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

tody while the question of his night 70 vote
was under consideration by the officers OF
the election, for the purpose Of iDtimidating,
over.awing, undue influencing, or prevent
ing him from voting, such of them as par
ticipated in these acts. are guilty, as
charged in the first count of the indict-
ment.
In deciding these questions the credit
due to the witnesses is entirely for the Ju-
ry. In regard to the main points the tes-
timony is not conflicting.
You will take into consideration in set
thing upon yoar verdict, the fact, that the
prosecutor lived in the neighborhood,
within five miles of the place Of holding
election-thst from the time of the draft
to and on the day of election he was open
ly about his business at home and else
where.
You will consider the threats made be-
fore the vote was offered-tbe time when
the arrest was made-the fact of the pros
ecutor being allowed to 90 at large upon
bis promise not to make trouble. You
should also consider the declarations of
Mr.. Ingham, that he intended to take him
to Harrisburg and bis consent to let him
90, alleging pity for his family as the rea-
SOB for so doing.
Ifthis arrest was honestly and fairly
made, with the intent to restore Peterman
as deserter TO the service of the Govern
ment, and not for the mere purpose oS pre-
venting him from voting, then the purpose
is not such as is prohibited by the Act.
But if the real design was to- deprive
hirn of his vote, to terrify him and operate
upon his fears by threats, and failing in
that to over-awe him by an arrest, making
use of the facts in regard to his enrolment
an alleged desertion as pretext and COW
er, then all who participated in the trans
action are guilty.
The case is now in your hands. Rem
der your verdict under the law, and in
accordance with the facts. regardless of
consequences to either the prosecutor or
defendants. In the Quarter Sessions of
Columbia Co.. on the 5th of December,
1865, in the case of
| The Commonwealth }
as. Indictment against
| CnaTleS ECh. J tuc btleIiudht, all
Inspector of Election, for knowingly re-
jecting the vote of Henry Fry, qualified
voter of Roaringcreek township. The de-
fence set up was, that Fry had been draft
ed and did not report, and was therefore
| not voter.
JUDGE ELwELL charged the Jury upon
the construction of the Act of 1865, in the
oh
ever containing this additional passage
If the penalty of disfranchisement can
be inflicted without conviction, simply
because the law imposes it as an additional
punishment of the crime, then an acquittal
by legally constituted Court Martial would
be no protection to the party anywhere ex-
cept before another Court Martial. BY the
rules of the Common Law as well as by the
9Th Article of War, Brightly 8l,no off,
Ger or soldier shall be tried second time
| for the same offence.
If instead of holding record of convic-
tion to be the onl, evidence admissible to
establish the guilt of the party whom it is
sought to disfranchise, other proof can be
heard, then he may be subjected to repeat
ed trials, each tribunal, Mag eistrate or Elec-
ton Board, deciding for itself. Fthey are
permitted 20 inquire into the tacts,they acould
not be bound by decision OF aequittdt.
In every other case where it is alleged
that party has become infamous by the
commission of crime, not only the convic-
tion, but the Judgment ofthe Court must
be shown in order to disquaiify. IA John.
Rep. 1872.
Any other rule applied to the Act Of
Congress under consideration would lead
to gross injustice, and be the means of pun
ishing many an innocent man. There is
nothing in the law itself which requires the
extended con nstruction which is sometimes
claimed for it. 1t is highly penal and
should therefore be construed strictly.