North Branch democrat. [volume] (Tunkhannock, Pa.) 1854-1867, 1866-06-06

OCmmUuWcaltu
ps. In the 4darter
John II. Green, County.
Rich. Reynolds,et. al
GENTLEMEN OF TIE JCRr: The import
ant principles involved in this case demand
at your hands careful consideration, both
ofthe facts and the law applicable thereto.
Difference Ct opinion exists and earnest
discussions are held upon the question now
to be decided. The public mind is some
what excited upon the subject. But ex-
citement, passion, prejudice and pre-judg-
ment should be kept outside of and entire
iy excluded from this Temple of Justice
Here duty requires calm deliberation and
unbiased and impartial judgment.
The indictment in this case is founded
upon the Act of q July 1889, known as
the Election Law. 1t ct argos the defend
ants in the language of the llth Section of
that Act, which having used threats, prac-
ticed intimidations,an and employed force and
violence, with design to influence unduly,
overawe and prevent the prosecutor, James
Peterman, qualified voter of Laporte
township, in this county, from voting at the
General Election held on the second Tues
day of October last. There are eight
counts, charging different offences under
the Act, but all arising from the same
transaction. :.
On the part Of the Commonwealth it is
shown, that the prosecutor was qualified
voter as alleged in the Indictment Resi-
dence in the State and district, assessment
and payment oftaxes, as required by the
Constitution and laws, have been clearly
established by unquestioned testimony.
1t is also alleged and proved, if the wit
nesses are believed, that while the prosecu-
tor was in the act of offering his vote at the
last election, he was seized by the defend
ents, T. j. Ingham, John FL. Green and
Richard Reynolds. MIR. Ingham chaleng
ing his vote, declaring that he arrested him
as deserter and commanding all persons
present to assist him. His authority was
called for He showed paper, but de-
clined to read it. The vote ofthe prose,
cutor was taken from his hand by one of
the In spectors and laid upon the table,
Under the direction of Mr.. Ingham the
prosecutor was then taken into the room
where the Election Board was sitting and
there held until his right to vote was decid-
ed. His vote was refused. He was then
taken under guard to the house of Mr..
Ingham, where he was kept for upwards Of
two honrs and then suffered to 60 at large
upon his promise not TO trouble those who
had arrested him.
According to the testimony of VIM. L..
Burke, witness for the Commonwe ealth
and Benz. l.. Cheney, y witness for the
defendants, Mr.. lngham declared in the af-
ternoon before the arrest, that he would
have the prosecutor arrested if he attempt
ed to vote Mr.. Griffis testifies that Mr.,
Ingham declared after the arrest that he
had so told the prosecutor before he offer
ed his vote. This is brief outline of the
evidence relied upon by the Commonwealth
On the part of the defendants it is alleg-
ed that the prosecutor had forfeited his
rights as a citizen by deserting from the
military service of the United States. In
support of this allegation, they produce
here an exemplifed copy or extract from
books in the War Department,which shows
that James s. Peterman, of Laporte town
ship, Sullivan county. was drafted on the
18th of January, 1865. In one column of
the extract is the word held" On the
right of the word, and opposite the name,
10 the word deserter."
Tt appears that in the latter part of Feb
ruary or fore part of March, 1855, A. g.
Wilbur took Peterman to the Provost Mar
shalPs Office. at Troy, in Bradford county,
where he was examined and held 10 serv-
ice. "He escaped from the oficce." says
Provost Marshall Manville. "and did not
again come into my custody"
It appears generally from the evidence
upon both sides that from the time Of the
draft TO the time of Offering his vote. and
since, The prosecutor has been at home, op-
enly about his business, and at no time in
the service.
Does the Act of CONGRESS of Sd March,
1865, under these facts deprive the prose-
cutor of all rights as a citizen of the United
States and disqualify him as an elector in
the State Of Pennsylvania %
In order to understand this Act.it is nec-
essary TO examine the statutes which pre-.
ceded it. The first Act passed by Con
gress, in regard to desertion. which is now
in force. is that of 1906 Brightly's Dig.
as. refer to the goth Article of War
which is in these words: "All officers and
soldiers who have received pay or have
been duly enlisted in the service of the Uni
ted States and shall be convicted of hayino
deserted. the same shall suffer death or such
other punishment as by sentence of Court
MARTA! shall be inflicted"
Before the sentence of Court Martial
can be executed it must be approved; for
rerly by the Secretary of War, but now by
the 21st Section of the Act of Sd March
1858, by the Commanding General in the
field. I'd Brightly. Al.
The Judge Advocate officiating at any
Court Marshall IA reonired hv the Goth ~