clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings of the House, 1904
Volume 408, Page 1174   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

1174 JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS [Mar. 22

office-holders in Washington, whether they took their
families with them or not, to return to the portions of
the State from which they were appointed to exercise
the right of voting. No Court ever denied this right,
or ever intimated that it did not exist, until the case
of Southerland vs. Norris, in 74 Maryland, after the
passage of what was called the "Poe Affidavit Law,"
first passed in 1890, under which, in addition to mak-
ing the affidavit of intention to return, the party had
to remain physically in the county six months before
the election, or otherwise be deprived of his right
to vote.

The purpose of this Act, as declared in the Legisla-
ture and elsewhere at the time, was, in large measure,
to prevent what was then termed the "army of office-
holders" in Washington city, from returning to the
State of Maryland to vote.

Theretofore they could return and vote; thereafter
they could not. No such act has ever been passed
with reference to residence, even for the purpose of
voting, and certainly not in relation to office-holding,
so far as lo affect persons who have "not" left the
State, but. who are still in the State of Maryland.

In practically every State of the Union residence, as
applied to office-holders, has been so construed as to
permit the retention of the residence from which the
office-holder was appointed, unless by clear manifes-
tation or declaration he showed a purpose to adopt
another place as his legal domicile or residence.

No one can contend that there has been any such
manifestation in the case of Smoot.

In some of the States—mostly in the Northern
States—there is a constitutional provision to the effect
that office holders can vote in the State from which
they have been appointed.

In the others—and notably is that the case in the
Southern States—without any constitutional provi-
sion, the Courts have, so far as we have been able to
learn, invariably held that persons in the service of
the Government, whether in or out of the State, re-
tained their original domicile.

 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings of the House, 1904
Volume 408, Page 1174   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 17, 2024
Maryland State Archives