v Walcott VS.. Holcomb, 81 Mich. 361
a 20 L. r. A. 215; re Francis A. Barry,
:, 1874 N. Y. 18; SO L. r. A. 831. There
u is nothing similar to this in the consti-
:, tuition of Tennessee.
AS to the second question: Is man.
l. damus the proper remedy?
;. If it should be held the proper rem
. edy, and that it could be administered
~ without having before the court per-
u sons whose right to registration is
e brought in question, still it would be
d impossible to apply it in the present
case, because the name Of not one OF
q k1.o 1o;n I'D &c 30 ~ L,
. in the pleadlngs, or appears in the rec
n ord. They are referred to merely I'M
o der the general designation as resi-
. dents or members of the Soldiers
Home, We have held that some Of
l. these Cor rather persons answering to
e the description contained in classes 3
= and supra might be properly regis
, tered but their names do not appear,
nor do the names of those improperl Y
!, registered, and if the peremptory writ
q OF mandamus should be awarded, il
!. would be impossible to SO frame 1t as &c
communicate it to the officers who
would have to act under it, the
y particular names to be stricken Al
entirely new investigation would have
le to be made, with view to ascertainina
and setting out the names to be strick.
. en-; that is, the names of persons fall
Is ing under classes /, 2, s and supra
)r the writ would, therefore, have no ele
;. ment of fnality, and would be impos
= sible of execution. Webster VS.. New
!" ell, Sc Mich. SOB; Clayton VS.. McWil
le liams, 40 Miss. 81; Merrell on manda
in mus, section 42. But aside from this
,e consideration, if the names appeared
w in the record, we could not lawfully
IA adjudge the rights of the parties, il
q. respect to the certificates claimed, with
Fl out having them before the court. The
20 Code Shannon, Sections 1896, 1897
! makes provision for the presence o.
70 such third persons interested in man
At damus proceedings, or at least for the
A. service of such third persons interest
ed in mandamus proceedings, or al
~ least for the service OF notice upon
If them, and the offer of an opportunity
8 to defend.
le Whath as just been said siupon the
70 assumption that mandamus would lie,
s, but careful examination Of our stat
t. utes discovers no foundation for such
d assumption. The statutes referred tc
v are codifed in Shannon's Code, Sec
IS tions 1889 to 1919, and in Shannon's
le Supplement, Sections 1876 to 1887
Ie The commissioners of election are re
y quired to appoint the registrars, ano
are required to purchase and furnish al
l. the expense of their respective coun.
r. ties all such books, stationery, ETC., tc
W the registrars of the different wards
n and districts, as may be necessary tc
IS the proper execution of the duties inn
a. posed, in accordance with forms to bt
le furnished by the State Comptroller.