1164 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 22

told Hungerford that he had a home with him to come
and go when he pleased, and again said "Hungerford
could remain at his (Dr. Smoot's) home indefinitely
until he saw something to do—to make a living—my
house is his home "whenever he comes to it," this
same right Dr. Smoot, testified he, accorded all his
children alike, including his son Grain, who is a voter
in Baltimore city.

These are the facts gleaned from voluminous testi-
mony.

Now do these facts constitute residence within the
purview of the Constitution ?

Judge Robinson in the case of "Schaeffer vs. Gil-
bert in 73 Md. 70," says the object in thus prescrib-
ing residence as a qualification for the exercise of the
right of suffrage was not merely for the purpose of
identifying the voter as a protection against fraud but
also that he should in fact become a member of the
community and as such have a common interest in all
matters pertaining to its government.

The framers of the Constitution were dealing with
the question of residence for political purposes and
which though analogous, in many respects, is not to
be understood in the same sense as domicile in law by
which the rights of persons and property are governed,
so the question is what is the meaning and what is
necessary to constitute residence as thus used in the
constitution.

It does not mean, as we have said, one's permanent
place of abode where he inter.ds to live all his days or
for an indefinite or unlimited time nor does it mean
one's residence for a temporary purpose with the in-
tention of returning to his former residence when that
purpose shall have been accomplished, but means, as
we understand it. one's actual home, in the sense of
having no other home, whether he intends to reside
there permanently or for a definite or indefinite length
of time. As in domicile one's original residence is the
residence of his father at the time of his birth, but
when he reaches the age of twenty one, being sui juris,
he mar abandon his original residence and acquire a
new one. Again in the case of Langhammer vs. Mun-