The Nevada Democrat., 1860-11-01
To the Judges and Inspectors Of Eiec-

To the Judges and Inspectors Of Eiec-
tion.
The Constitution Of the State OF Califor-
MIA fixes the qualifications of voters, as fol-
lows:
Every white male citizen Of the United States,
and every white male citizen OF Mexico, VINO
shall have elected to become citizen oil the
United States, under the treaty OF peace eX-
changed and ratified at Queretero, on the 5Oth
day Of May l848, ofthe age twenty years,
who shall have been resident of the State SIX
months next preceding the election, and the
county or district in which he claims hls vote
thirty days, shall be entitled to vote at all cleo
tions which are now or hereafter may be au-
thorized by law. >
The courts of the several States have laid
down certain rules determining what coD-
stitates residence, and what acts or cir
cumstances fixes change Of residence:
Ifaperson leaves his home for temporary
purposes, but with an intention to return TO IL,
this change of place is not in law change OF
domicil or residence.
A person can have only one domicil, for the
purpose of exercising the elective franchise, at
one and the same time.
That place is deemeda mans residence whlch
appears to be the centre of his affairs III 0usl-
ness; or where he votes, or exercises the rights
and status Of citizen.
The foregoing is called out for the reason
that it has been suggested that unscrupu-
lous politicians have instigated citizens of
Utah Territory, who have identified them
selves as citizens and residents, by exercis-
ing the right of franchise and voting at the
elections in that Territory, to return to this
State for the purpose of voting at our cleo
lion 1t would be well in all cases where
persons from Utah offer to vote, for the Of
fcers of election to ask such persons whether
they have voted in that Territory, and if
they have, where aud when. Any person
who has voted in Utah within the past
six months, cannot be a legal voter in Cal
ifornia, and the Judges Of Election should
decline TO receive the vote of such person
when offered. The Board of Judges, if they
are satisfied person is not legal voter,
may, in their discretion, decline to admin
lister the oath, and reject his vote. In the
case ofthe people VS.. J. Gordon and W. 7,
Warren, in which the defendants were in
dicted for refusing to administer the oath to
one Binswanger, who was challenged on the
ground of alienage the Supreme Court held
the following language:
The Doth section of the election law provides
that to the person challenged, the Board o
Judges, in their discretion, may administer an
oath, &c and the 30th section provides, "If the
person thus challenged shall take the oath as
rendered to him by the Board of Judges, he
shall be admitted to vote" &c.
One Of the allegations Of the Indictment is the
refusal of the judges to administer the oath. II
will be seen, however, from the above quoted
section Of the law, that this is matter left to
their discretion; and very properly SO, because
in many instances it might be an act of super
erogation. II the challenged party upon being
questioned, was to admit that he had not been
naturalized, or that his naturalization certif-
cate had been issued by some Court which the
Judges knew, according to the rules of law, had
no jurisdiction of that subject, or in the case Of
a citizen well known, whose simple answer was
a sufficient guarantee Of his right to vote; in all
these cases, the Judges might very properly, in
their discretion, decline to administer the
oath.
This decision is reported in the 9th vol.
umne of the California Reports, page 235
1t was rendered by Judge Heydenfeldt, and
concurred in by Judges Murray and Bryan.
Wy n