Columbia democrat and star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1867, 1866-10-03
From the North Branch Democrat
On the Duty of Election Boards
in Reference to Receiving or
Rejecting Votes of Alleged
Des6rters.

Deserters.
Mr.. EDITOR: Having been consulted by
several officers of Election Boards, in differ
ent Districts of this county, in reference to
their duty under the late Act Of Assembly
which purports to disfranchise all persons
whose names appear upon certain rolls lately
furnished by the Adjutant General, and hav-
ing promised to examine the question at an
early day and make known to them through
the medium of the county papers, or other
wise, the result of such examination, l here
with submit the following opinion, in fulfill
ment of my promise.
The recent Act of Assembly derives It's
vitality, if any it has, from the Act of
Congress of Sd March, 1865, which imposes
forfeiture of rights of citizenship as an dd-
ditiOaGl penalty for the crime of deSertion,
and extends such penalty to all persons duly
enrolled who shall depart their several Dis
tricts with intent to avoid any draft, &C.
This act of Congress has received judi
cial construction from the Supreme Court of
this State since the passage by the Legisla-
ture of the Act of Assembly Row under
consideration. 1t is probable that the mem
bers of the late Legislature would have spar
ed themselves the pains bestowed upon this
statute if they had had an opportunity to
examine the decision of the Supreme Court
before its passage.
This Act of Assembly forbids election off
GERS ''to receive any ballots from any per-
sons embraced IN tie provisions and subject
to the disability imposed, by said oct of Con-
gress, and imposes certain penalties for a
violation Of its provisions. 1t also imposes
similar penalties upon all persons so disqual-
ifed, who shall vote, or offer to vote at any
election, as well as upon all persons who
shall ''Persuade or advjse" dRyelectjon officer
to receire the cote Of any such person or per-
sons
By the very terms of this statute we are
referred to the Act of Congress before men
toned for a specification of the class of per-
sonsintended to be embraced in its provisions,
and the Supreme Court has decided in the
case of Huber rs. ReiJy that this class only
includes such persons as have been duly CON
victed by a Court Martial, lawfully consti-
tuted, of the offence of desertion.
The Supreme Court recognizes the power
of Congress to impose a forfeiture of the
right to vote as part of the penalty for the
ofense of desertion, but distinctly holds that
neither this nor any other part or portion Of
the penalty prescribed by law can be impos-
ed until Court WartidI duly constituted
shall have determined the guilt of the offend
er-that this Act of Congress must be con-
sidered in connection with other Acts relat-
ing to the same subject, constituting together
a system defining the offence, and Its pun
ishment, and prescribing the tribunal author
lied to take cognizance of it-that this
whole subject belongs, not to State, but TO
Federal jurisdiction-that Congress can no
more pass over to State tribunals of any
sort, jurisdiction of offences against the State
that the penalties cannot be imposed in
part by one tribunal and in part by another,
and that in no case can a Board of election
officers be considered a competent court for
the trial Of persons charged with this offence.
and the imposition of any part Of the pen
atty prescribed therefor.
And why should not this be so held? The
| Constitution of the Commonwealth provides,
among other things, that in all criminal
prosecutions the accused shall have infor-
nation Of the nature and cause of the accu-
sation. in order that he may be prepared to
meet the same. This statute provides for no
| actual previous notice to him of any sort of
accusation. The Constitution gives to him the
right to meet the witnesses against him face
to face. The statute makes imperfect lists
manufactured ecpdrte and upon mere hear
say prinla titcie evidence of guilt. The Con
stltution gives to him the right to compulsory
process to secure the attendance of his own
witnesses. The statute gives to this newly
invented court no power to issue any process
whatever for such purpose, nor any power
to enforce obedience thereto. The constitu-
ton gives to him the right to a trial ''bv
due process of law" The Supreme Court
say that trial by the Election Board is not
by due process of law. The constitution de-
cIares that no person shall be twice put in
jeopardy for the same offense. The statute
proposes to intlict the additional penalty"
on conviction by an election board, leaving
the remainder to the tribunal having iuris-
diction of the ofense
And what tribunals created by this act
Of assembly for the trial of persons accused
of this ofense The officers composing it,
though unsworn to try issues in criminal cases
may act both as prosecutors and as judges
Without power to enforce attendance of wit
nesses, to make and preserve record of tri-
ais, convictions and acquittals, their Judge
ment, when rendered is binding upon no
other tribunal At the next election new
set of judges try the accused again for the