The fact of his being in Newport on the first day of May, the declaration of his purpose to become a citizen, and to be taxed there are evidence, tending to show a change of domicile, but they are not conclusive.”

Precisely the case. His case was stronger than that of Mr. Shaw. He did go there; he took his family there and paid his taxes there. Mr. Shaw paid taxes in Ward 5, but he never lived in Ward 5. He went to 8 Hayward place and to 142 Lincoln street; but his home, his surroundings, his family, everything that the name "home" implies, was away out in Dorchester, where his aged mother-in-law and his family live.

The grocer didn't charge his bill to Mr. Shaw. Well, what of it? Mr. Shaw knows from experience and knows full well that it is too dangerous to have grocer's bills in his name. Mr. Shaw knew that a day might come like this, when, possibly, it might be brought up. He has no grocer's bills; but it is a significant fact that when the grocer was told about the moving of the family out there, Dr. Shurtleff said the family of Mr. Shaw were coming out to Wales street; and so the grocer went down and got a pass-book, and Miss Shaw always paid the bill. He sometimes saw Mr. Shaw there, but he never had anything to do with ordering the things. He got the orders from Miss Shaw. Mr: Shaw knows too much about charging these things; the case was brought up before. The grocer was brought up from Brookline. There is no grocer bill to Mr. Shaw now; but it amounts to nothing, and only shows that Mr. Shaw was cute enough not to get caught in that way a second time. It was only in conversation not on politics; only when thrown off his "I live on Wales street. guard that he said where he lived. "This house resembles ours." "I want you to come down and paint my house." It was only on such occasions that he spoke the honest conviction of his mind. His very anxiety to have the assessors keep him on the Ward 5 list; his anxiety to tell people he lived in Ward 5 showed that his home, his bona fide residence, was not there. I remember reading in Bret Harte's poem, "The Tale of a pony," these lines:

"In short, you're always sure to detect

A sham in the things folks most affect;

Bean-pods are noisiest when dry,

And you always wink with your weakest eye;
And that's the reason the old gray mare

Forever had her tail in the air,

With flourishes beyond compare,

Though every whisk

Incurred the risk

Of leaving that sensitive region bare;

She did some things that you couldn't but feel

She wouldn't have done had her tail been real.”

Precisely the case here, Mr. Shaw did such things you couldn't but feel that he wouldn't have done had his residence in Ward 5 been real.

Now, about the intent and the act governing this case; Mr. Shaw says he resided in Ward 5; but that don't make him a resident of Ward 5. The mere fact of sleeping there don't give him a home in Ward 5. The mere fact of getting a key from Mr. Lee don't give him a home in Ward 5. The intent and the act must go together if he wants to make his residence in Ward 5. Did they go together in this case? The committee cannot hesitate in saying that they did not. If I say I am going downstairs, and, instead, I go up, that don't make me go down. If Mr. Shaw says, "I am going to reside in Ward 5,” and resides in Ward 16, that don't make him reside in Ward 5. The evidence is that he said he intended to be a resident of Ward 5, but he actually lived in Ward 16. In this case as in every other the principle that "actions speak louder than words" must be applied.

Even if a student resides at Harvard college, and never goes home to his family, it don't make Harvard his home. Mr. Shaw goes to Wales street and stops there, - he don't dare to get up and contradict that; he don't dare bring a person here to contradict men whose characters for truth and veracity are unimpeachable. He don't contradict the painter, the carpenter, or anybody who saw him around there. He don't contradict any one who saw him at his home, which was not in the attic chamber at 142 Lincoln street.

I ask this committee, in all justice and fairness, sitting here as a jury, to

decide, if this were a case presented in a court of justice, as between two persons, as between two towns; as between Ward 5 and Dorchester; as if Mr. Shaw had sued the town of Dorchester for a poll and tax on personal property, whether this committee would hesitate one moment in deciding that the residence of Mr. Shaw was in Dorchester, and in Ward 5?

