|
-
72 CITIZENSHIP AND SUFFRAGE IN MARYLAND.
were these: Key, a resident of Charles county, in 1889 became an employee
of the Federal government in Washington; gave up his Charles county house;
and only returned to Maryland for brief visits. In October, 1890, the regis-
ters struck oft his name from the lists and Southerland petitioned to have
it
reinstated. The Court held that the Act of 1890 does not add to the qualif-
cations of voters as prescribed by the Constitution,' but simply provides a
rule of evidence for proof of legal residence. A person who left the State
before the Act took effect, did not take with him a vested right that the
roles
of evidence should not 1>e clfanged, and is required to prove his residence
by
the roles of evidence in force, when the officer of registration sits to
revise the
lists. The fact that the person leaving the State and taking up a domicile
elsewhere is in the Federal service, makes no difference and, hence, the
register is sustained. We see from this decision how- mach the Act of 1890
altered Maryland's law of residence, as previously expounded by the courts.
" Before the Act of 1890, removal from the State, accompanied by no circum-
stances to indicate ,in intention to return, furnished some evidence of an
intention to acquire a new residence elsewhere " * , since. that Act, such a
removal, together with the acquisition of a new domicile, is given more
weight, as evidence of an intention to abandon tire State ; its probative
force
is strengthened. It now raises a presumption that the removal. was made
with an intention of being permanent, unless the person who has so removed
rebuts that presumption b y making, within a designated time, the affidavit
prescribed by the Statute and subsequently returning to the State."
The strong character of the requirements of the Act of 1890 was shown
by the contemporaneous case of Lancaster vs. Herbert.2 Lancaster was a
Charles county man, who removed with his family to Washington in-1874.
He lived there until 78S)0, all the time being part owner and manager of an
estate in Charles county. He then made the affidavit required by the Act
of 1890, but did remove from ANTashington. He was not allowed to vote, and
claimed the law was unconstitutional, as depriving citizens of
Constitutional
rights, imposing additional burdens not prescribed by the Constitution,
discriminating against those who, possessing the clualificnntions of
voters, may
leave the. State for business or pleasure and have a temporary dwelling
place
outside of the State, and requiring citizens, temporarily residing without
the
State, to furnish proof of residence not required of other citizens. The
Court
of Appeals affirmed the Constitutionality of the Act, said that an
individual
can have but one domicile but many residences, that intention and not length
of absence is the criterion of abandonment of residence, that Lancaster had
not proved that he had a. residence in Maryland, nor that he had an
intention,
floating or fixed, to return there. Farther, that, though failure to make
the
(I) Constitution, Art. I sec. 1.
y.'.) .4 \fd. Itepts, &34.
|
