The weekly mountain Democrat. [volume] (Placerville, El Dorado County, Calif.) 1861-1862, 1861-08-17

Eastman to the Office Of District Attorney,
for which he has been placed In nOrnina.
ton by the Republican County Central
Committee. In that article we modestly
ventured the opinion that he was not ell
gibIe, and endeavOred to fortify that opin-
ion by such reasoning as our unpretend-
ing logical ability enabled us to present,
sustained by such authorities as were
within our reach. That article was not
written in any spirit Of hostility or I'M
fairness to Mr.. Eastman or his political
friends, but was indited solely for the
purpose Of presenting the claw and the
facts" fairly before the voters Of the coun-
ty, and enabling them to form their own
judgment upon the question and act in
conformity with that judgment, whatever
it might be. II contained no sentiment
to which Mr. Eastman or any Of his friends
could take exception. While his preten-
Sions offered many vulnerable points OF
attack, Of which, in = political canvass,
we might have availed ourselves, without
becoming obnoxious to the charge Of I'M
fairness, We carefully avoided them and
struck only at the legal question involved
in his case. We might have questioned
his legal ability and experience. We
might have doubted whether his sOPhO'
morean eloquence was suited to encounter
the subtle logic, and cunning arsumenta.
ton Of older, more experienced and per.
haps wiser heads. We might have Ques.
toned his modesty in seeking a response
BILE and lucrative Office at the hands of
people to whom he was entirely unknown,
before he had acquired among them IA To-
cal habitation and name," and before
the dust Of another State had been entire
ly brushed from his garments. Yet all
these arc proper subjects Of comment in
political canvass, and ought to be well
considered by the people before they de-
terminc to bestow upon him position and
power. But this courtesy and forbear-
ance upon our part seems not have been
appreciated by our neighbor Of the Re.
publican, who has taken il upon himself
to vindicate the claims Of Mr.. Eastman y
eligibility in three successive articles Of
great length and, permit us to suggest, Of
little depth. These articles We, in justice
to our neighbor, have cIrefully read, and
we are compelled TO confess that our
mental vision does not possess microsco-
pic power sufficient to discover aught Of
reason, argument or authority in support
Of Mr.. Eastman'S claim to eligibility. We
regret this weakness Of vision on our part
for we are 10th to believe that there is no
substance in so much matter. We will
not say that there are no ideas concealed
beneath this flowing veil Of words, but iC
there are, then Talleyrand was right when
he said language was given man to ena-
ble him to conceal his thoughts and not
to express them.
These three articles Of the Republican
may be called, in courtesy, replies, but
they arc not answers, to the positions as
sumed by us. They contain no argument
upon the question to which, as we are
informed by the caption, they are adj
dressed. The points made by US, and
fully sustained by authority, are quietly
passed over with the confident assurance
that, in the language Of Sir Charles Cold
stream when looking into the crater Of
vesuvius, "thcre is nothing in il, and
that all this will be made more fully to
apear when that profound reservoir Of lie.
gal learning, Mr.. Oscar l.. ShAfter, of San
Francisco, shall condescend to tap itself
for the benefit Of the court that may be
called to pass upon the question. The
cases cited by US, We are cody informed,
ARE pronounced mot worth n rush as
authority" in Mr.. Eastman'S case, "by
men who stand in the very front rank of
the California bar" Nov, without in
tending to be rude or call anybody names,
We venture to say that no man, standing
in the front or even rear rank Mr.. East
man excepted Of the California bar, has
ever with full knowledge of the facts,
said anything Of the kind, or even second
cousin to it. No lawyer Of any respecta-
bility, even in San Francisco, would VEN
ture TO say that decision ofthe Supreme
Court directly in point, being rendered
on the same or analogous facts. was not
conclusive Of the question. This broad
and sweeping statement of the editor Of
the Republican is doubtless based solely
upon the opinion Of Mr.. Oscar L. Skater,
SO vauntingly mentioned by him. 1t is
very singular that this opinion so fre-
quently referred to, but never quoted, has
not made its appearance in the columns
ofthe Republican. lift clearly establish
es Mr.. Eastman's eligibility, it is strange
that it is not published and a quictus at
once put upon this "vcxcd question" In
the absence Of all other authority, the
opinion Of Mr.. Shafer even would be en-.
titled to hearing. Why then is it kept
back? Why is it not permitted to leave
the pocket Of Mr.. Eastman? Such gem
Of legal learning should not be suffered to
grow dim in the dust of Oberlin still
clinging to that gcntleman's pAntaloons.
Bring it forth, Mr.. Republican, and let
the voters Of FL Dorado look upon it.
Give them an opportunity to Judge wheth-
er it is diamond Of the first water, as
you would have them believe, or only
paste as we more than suspect. But We
need hardly ask whv this crushing onin.