You have all the decisions bearing on this case - Mr. Dean has given nearly all of them, and I would refer to the following:

Amherst vs. Granby, 7th Mass.

Putnam vs. Johnson, 10th Mass, 488.
Harvard College vs. Gore, 5th Pick.

Lynn vs. Fiske, 17th Pick., 231.

Cheney et al vs. Waltham, 8th Cushing, 331. (In this case the presiding judge ruled that if the house was so divided by the line as to to leave that portion of it in which the occupant usually and substantially performed those acts and duties which characterized his home (such as sleeping, eating; sitting and receiving visitors) in one town, then that the occupant would be a citizen of that town, and that no right of election would exist (to be assessed elsewhere); where the actual residence is not left doubtful upon the facts, there is no room for election.)

Mr. MAY. That is where Mr. Chenery's farm was in Waltham and his house in Belmont.

Mr. FITZGerald.

Preston vs. City of Boston, 12th Pick, 7.

Thorndyke vs. City of Boston, 1st Metcalf, 242.

I give these to the committee, so that you can have the decisions. Mr. Dean and myself draw different conclusions; you can draw yours.

But the simple question, stripped of everything, is, which one of those places was the residence of Mr. Shaw? We contend, that the place in Dorchester was; and everything connected with it—his home his family shows that his residence was there; and if Mr. Shaw had no residence in Ward 5, he was clearly ineligible to the office of Common Councilman from Ward 12.

It is not a question of ignoring the rights of citizens. If persons elect men who are not eligible to office, they have no reason to complain. The law lays down certain rules, and if the voters disobey them, they must suffer the consequences

If Mr. Shaw is not eligible, who is? Clearly the person receiving the next highest number of votes, and I would refer the committee to the contested election case of Somerset, in Cushing, page 571, where it was decided that a vote for a candidate, who is constitutionally ineligible, is not to be counted. Mr. DEAN. What application do yo make of it?

Mr. FITZGERALD. That if Mr. Shaw is not entitled to the seat, the person who received the next highest number of votes is.

Mr. DEAN. Where is the evidence of that?

Mr. FITZGERALD.

We have the evidence of that in the petition. The allegation is sufficient. This is not a trial of law. Mr. DEAN. It is a trial of fact.

Mr. FITZGERALD.

cient evidence.

Certainly; the reports of the election officers are suffi

Mr. DEAN. When the facts come up on that point I have something to say. It is only a question of a residence of three months in a ward.

Mr. FITZGERALD. I don't pretend to say that; if Mr. Shaw was a resident at all he was a resident three months; but the intent of the Legislature is that a man must be a bona fide resident of a ward. That is not the point at all.

Mr. DEAN. Are you going to say anything on the question of qualified voters?

Mr. FITZGERALD. — If he is not a resident, he is not a qualified voter; if he is not a bona fide resident of a ward, his name has no business on the votinglist.

This closed the arguments and the hearing.

RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT AND COL

LECTION OF TAXES, 1876.

IN BOARD OF ALDERMEN, Jan. 24, 1876.

To amend an ordinance concerning the assessment and collection of taxes.

Be it ordained by the Aldermen and Common Council of the City of Boston, in City Council assembled, as follows:—

SECTION 1. The seventh section of the ordinance concerning the assessment and collection of taxes, printed in the edition of laws and ordinances for the year 1869, and amended March 8, 1870, is hereby further amended by striking out the words " and second."

SECT. 2. The tenth section of the said ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 10. "Section 10. It shall be the duty of the First Assistant Assessors to assist the Assessors in estimating the value of the personal property, and in their respective districts, with one of the Assessors or Second Assistant Assessors, to appraise the value of the real estate, and to take a list of the polls therein, and report the same to the Board of Assessors. It shall be the duty of the Second Assistant Assessors to visit, in company with one of the Assessors or First Assistant Assessors, the different estates in the districts to which they shall be assigned, to aid him in the discharge of his duties."