Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1863-10-07
EBENsBURG, PA. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1868.

tended by its trainers, for the purpose of
depriving the citizen of his liberty? or
shall he have the full benefit of its terms,
and even the benefit Of a doubt, if doubt
there be in the judicial mind The COM
mon law unites with common sense, in
Welding the doubt, if doubt there be, in
favor of the prisoner.
But let US for a moment Gf that were
possible) forget that this is penal statute!
Let US give it a liberal construction, ac-
cording TO its terms. And where do we |
find the act of enrolment referred TO, even |
by implication Certainly, no where in |
the whole section. The clause, cor in !
the performance of any service in relation
thereto" is sought to be wrested from its
legitimate construction for this purpose,
but surely no grammarian would so con-
strue it. The word 'sthereto" can only
refer to lis antecedent, " "draft;" and it
would surely not be pretended that the
/ first great and distinct requirement of the
/ law-the enrolment-should be referred
! to by clause in reference to a second and
totally different requirement, and re-
quirement which is to happen an indeti-
mite time after enrolment or possibly,
not to happen at all.
Take the section, then, Is it stands IN
the statute take mp It's several clauses in
their proper order, and there Is abundance
for II to operate on in reference to the
draft, or drawing, itself, without apply
inc ii to a totally distinct matter. The
sections relative TO the draft, have q NUM-
Der of directory provisions, preparing lists,
- irving notices 10 those drafted, &c TO all
of which the clause referred especially ap-
plies. and doubtless was intended to apply,
, and not to what may have occurred an
indefinite time previously
Suppose. that instead Of a criminal OF
, fence charged upon Joseph VIII, he and
, Mr.. Vancey should be engaged in civil
, controversy, and paper similar IN It's
! terms to this section We're before this
+ court. would not your honor be bound t'
decide in favor of the defendant, and more
f particularly, if the paper to be construct
i was the labor of the plaintiff himself!
= But we are told Congress must have
: intended to punish this offence, and be
= cause Congress either intended, or 0ugh
= 70 hGre intended it. therefore, this pena
statute should be (not strictly but liberal
!. lv) construed to punish the offender sue
II a doctrine can receive no favor at tn
,s hands of this court-and God forbid tina
% il should Whenever the day arrives tbs
ID courts of justice shall construe doubttl
~ LEGISLATION. so as to secure a victim
Y whenever hasty or improvident legislatio
n shall be helped out by Judicial constru'
,a ton: then. indeed, Is our great fabric
republican liberty more endangered tha
y by all the hostile armies that can be set
r. the field against it. The grandest ie;
a ture in the whole conscription law, Is tn
nd il turns over every citizen charged WI
H. an offence under its provisions, TO the ]
he dicial authorities of the country, to
cb tried according to law, by that branch
~, our Government which, whatever may
~, said of the others, still retains its origin
ng purity. :
.on And here 1t may not be deemed IL
,de proper TO sustain our construction OF [
-, act bv referring to one whose opnol
l,a from, his ability as a lawyer, as well
his opportunities for becoming famil
act with the question, should entliie them
in great weight: we refer to Judge Ho
the In his very able paper on the construct
,sl of the I. .Conscription Law" he takes
,u, Ground. and so instructs those act
naI under it. that we must not forsake the
vor fer of the law to follow out It's mtentlo
of b,,t must take the law 90 as 1t IS wrltte
we (See Judge Hollis Opinion.)
+ion If. then. the strict letter OF the law
g nounccs no punishment against Jos'
,.te win. it matters not what Congress II
,,,;- have intended to do. still less what t
,Los ouoht TO have done, the court will ar
See this judgement, and discharge the 2rlsol
20 We're it at all necessary 10 the purT
~ of this motion, we should contend, fl
on the terms of the conscription act lt'
that Congress never intended penalty
-or., the offence here charged. We bel
care this, because
onn The section that provides the
= IF altv against resisting the draft, uses
rosi- word s. enrolled in the past tense, sh
ono mo that that the subject OF the enroilr
;an,, was before the eyes of Congress;
,eTt hence their prescribing no punishment
obstructinn the enrolment, evidences
:. legislative intention to create no per
6 .t,o for that offence.
ith z but we p0,,o, Co..o.os. ;,,,.,,5
and nenaltv for ss obstructing the enrollm
oast , Tbe General theory of the act is tha
:, bo the male cititizens are part OF the
a;nad tional Forces; and the purpose OF the
legis- rollment seems 10 " ~ g. ,aIo;n,,
IN in I or under aye, VI nv