In re Legal Residence of Inmate of Orphanage. Orphanages--Education of inmates- -Legal residence -School districts An orphan, who was an inmate of an orphans' home under articles of agreement with the guardian whereby the latter released all parental rights and claims to the child until the age of eighteen, in consideration of which the orphanage undertook to feed, clothe and educate the child, does not become a legal resident of the district in which the institution is located. The legal residence is retained in the school district in which its guardian lives and the payment of the expenses of education can be provided for in the district where the orphanage is, in the manner provided by the Act of May 9, 1913, and in no other way. December 22nd, 1914. Hon. Nathan C. Schaeffer, Sir: Superintendent of Public Instruction, This department is in receipt of your inquiry of November 20th, asking to be advised whether a child placed in the Messiah Home Orphanage, incorporated, and having a branch home at Grantham, Pa., becomes a legal resident of the school district in which said branch of said orphanage is iscated, although the guardian, or parent placing such child in said orphanage is a resident of a different school district. I assume that the practical question intended to be raised by your inquiry is whether the directors of the school district in which said branch orphanage is located may charge the cost of tuition, text books and school supplies of and for the inmates of said branch orphanage against the districts of which said inmates are alleged to be legal residents. The disposition of this question depends upon whether an inmate of said Messiah Home Orphanage, at Grantham, Pa., becomes under the Article of Agreement between the parent or guardian of such inmate and the said Messiah Home Orphanage (a copy of which Article of Agreement you enclosed with your communication), a legal resident for school purposes of the school district in which the orphanage is located, or whether such inmate of said home retains his or her legal residence, notwithstanding said contract, in the school district in which the parent or guardian resides. By Section 1402 of the School Code of May 18, 1911. P. L. 309, at page 380, it is provided that: "A child shall be considered a resident of the school district in which his parents or the guiardian of his person resides. If any child has no parents or guardian of his person, then such child shall be considered a resident of the district in which the person sustaining parental relations to such child resides." The Act of May 9, 1913, P. L. 192, however, clearly contemplates that children may be inmates of orphan asylums, homes for the friendless, children's homes or other institutions for the care or training of orphans or other children, without becoming legal residents of the school district in which such institution is located. The Act referred to reads as follows: "The board of school directors of any school district in this Commonwealth, in which there is located any orphan asylum, home for the friendless, children's home, or other institution for the care or training of orphans or other children, shall permit any children who are inmates of such homes, but not legal residents in such district, to attend the public schools in said district, either with or without charge for tuition, text-books, or school supplies as the directors of the district in which such institution is located may determine: Provided, That when the education of such inmates of such institutions is charged for, the cost thereof shall not exceed the cost of In re Legal Residence and Education of Inmate of Orphanage. tuition, text-books and school supplies of other children of similar grade in such district: And provided further, That such cost shall be paid to the district in which such institution is located by the district of which the respective pupils are legal residents." It is perfectly clear that the Article of Agreement between the guardian or parent of the child and the Messiah Home Orphanage does not amount to an adoption. It merely provides for the release and relinquishment of all parental rights and claims to the child until he or she reaches the age of eighteen years, in consideration of which release the orphanage undertakes to feed, clothe and educate according to law, the child in question, etc. Although the article has a provision for what is called the "re-adoption" by the Orphanage of the child into some good Christian home where it will receive like treatment and instruction it amounts in no legal sense to an adoption. In the recent case of Benson vs. Nicholas, 246 Pa., 229, our Supreme Court, quoting from and re-affirming Carroll's Estate, 219 Pa., 440, said: "The only methods of adoption of children known to the law of Pennsylvania, are those prescribed by the Act of May 4, 1855, P. L. 430, Sec. 7, as re-enacted by the Act of May 19, 1887, P. L. 125, Sec. 1, and the Act of April 2, 1872, P. L. 31, Sec. 2. The former provides for adoption by petition to, and decree of, the Court of Common Pleas; and the latter for adoption by deed duly executed and recorded. While the Act of 1872 refers to 'the common law form of adopting a child by deed,' yet the authorities are uniform to the effect that adoption was unknown to the common law, whether by deed or otherwise: Ballard vs. Ward, 89 Pa., 358; McCully's App., 10 W. N. C., 80; Session's Estate, 70 Mich., 297; Butterfield vs. Sawyer, 187 Ill., 598. We know of no authority for the proposition that, in the State of Pennsylvania, a child may be adopted by parol." It should also be observed that the Act of May 19, 1887, P. L. 125, contemplates adoption of children by natural persons only, and not by a corporation such as the Messiah Home Orphanage, and further that the said Orphanage cannot be considered a "person sustaining parental relations" to a child who has "no parents or guardian of his person," within the meaning of the above quoted Section 1402 of the School Code. You are accordingly advised that a child who is an inmate of the Messiah Home Orphanage at Grantham, Pa., does not become, merely by virtue of the Article of Agreement between its guardian or parent and the Crphanage, a legal resident of the district in which the institution