Columbia democrat and star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1867, 1866-06-06

! administer Justice according to the provisions
of an Act establishing rules and articles for
! the government Of the armies OF the United
! States without partially, favor or affection.
Such are the forms and safeguards which
| the law has wisely and with great particular
! ity provided, to protect the soldier against
unfOunded accusations, and to secure to the
| government the services due from him or to
/ punish for his desertion.
An accusation-a Court-a trial-a con
4 viction-a sentence-an approval OF that
sentence and a record showing all these
must prccede tie punishment.
We come now to the Act Of 81 March,
1865, which it is claimed deprives q person
who has deserted or failed to report, of all
rights as citizen. The 2lst Section is in
these words:
''In addition to the other lawful penalties
of the crime of desertion from the Military
or Naval service of the United States, all
persons who shall not return to said service
or report themselves to a Provost Marshal
within sixty DAYS after the proclamation
hereinafter mentioned, shall be deemed to
have voluntarily relinquished and forfeited
their rights of citizenship and their rights
to become citizens. and such Ceserters shall
be forever incapable of holding any office
of trust or profit under the United States or
of exercising ny,Iights of citizens thereof
In cOnstruing this Act we are not to con-
/ sider it by itself, but as part of a system.
The Act of 1906, 20th Article Of War before
mentioned. the 18th Section Of the Act Of
1868, and the Act Of 1865, should be con
strued as though they were embodied IN one
Act upon the well established rule OF con
struction, That several Acts in pnTi mate
ria and relating to the same subject are to
be taken together, and compared, in the
construction of them because they are con-
sidered as having one object in view and as
acting upon one system. 1t Is to be inferred
that code of statutes. relating TO one sub
ject was governed by one spirit and policy
and was intended to be consistent in its sew
eral parts and provisions. l Kent, Com
464 Dwarris on Statutes cog.
Construed in the light of this just rule,
the Act of 1865 does not impose the sen
tence OF the law tef6re conviction. It's pen
atty Is in addition TO those already imposed
upon the crime of desertiOn. The fact Of
desertion being established in the manner
provided by law, forfeiture of citizenship
follows as n consequence.
It was never intended that a person against
whose name upon the roll shall be written
the word 'deserter, or against whom proof
may be made by witnesses, shall be allshis
life, upon all occasions and in every
place, prepared to rebut what might seem to
be a priHld tdctI case against him, or else
suffer the severe penalty Of fdisfranchisement
Officers of elections derive their authority
from the Constitution and laws Of this Com
monwealth Their duties are simple and
clearly defined If they are to perform the
duties now claimed for them. and to decide
questions Of deserJion and citizenship under
Acts of Congress, theyOught TO be subject to
challenge, for cause. and 80 be sworn as requir-
ed in the case of Courts Martial Ifthey have
the right to hear the accusation. they surely
must also hear the defence. This sort of
trial involves inquiry into the validity of the
draft-of the notice glven-of the nOn-re-
porting or other desertion-Of inevitable ac-
cidents, sickness. insanity and other matters
constituting a defcnce-all these matters in
volving a multitude Of facts and nice ques-
tiens of law, would be heard and decided in
jhls collateral manner and the penalty OF
disfranchisement inflicted without the ap
proval of any officer In the Military service.
I hold, and so Instruct the jury, that the
Judge and Inspectors of elections have not the
power to try questions OF deSertion-neither
upon "A certificate from the War Depart
ment, nor by the oaths of witnesses, nor any
other evidence short Of the record of CON
victiOn and sentence of Court Martial, ap-
proved as required by the &cts Of Congress.
Under this view Of the law, the ques-
ton as to the right of Congress to
pass laws depriviPg the citizens of
States of their rights as such. does not ne
cessarily arise Tie only delegation of power
by the States to the Federal Government
upon that subject is contained in that clause
of the Constitution which gives to Congress
the authority ito establish an uniform rule Of
naturalization The mention of This pre-
cludes the idea Of a general power over the
Il bas ua,-ar haay, hold NOR | thiply
heretofore understood, that the power now
claimed existed any where in the Constitu-
ton of the United States. The right Of
suffrage In the States Is matter entirely for
State regulation.
We hold that uirder the facts as proven,
the Act of Congress does not deprive
the prosecutor Of his rights as citizen of
this State, and that he was qualified voter
at the time Of making the threats and using
the violence complained OF
If you believe from the heevideEce, that the
defendants, or any Of them, threatened the
prosecutor to arrest him, in case he should
offer his vote, and this threat was made for
the epurpose Of preventing him from voting
or If thev seized his person, called him
deserter, and held him i'll custody while the
question of his right to vote was under con
sideration by the officers Of the election, for
the purpose of intimidatlng, over -awIng,
undue influencing, or preventing him from
voting. such of them as participated in these
acts, are guilty, as charged in the first count
of the Indictment.
In deciding these questions the credit due
to the witnesses is entirely for the Jury. In
regard to the main points the testimony is
not conflicting.
You will take into consideration in settling
upon your verdict the fact, that the prose
cntor lived in the neighborhood, within FIVE
miles of the place of holding election-that
from the time of the draft down 10 and on
the day of election he was openly about his
business at home and elsewhere
You will consider the threats made before
he vote was offered-the time when the
arrest was made-the fact of the prosecutor
l,-..-..