Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1866-06-28
Decision of the Supreme Court--The
Disfranchisement 'ikctsu Go Under,

DiSfranChiSement Acts" 10 Under.
The Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania,
now sitting at Wilkcsbarre, on the Goth
inst, decided, by a majority, against the
act Of Congress of March 3, lSG4-which
act was intended to disfranchise deserters
from the military service and non-reporL-
inc drafted men. This decision also oper-
ates against the State disfranchisement
act, lately signed by Gov. Curtin, and
both acts fall together. We understand
that Chief Justice Woodward and Justices
Thompson and Strong rendered the decis-
ion against the act, while Justices Read
and Agnew dissented
This, then, settles the long vcxed ques-
tion,, and establishes the fact that Penn
sylvania's citizens cannot be deprived of
their political rights without trial and con-
viction for heinous crimes. The unconsti-
tutionality Of both the act of Congress and
Of the Legislature appeared to be so clear
ly apparent from both a constitutional and
common law stand point, that it cannot
possibly be comprehended how any judge
Of an ordinary court, much less two JUS
tices on the Supreme Bench, could for a
moment hesitate about their condemna-
ton. Both the Federal Constitution and
our State Constitution declare emphatical-
ly and undisguisedly that 'sNo cr post Jltct0
law shall be passed" The act of Con-
gress of March 3, 1864, and the act Of
the legislature signed June, 1866, were
both &C post Jitcto, inasmuch as they were
retrospective, and undertook to punish for
crimes previously committed. Again; no
provision was made in either act for the
trial Of accused persons previous 10 the in
Fiction Of the penalties; and hence in that
they were in conflict with both Constitu-
tions, which are perfectly clear in demand
ing that a fair and impartial trial and con-
rjction Of crime shall precede the intliction
Of punishment or penalties.
Perhaps the two justices, who were
elected to the Supreme Bench more partic-
ularIy because of their warmth Of partisan
views, may, satisfactorily to their friends,
be able to wrigelc around the Constitu-
tions, or, like Ihad. Stevens, take the
ground that the war had for the time
being abrogated those instruments, but
both the legal talent of the country, and
the common sense Of the people must ever
be against them.
We DO not believe that either political
party would have been much affected in
It's poll of votes by those acts; certainly
not to the extent of twenty or thirty thous-
and votes, as stated by Disunion organs.
We do not believe that the acts would
have affected thousand ballots. With
the Democracy, however, the question was
not Of votes, but of principle. If but one
man was thus to have been unlawfulIy
deprived of his political rights as a citizen
Of Pennsylvania, it was our duty as a
party Of principle, as party governed by
Constitutional law, to forfcnd the contem-
plated wrong. Let the number of citizens
who were to have been deprived of their
political rights without trial-upon the
mere clerical record of partisan provost
marshars clerk-be great or small, the
Importance Of the decision Of the Supreme
Court is of none the less consequence, and
the thanks of every right minded, unbias
ed, and law-abidiug man should be ten
dered to Justices Woodward, Thompson
and Strong, for they are eminently desery-
ing of that noble titlc-Defender5 Of the
Constitution.