Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1866-10-04
DECISION of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania, on the Act Disfranchi-
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Huber rs. Riley.

Officers of election have no authority
to try question of alledged desertion
A person alledged tc be deserter from
the army can only be deprived of his
! right TO vote after trial and conviction
by a Court Martial
ERROR TO the Court of Common Pleas of
Franklin County, The opinion of the
Court was delivered by Strong, j.
The fifth article of the amendments to
the constitution ordains ssthat no person
shall be held to answer for a capital or
other infamous crime, unless on present
ment, or Indictment of grand jury, ex-
cept III cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the militia, when in actual
service, in time of war or actual danger
nor shall any person be subject for the
same offence 70 be twice put in jeopardy
of life or limb; nor shall he be compelled
IN any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of
law" The sixth article secures to the
accused in all criminal prosecutions Ger
tain rights, among which are a speedy
and public trial, by a jury of the vicinaee,
information of the nature and cause of
the accusation, face to face present with
the witness against him, compulsory pro-
cess for his own witnesses, and the as
sistance of counsel The spirit of these
constitutional provisions is briefly that no
person can be made to suffer for Grim
inal offence unless the penalty be inflicted
by due process of law. 1t ordinarily i'm
plies and includes a complainant, de-
iendant and a judge, regular allegations,
opportunity to answer, and trial ac-
cording TO some settled course of judicial
proceeding 1t must be admitted there
are few exceptional cases. Prominent
among these are summary proceedings to
recover due 10 the government, especially
taxes and sums due by defauting public
officers. But can cali to mind no in
! stance in which it has been held that as
| certainment of guilt of n public offence,
and the imposition of legal penalties, can
be in any other mode than by trial ac-
cording TO law of the land, that is the
! law of the particular case, administered
/ by judicial tribunal authorized to ad-
/ judicate upon it, And | cannot persuade
| myself that a judge of elections or
board of election officers, constituted un-
/ der State laws. is such a tribunal / can
/ not think they have power to try criminal
offenders still less to adjudge the guilt or
! innocence of an alledged violater of the
laws of the United States A trial be-
| fore such officers is not due process of
law for the punishment of offences, ac-
cordIng to meaning of that phrase in the
| constitution. There are it true many
! things which they may determine, such as
the age and residence of a person offering
! to vote, whether lie has paid taxes, and
! whether if born an alien he has a certifi-
cate of naturalization. These things per-
! tain to the ascertainmcnt of political
right. But whether he has been guilty
/ of criminal offence, and has as n. con-
sequence, forfeited his right, is an inquiry
/ OF Il different character. Neither our
constitution nor cur law has conferred
upon the Judges of elections any such iu-
dicial functions. They are not sworn to
try issues in criminal cases. They have
no power to compel the attendance of
witnesses, and their Judgment if rendered
would be binding upon no other tribunal
Even If they were to assume >iurisdic-
tlon of the offence described in the act of
Congress, and proceed to try whether the
I applicant for vote had been duly en-
rolled and drafted, whether he had re-
ceived notice of the draft, whether he de-
serted and failed to return TO service or
failed to report to a Provost Marshal, and
whether he had justifying reasons for
such failure, aud if after such trial they
were TO decide that be had not forfeited
hls citizenship all this would not amount
to an acquittal. 1t would lot protect him
against subsequent similar accusation
and trial would not protect him
against trial and punishment by n court
Surely that is no trial by due process of
law, the judgment in which is not final
decides nothing. but leaves the accused
exposed TO another trial in different fri :
bunal and TO the imposition by that other
tribunal of the full punishment prescribed
by law.
In looking through the numerous acts
of Congress relating to desertion from
military or naval service it is plainly to
be seen that they all contemplate a reeu-
lar trial and conviction prior to the inf1ic-
tion of any penalty, and court martials are