is located, but such child, notwithstanding this agreement, retains its legal residence in the school district in which its parents or guardian, or the person ŝustaining parental relations to such child resides, as provided in said Section 1402 of the School Code above quoted. I may add that practically the only way in which a child who is an iamate of such an institution, whose parents or guardian lives or whose deceased parents lived in another district, could become a legal resident of the district in which the institution is located, would be through legal adoption of such child by a resident of the said district in one of the methods referred to in the opinion of the Supreme Court above quoted. Elections In re Registration of Voters in Redstone Township No. 4. Township registry list-Manner of entering names. The Acts of Assembly provide that the Assessor shall enter in his Registry Books, only those names that he shall find upon careful and diligent inquiry to be bona fide residents of his District. Where the Assessor of a Township took the book of an Assistant Assessor and entered a large number of names therein without personal application from any of them and without noting the age, whether housekeeper or boarder, and other matters required by law, and without personal knowledge of the qualifications, such names will be stricken from the registry list upon petition. Men who have come into the District to work on a State Road and have resided there for 60 days, many of them foreigners, should not be included on the registry list, as there is no evidence of an intention to become actual residents of the District. Proceeding to purge and correct registry list of false and fraudulent registrations. No. 226 December Term, 1914. C. P. Fayette County. E. C. Higbee, of Sterling, Higbee & Matthews, for petitioner. UMBEL, P. J., October 20, 1914.-This is another proceeding under the Act of May 29, 1891, P. L. 134, as amended by the Act of May 16, 1895, P. L. 75, for purging and correcting the Registry List of Redstone township election precinct No. 4. Mr. Sol G. Krepps is the Assessor of Redstone Township, each of the four election precincts has an Assistant Assessor for election purposes, etc., and Mr. E. F. Woodward is such Assistant Assessor for election precinct No. 4 and as such made registration of the voters of his district in May, 1914, showing about 234 voters on his list, and at the Presidential election there were cast 122 votes in this precinct-all told there are now on the list about 370 names. Some time before September 1st and 2d, 1914, which dates the Assistant Assessor was required to be at the polling place, Mr. Krepps, the Township Assessor, came to the Assistant Assessor, who says that Mr. Krepps stated that the County Commissioners "had sent him to get the book, he said he was the Assessor and he said they sent him there to get my book to help him out," whereupon the Assistant Assessor delivered his Registry List book to Mr. Krepps, who retained it for several days and when it was returned the Assistant Assessor found that upwards of 60 names had been entered thereon noting after each nothing but post office and occupation. With one exception the names so entered, while the book was in the possession of Mr. Krepps, are irregular and, from a legal standpoint, it is clearly our duty to declare them false and fraudulent and strike them from the Registry List of Redstone Township election precinct No. 4. This one made personal application to the Assistant Assessor. Another lot of names on the Registry List, regarding which complaint is made, is composed of names entered by the Assistant Assessor September 1st and 2d, secured from two sources, viz: 1. The assistant mine foreman from Brier Hill coke works brought a list of four or five or a half dozen and asked that they be entered, which the Assistant Assessor did, without personal application or any information other than the name, post office and occupation. 2. A Mr. Higinbotham brought a list of names of men employed on a state road contract in this election precinct in the vicinity of Brier Hill, advising that "a fellow on the state road had handed him those names and asked him to bring them over," requesting that they be entered on the Registry List, which was done by the Assistant Assessor without personal application and noting nothing but the name, post office, occupation and date of entry. In re Registration of Voters, Redstone Township No. 4. The names in 1 and 2 above are so entered and intermingled that the Assistant Assessor cannot separate or specify them other than that they came to him from one or the other of the above noted sources and in view of the fact that they are all improperly on the list and, in law, false and fraudulent, that fact is not material. Regarding the names in list 2 above, a question is involved that has been given some attention by the press throughout the state, viz: Whether men so employed on state road contracts who have been working in the district for more than two months before the election have a right to vote in such district, of course, assuming that they are otherwise qualified. In this instance the names of the men so employed were entered on the Registry List (a) without personal application from any of them, (b) without noting "Voter," "age," "N," "D. I.," "I. N.," "R," or "C. V." after each name, (c) without noting whether they are housekeepers or boarders, (d) without noting names of employers, (e) without noting names and residences of known residents of the district who furnished information as to their qualifications as voters; all of which matters are required by law in such cases. If question had not been raised doubtless every such name entered as aforesaid would have been included in the County Commissioners' alphabetical list to the election officers. The names of these men indicate that most, if not all, of them are foreigners, so personal application and sixty days working or residence in the district would not entitle such men to be registered; if they had not been voters in the district for at least two years immediately preceding the election they must exhibit to the Assessor their naturalization certificates and have the letter "N" noted after each name on the Registry List. As