WARD ROOMS.

The following list will show the location of the various ward rooms in the city :

This department has charge of a lot of land situated on Dartmouth street and Warren avenue, containing 84,000 feet, purchased as a site for a High School-house.

City Document No. 16.

IN COMMON COUNCIL, March 2, 1876.

The Committee on Elections, to whom was referred the petition of John T. Casey, representing that Geo. A. Shaw, of Ward 12, one of the persons declared elected to your body, is not rightfully entitled to the seat which he now holds, for the reason that he was not at the time of his election, nor since the first day of May, 1875, a qualified voter, or inhabitant of said Ward 12; and further, said petitioner, John T. Casey, asks that the seat now held unjustly (as he alleges) by the said Shaw, be given to him; beg leave to submit the following report: That they have given this subject their most earnest and careful consideration, and sought by every means in their power to give both parties a fair and impartial hearing, with the means of information at their command. Your committee are deeply sensible of the importance of this subject,-the proper qualifications of a citizen who presents himself for the suffrages of his constituents, as a candidate for public office, and his eligibility thereto. The question of what constitutes a legal voter is one very simple and comprehensive, and is plainly set forth in the City Charter, Sect. 20, page 10, viz.: "He shall be an inhabitant of the ward from which he is elected," etc.

The sole question at issue before your committee was the allegation of the petitioner, John T. Casey, that Geo. A, Shaw was not an inhabitant of Ward 12 at the time of his election; and upon that point rests this whole case. To exercise the rights and duties of citizenship is an inherent prerogative of every man who attains the age of twenty-one years (subject to well-known restrictions), and any infringement upon that right is subversive of the just principles that underlie our peculiar form of government, viz.: The "sovereignty of the people." Every citizen has the unqualified right of selecting his domicile for himself, and no man or body of men can deprive him of it; the sole right to decide where he may hold, control, and exercise his political privileges, free from any dictation whatsoever. The mere question of sleeping or eating, or in what manner his personal comfort may be attained

is a subordinate one, and one with which your committee has nothing to do.

The great problem your committee sought to solve was, What is George A. Shaw's political status? In what ward of the city of Boston did he "elect" to exercise his citizenship? We must accept as an incontrovertible fact, that one of the qualifications of citizenship and to be a legal voter must be to be taxed. This is of itself prima facie evidence of his being a qualified voter. That he was so taxed in old Ward 5, from 1839 to 1875, see page 70 of evidence, before your committee, and the sworn testimony of several of the assessors of taxes, on pages 71, 72, 73, 74, 75.

This evidence is of itself sufficient to establish the fact of where Mr. Shaw should exercise his political rights, viz.: the ward in which he was taxed and enrolled as a legal voter. This point of taxation and enrolment was fully established in the minds of your committee and conceded by the counsel for the petitioner, see page 61 of Evidence. Your committee therefore must conclude, that if taxation and enrolment as a voter are necessary qualifications to exercise his rights as a citizen, then Mr. Shaw was to all intents and purposes (within the meaning of the law) a qualified voter and eligible to any office within the gift of his constituency in Ward 12.

The next question to consider, by your committee, was, the law of domicile, or "being an inhabitant." The law of domicile is very clearly set forth in 23d of Pickering, pages 176, 177, viz.: 1st, That every person must have a domicile somewhere; and, 2d, That a man can have only one domicile, for one purpose, at one and the same time, and that he must retain that until he acquires another; and that domicile or habitancy, for the purpose of exercising all his rights as a citizen, whatever they may be under and within such habitancy. In 5th of Metcalf, pages 587, 588 and 589, this question is treated to great extent, and uses this expressive language: That if a man describes himself as of "such a place," and otherwise manifests his intent to continue his domicile there, these are all circumstances tending to prove that his domicile is not changed.

1st. Woodbury and Minot report in case of Burnham vs. Rangeley, pages 7, 8 and 9, affirming a man's right to elect where his domicile shall be, and if he has two to elect in which one he shall exercise his right of citizenship and preserve his political right. That if a person removes from one place to another with the intention of remaining, his domicile is changed, and that a former domicile is presumed to continue

until he clearly shows another. The whole question of domicile is usually dependent upon the intent of the party.

Again, Acts and Resolves, 1874, Mass. Legislature, Chapter 376, Sect. 11 and 1: "That a man has a right to vote where he is assessed, or liable to be assessed." Again, in Hous Doc., State of Maine, 1849, in report of Committee on Elections, in case of Smith vs. Carter. This was a case of much importance, involving the right of Carter to retain his seat in the House of Representatives, from Portland, against the remonstrance of Wendell P. Smith, and others. This remonstrance was upon the evidence of Carter not having a residence in Portland, his family living in Bridgton. It was a question of domicile. The report of said committee is very elaborate, and cannot, for want of space, be quoted verbatim here. But Mr. Carter was sustained, and continued to hold his seat in the House. Again, in the 21st Wallace reports, U. S. Supreme Court, in Mitchell vs. U. S., where Judge Swayne held that a domicile once acquired is presumed to continue until it is shown to have been changed, also change cannot be made except facto et animo, both are alike necessary, page 353 of reports. Many other authorities could be quoted, defining the law of domicile, but your committee think these are sufficient.

This is precisely Mr. Shaw's position. He had distinctly stated his residence to be in Ward 5 or 12, and had claimed that to be his domicile, for the exercise of his right of citizenship, and claimed no other; that he intended to continue there. He had so continued, for many years, to perform all the duties of citizenship within said ward, and had been elected on various occasions to represent his constituents there in the City Government as a member of the Common Council, no question being raised as to his elegibility until the year 1873; his constituents never doubting, in their minds, his proper qualifications to represent them.

In 1873, January, his seat was contested. See report of same, City Document No. 20, Petition of Wm. M. Flanders and others, and in that report, pages 6 and 7, is the City Solicitor's reply to several questions propounded by the Committee on Elections of that year. The result of that hearing was the favorable report of the committee, affirming Mr. Shaw's right to his seat.

Your committee find Mr. Shaw's status the same now as then. Your committee, having an earnest desire to act justly and impartially in this matter, sought the opinion of the City Solicitor as to the law of domicile, and submitted several questions to him for his decision, which are hereto annexed. Your committee regret that almost any construction that is