FINAL DECISION OF REGISTRARS ON VOTERS

On Thursday night, the Cambridge Board of Registrars passed upon the protests filed by Edwin D. Edwards against the registration of thirty-six Harvard men at the hearing on these protests held Wednesday it developed that of the thirty-six names objected to by Mr. Edwards, through his attorney, John L. Glynn, four were of men whose names did not appear on the books of the registrars as having applied for registration. The protests against the names of two others were withdrawn when it appeared that they were not connected with the University.

The objections field in each of the remaining cases were on the grounds that the applicant was not properly assessed; that he was not domiciled in Cambridge, and that he had not established six months' continuous residence.

The applicants were represented in the hearing by Mr. Stoughton Bell '96, of the firm of Putnam; Putnam and Bell, of Boston. The Board of Registrars decided that in all of the cases except four, the ground of complaint was not established and refused to strike the names of the applicants from the voting list. The four who have been dropped are R. M. Jopling 1G., S. T. Williamson '17, D. H. Whittemore '17 and S. W. Morgan '16.

The case is important since it establishes the attitude of the Cambridge Board upon the question of the registration of University students. The question of improper assessment was in connection with the reliability of the witnesses produced by the applicants before the Board of Assessors, and which has been made the subject of an investigation by the Middlesex County Grand Jury, and upon which the Grand Jury as yet has reported no finding. The contention of the applicants on this point was that this question was not one which the registrars could pass upon since it involved the action of an entirely separate body, namely the Board of Assessors.

Upon the second ground of objection, the complainant tried to show that the applicants, as students deriving their support wholly or in part from their parents, were not domiciled in Cambridge. The third ground of objection was that the absence from Cambridge during the summer vacation prevented the applicants from establishing the necessary residence. It is with reference to the last two points that the case is of interest to Harvard students. In each of the cases in which registration was granted, the applicant presented evidence to show that he was wholly or in part self-supporting, and that he was free from parental control. Of the four men who were refused registration, one withdrew his application, one had attained his majority within the six months, necessary to establish residence, while the other two admitted receiving a measure of their support from their parents.

It would seem that these facts pretty clearly establish the conditions under which men may expect to secure registration as voters in Cambridge, under the Board's present interpretation of the registration laws.