to registration, the Act provides that the Assessor shall enter on his book only those "that he shall find upon careful and diligent inquiry to be bona fide residents of his district" and on his list he shall note the names of persons "who have moved into the election district to reside since the last general election" and "the assessor shall, in all cases, personally ascertain by careful and diligent inquiry of the voter or of some known resident of the eiection district in which the voter claims the right to vote, upon what ground such person so assessed claims to be a legally qualified voter," and in all such cases as these "where any person claims to vote by reason of naturalization, he shall exhibit his certificate thereof to the assessor * * * the name shall be marked with the letter "N". There is in the Registry List book a special column for noting each of the matters mentioned in this and the paragraph last preceding, none of which plain, specific, mandatory and imperative provisions of the Act were complied with in these cases. "The qualifications of a voter in Pennsylvania are fixed by the Constitution, which is the supreme law and which requires that a male citizen desiring to vote 'shall reside in the state one year (or if having previously been a qualified elector or native born citizen of the state, he shall have removed therefrom and return, then six months) immediately preceding the election.' He shall have resided in the election district where he shall offer to vote at least two months immediately preceding the election. If twenty-two years of age or upwards he shall have paid within two years a state or county tax which shall have been assessed at least two months and paid at least one month before the election." Coudersport Registry List, 23 C. C. R., 419. What do we understand by "bona fide residents" or "to reside" as used hereinabove in this connection? It means to dwell permanently, to have a settled abode, dwelling or home; a place where a man's habitation is fixed without any present intention of removing it therefrom. Residence indicates permanency of occupation as distinct from lodging or boarding or temporary occupation and, in a statute, the Supreme Court of Maryland says, residence means the fixed home of the party. In re Registration of Voters, Redstone Township No. 4. We do not think any one will seriously contend that strangers coming into a district, employed on a public road contract, come there to reside or are bona fide residents of the district, they certainly do not come in the list of "permanency of occupation" but come among those included in "lodging or boarding or temporary occupation," not having a "fixed home" in the district. A man does not lose or acquire residence by employment merely, it is a well-known fact that a prominent citizen of this town has been employed for almost or quite a quarter of a century in Harrisburg, yet he has retained his residence in Uniontown and comes home to vote. Earnest party men have no right to assume that men so employed expect and intend to make the place of their employment their residence and permanent home, and if they have them registered and assessed and pay or cause to be paid taxes for them, that does not make them legally bona fide residents and legally qualified voters in the district. Nothing short of such action on the part of the man himself and a good faith compliance with all the formalities of the law would give him such right. Persons might be so employed for years and not become bona fide residents, and have no intention of coming into the district to reside there and, without a careful and diligent inquiry and the noting of the same as required by law, we think and find as a fact that being so employed any length of time does not give such employee a legal residence such as to entitle him to be registered and vote, regardless of how many people might be able and willing to swear that such person had had a physical existence or place to stay in such district the length of time necessary to give him the right to vote if he had been a bona fide resident or had moved into the district to reside there, in the sense of making it his home. We think the presumption warranted that American-born citizens and foreigners who have been naturalized engaged in such work have a legal residence somewhere when they enter on such employment and such residence is not changed by such employment without more than merely living in the district while engaged on such work. A most vicious condition might develop from allowing men who did not have a bona fide residence in the district and men employed such as these are, to vote. For instance, suppose as in this case, 70 to 75 such men should be registered and permitted to vote and some important local or county office was to be filled, they might have the balance of power and the will of the majority of the bona fide residents be defeated by the votes of men who were not such bona fide residents or in fact by men who were in the district but not there to reside or make it their home and who would have no real concern in the matter one way or the other. They are not entitled to vote in the district where they are employed unless they are there as bona fide residents, to reside in the sense above noted, and election officers must not allow them to vote nor deliver ballots to them without strict compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. From the testimony submitted in this case it clearly appears that there are on the list the names of several who are minors, some who are not and never have been residents of the district and quite a number of foreigners who have not been naturalized, one of whom says he has been only "six months from old country" and another only one year. It is inconceivable that such conditions as are established in this case could be the result of anything but a bold, open, notorious attempt on the part of some one or more persons to pad the Registry List with names of men who were not qualified voters for the purpose of stuffing the ballot box with false, fraudulent, irregular and illegal votes. Now, October 16, 1914, this matter came on for further hearing; and now, October 20, 1914, upon and after due consideration and for reasons set forth in |