Evening star., 1940-03-12

QlQACS JUDICIAL Objects OF compel
them to maintain 1t by residing out
side the District and In a State not
otherwise Of their choice. Equally,
II not more, strange would be one so
capable of discriminating, In prac-
tical consequences and legal effects,
between the high and, the low, the
well-to-do and the poor in the Fed
eral service. If such a price were
placed so broadly upon the accept
ance Of Federal duty, the conse-
quences would be entirely unpredict-
able, whether for the Government
or for the individuals Immediately
concerned. Many would accept it
OF necessity. Others would not do so
for any preferment. State attach
ment is not incompatible with Fed
eral service. On the contrary, it re-
mains a compelling allegiance sec
ondary only to national loyalty not
merely for few. but for all Federal
servants who do not prefer District
domiciliation. Our dual system con-
templates harmony, not an antag-
onism, OF State and national alle-
giances. Each is the complement,
not the antithesis, of the other. A
rule which would compel surrender
Of the one in order to exercise the
other fully would be inconsistent
with these principles. Creation of
vast army of Federal officials and
employees detached from the States
in all of the civil and political rela-
tions which domicil sustains is not
thing desired or desirable, whether
regarded from the point of view of
the Government, the States or the
individuals. That connection with
the home community is key pin in
the structure of the dual system.
1t should not be weakened or de-
stroyed. as it would be by accept
ance of respondents view.
Distinction Raised.
These considerations, standing
alone, are sufficient to sustain our
conclusion. But partial escape from
the consequences of respondents
position is sought in recourse to an
asserted distinction between civil
and political domicil Political
citizenship, it is said, is distinct
from civil domiciliary status, and
therefore we need not concern our
selves with the former. The dis
tinction may be admitted, but not
to the extent or with the conse-
Quences claimed. Distinct the two
conceptions are, but they are not
entirely independent. For some pur-
poses, it is true, State citizenship
may be conferred without reference
to domiciliation. But that is not to
say that such purposes are many,
that the citizenship so created is
full grown, or that it is in fact fire.
quently conferred. The contrary is
the case. That the suggested dis
tinction is more theoretical than
practical, argumentatively specious
than safely tenable, is shown by
this widespread practice In effect,
this is admitted by respondent S
further argument. made in answer to
petitioners claim of jeopardy here
to his political status as a citizen of
Massachusetts,, namely: 1T may be
that petitioner, in voting in Mas
SachusettS under the claim that he
is a resident of that State and main
tainS a residence in an apartment
house In which he has no place of
abode, may be perpetrating a fraud
upon the law of Massachusetts. +"
The effect of the concession cannot
be wiped out merely by asserting
that that question is not before
this court"
Equally untenable in principle is
respondents position In so far as
it attempts to distinguish between
military men elected officials and
others, on the one hand, and judicial
officers. administrative officials and
indefinitely employed minor officials
and workers on the other.
The difficulty is to find con-
sistent principle of differentiation.
If permanence or indefiniteness of
term is controlling, judicial officers
and civil servants. for instance,
might be distinguished from the
elected officials and cabinet officers.
But the distinction breaks down in
relation to military and naval off,
GERS. To meet the breach resort is
had to a theory of compulsion.
+ Their residence here Cor elsewiere)
it is said, is not voluntary-lhey
have no other choice. But this cen
fuses choice as to maintaining a
place of abode with choice of per-
sonal presence in order to perform
duty. At the cost of separation
from their families, homes could be
maintained in the State of appoint
ment just as they could by civil
servants. But in the one case as in
the other, the price would be pro-
hibitive. Further, the two groups
have the same choice rs to entering
the service and many memners Of
both as to leaving it. Officers may
resign, though enlisted men vrdi-
narily must serve out their limited
terms. In effect all respond tc the
same fundamental compulsions as
do civil servants on entering, and
officers do so by remaining, in the
service. We fail to see, either in
compulsion or in length of definite
ness of term how they occupy status
in respect to loss or acquisition of
domicil basically different from that
of permanent civil officers and serv-
ants. If actual length cf service
and residence here supplants def
niteness of term, the senior Senators
and Congressman may find them
selves destated and therefore in
eligible to hold their offices. Con-
! stitution, Art. I, Secs. 2, 3. If
election as against appointment
turns the scales, they will retain
domicil at home, while their secre-
taries and clerks acquire status as
residents Of the District
Inc0ngruous Determinations.
These incongruous determinations