The weekly mountain Democrat. [volume] (Placerville, El Dorado County, Calif.) 1861-1862, 1861-08-03

Of note, that the Court, for the purpose
Of showing the extreme absuFdity Of the
position assumed by Grow, BY way Of H.
lustratlOn, suppose . case, the facts Of
which are identical with those Of Mr..
Eastman'G 1t Is surprising how q point
30 plain and simple could have ever be-
come question for debate. The propo.
sitiOn that man can be elected to an Of.
fee at an election at which he cannot him.
self vote, carries upon its face . manifest
absurdity and . mere statement Of such
proposition is its own complete rcfa-
tation.
While, 50 far as we know, the ground
above considered is the only one upon
which Mr.. Eastman's claim to eligibility
il based by his friends, re are not I'M.
mindful Of the fact that there may be
some who entertain the opinion that he is
eligible upon another and different ground,
holding that his residence dates from the
time he lcft Ohio, Nth tho intention Of
coming to this State, and not from the
time be actually arrived here.
This latter proposition is still more ab
surd and untenable. IL possible, than the
former. There is no authority for such a
position. 1t rests solely upon an opinion
Of Mr.. Attorney General Hastings. given
ct an early day in the history Of the State,
and at time when large number Of the
people were not qualified electors for the
want Of six months residence, and more
Democratic votes were deemed necessary
to the safety Of the country. This dcciS-
ion was laughed at by tho legal profession
at the time it was given. hut was also
winked At, for the political advantages
supposed to be secured by It. Instead Of
the law Of domicil being, as stated by Mr..
Attorney General Hastings, II il directly
tho reverse. A domicil can be acquired
only by actual rcsidence, ,cith the inten-
ton Of remaining At tho new place Of
abode. Intention without actual residence
is not sufficient; the new domicil must b.
established amino ct .tactO, by a union Of
the fact and tho Intention. BY moving
from one State to another, man docs not
lose his domicil, but he retains tho dom.
icH Of origin until new one has been
acquired. Such, in short, is the law Of
domicil; and Mr.. Eastman did not lose
his dOmiciI in Ohio at the time he took
his departure from that State. but retains
the same until no has acquired now DOM
icil in this State, which he can do only Oy
an actual residence Of six months, with
the intention Of remaining
We do not deem II necessary to cite
authority in support Of our exposition Of
the law Of domicil, but, to avoid all ques.
tons Of it's correctness, We refer the
doubling. IL any such there be. to the
case Of Graham &c. the Public Admins.
traitor, 4th Bradford's Reports. 1877, where
they will end the subject fully discussed.
and the law declared to be as stated by Us.
From what has becr sai4, Il results
that. in no view Of the case, can Dir.
Eastman DO eligible to Office at the next
election; and we arc unable to perceive
for what reason he has consented to be.
como q candidate, or for what reason the
Republican Central Committee have DE-.
tcrmired to put him upon their ticket.
His running can neither accomplish good
to himself nor to his party. since. il
elected, hia right to tho Office will be sue
cessfully contested.
We have written this article merely for
the purpose Of settling . somewhat vexcd
question, with the view Of enabling the
voters Of the County to vote with . full
knowledge Of the law and the facts. II
any now choose to throw away their votes
upon Mr.. Eastman the fault will not b.
ours. since our duty in the promises, as
public journalists, has now been fully
performed.