Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1866-07-27

made some changes, but they have, not re-
strained the jurisdiction or diminished the
powers Of such courts.
Ii isio such a code of laws, forming
system devised for the punishment tsf deser-
ton that the 2lst section of the act of March
I'd 1868, was added 1t refers pIaioIy 10
pre-existing laHs. Ii has the single object
OF increasing the penalties, but it does not
undertake tc change or dispense w.ih3the
machinery provided fof4s1unisiIiug the crime.
The common rules Of construction demand
that 1t be read as il 1t had bee- Incorporated
into the former acts. And if it bad been,
II the act of 1896, and its supplements had
prescribed that penalty for desertion .,r fall
ure TO report within Q designated tilEe afscr
notice Of dfalt winch he act OF 8tS63 declares
desertion should be punished on conviction
Of the same with forfeiture of citizensbiS
and death orin lieu Of the latter such other
punishments as by the sentence of a court
martial may be indicted, would any one CON
tend that any portion Of this punishment
could be indicted without conviction and
sentence? AssHredly not And if rot, so
must the act Of 1865 be construed now. 1t
means that the forfeiture which il Drescfibes,
like all other penalties for deseltion, must
be 9d)edged to the convicted person after
trial by court martial and sentence ap-
proved For the conviction and sentence
OF such a court there can be no substitute
They alone establish the guilt OF Che accused,
and fasten upon him the legal consequences.
Such we think is the true meaning of the
act, construction that cannot be denied to
It without losing sight of all the previous
legislation respecting the same subject mat
ter, no part CT which does this act profess to
alter.
1t may be added that this construction is
not only required BY the universally admit
ted rules of statutory Interpretation, but it
is in harmony with the personal rights Sc
cured by the constitution. and which Con-
gress must be presumed 10 have kept in view.
IL gives to the accused trial before sworn
Judges, right to challenge, an opportunity
OF defence, the privilege of hearing the vi
nesses against him. and of calling witnesses
IN his behalf. 1t preserves to him the COM
mon law presumption of innocence, until he
has been. adiudged guilty according to the
forms of law.
It gives inality to single IF tried by
court martial and acquitted, his innocence
can never again be called in question, and
he can be made to suffer no part of the
penalties prescribed for guilt
On the other hard, if a record of c0nvic-
ton By lawful court be not a prerequisite
to suffering the penalty Of the law, the act
Of Congress may work intelerable hardships |
The accused viii thus be obliged to prove
his innocence whenever the registry of the |
provost marshal isadduced against him. No |
decision of board of election officers will |
protect him against the necessity of renew |
inghis defence at every subsequent election, |
ana each time with increased difficulty aris-
ing from the possible death or absence of
witnesses. In many cases this may prove a
gross wrong. IT cannot be dnnbted that in
some instances there were causes that pre-
vented a return to service or a report, by |
persons registered as deserters by Provost |
Marshals, tlat would have been held justify |
ing reasons by court martial, or at least /
would have preTented an approval of the |
court s sentence. 1t is well known also that |
some who were registered deserters, were at
the time actually in the military service as
volunteers, and honorably discharging their
duties to the government. 10 hola that the !
act Of Congress imposes upon such the ne
cessity Of proving their innocence without
any conviction of guilt, would be unreasona-
BE construction of the act, and would be at
tributing to the national legislature an in
tention not warranted by the language aud
Of the enactment
1t follows that the Judgment Of the court
below upon the case was right. The plain
Tiff NOT having been convicted of desertion
and failure to return to the service or to re-
port to a Provost Marshal, and not having
been sentenced to the penalties and forfeit
ares Of the law, was entitled to vote.
And now, to wit, JUne20, 1866, the judg-
nent OF the Court Of Common Pleas Of
Frankli in county is affirmed
GEo. w WOODWARD.
Chief Justice
WOODWARD G. il concur in the con
.lusion stated in the above opinion, and N
most of the reasoning by which that conclu-
;ien was reached. But | do not concur in
- .. L. onA nfi sn,,rr,.-r ., q unlid nnnnt- j