Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1866-10-03

ing npOn no other tribunal. Even II
they were to assume jurisdiction of
the oifence described in the act Of
Congress-, and proceed TO try whether
thealpplicant for vote had been duly
enrolled and drafted, whether he had
received notice of the draft, whether
he hd deserted, and failed to return
to sekSice, failed to report to a pro
lvost marshal, and whether he had
ustifying reasons for such failure,
and if after such trial they were to
decide that he had not forfeited his
citizenship, all this would not amount
to an acquittaI. 1t would not protect
him against subsequent accusation
anc trial, it would not protect him
against trial and punishment, by court
martial 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 tribunal, and to the
imposition by that other tribunal OF
the full punishment prescribed by law.
Moreover, it is not in the power Of
4 Congress to confer upon such tlibu-
nal, which is exclusively Of State ere
alton, jurisdiction TO try offences
against the United States. Notwith-
standing the decision in Buckwater
VS.. The United States, IL 5. and r.,
1893, which was an action for penal
\ ties. declared to be recoverable as 9TH
er debts, the doctrine seems plain
one that Congress cannot vest any of
the judicial power ofthe United States
in the courts of any other government
or sovereignty. Martin VS.. Hunter :
lessee, Wheaton, 506, $50; Fly VS..
Peck, 7, Conn, 142, and Scoyille VS..
, Garfield, II, Johns, 23S. And, clear
! Ily, if this is so, Congress cannot make
= board of State election officers com.
. petent TO try whether person has
/ been guilty of an offence against the
4 United States, and il they find him
/ guilty to enforce part Of the pre-
: scribed penalty.
If therefore the act Of March B
{ 1865, really contemplates the inflic
| ton of its prescribed penalty or any
: part of it without due process of law
C or if it attempts TO confer upon the
= election officers Of a State the power
{ TO determine whether there has beet
4 violation of the act incurring th,
c penalty, and to enforce the penalty
r or any part of it, it may well be doubt
V ed whether it is not transgressive 0
e the authority vested in Congress b.
n the Constitution.
!. But such is not the fair construction
c of the enactment. 1t is MOTTO be pre-
/ sumed that Congress intended to trans
g gress its powers, and especially is thi
h true when the act admits of anothe
) construction entirely consonant will
4 all the provisions OF the Constitution
i What then is the true meaning
s As already observed, forfeiture of citi
0 zenship is prescribed as a penalty 70
c descrtion, an additional penalty; no
,fl for an offence committed before tn,
> passage of the act, but for continues
IS desertion and failure to return or re
V port. 1t is not new consequence q
1f penalty, but it is an integral par
Y of the thing itself Nor is it th
whole 1t is added to what the Ia,
a had previously enacted to be the pen
e, atty of dcscrtion as Imprisonment
o sometimes added to punishment b
e fine. 1t must have been intende
2. therefore that it should be incurre
" in the same way, and imposed by th
Q same tribunal that was authorized {
G. impose the same penalties for the o
{, fence. 1t would be very absurd {
G. suppose that two trials and two COZ
N demnations for one crime were inter
il ded, or that it was designed that
1t criminal might be sentenced in ON
le court TO undergo part of the punisl
,e ment denounced by the law impositio
70 of the remainder The law as it stoo
r when the act of 1865 was passed ha
l. provided a tribunal in which alone th
.e crime of desertion could be tried, an
T. by which alone the penalties for d.
ID sertion could be inflicted. The cons
er quences of conviction may be notice
n. in either courts, but tribunal appoir
y ted by the law for that purpose is Il
re only ono that can determine whethC
I'd the crime has been committed, and
al adiudge the punishment
IS The act of March 3D., 1865, is NJ
IS, to be considered apart from the 9TH
at legislation respecting the crime of d
re sertion. 1t is one of series of &C
ey pertaining to the same subject matte
81 1t must therefore be interpreted vii
.e, them all in view. This is an admit,
h rule of statutory construction.
tie long ago as Rex VS.. Laxdale, ! Blu
,r- rows, ll7, Lord Mansfield said, VIII,
.al speaking of acts of Pail ament, 9TH
il all which relate to the same subjeC
a Notwithstanding some of them may
an expired or not, notice must be TAX
Oh to be one sy stem and constued cons