North Branch democrat. [volume] (Tunkhannock, Pa.) 1854-1867, 1866-07-18
The .sUesGrter Case /"

cision of the Supreme Court, at its last
session, in this place, upon what is COM
monty known as the "Franklin County
Deserter Case" The opinions of Justices
Thompson and Woodward and the dis.
sentiug opinion of Justice Reed would
doubtless be read with great interest, but
their length precludes their publication in
our columns at present.
The Harrisburg Patriot and Union gives a
succinct synopsis Of the case, which we
adopt:
ga nom reporting drafted man, named
Reilly, offered to vote at an election poll in
Franklin county, but bis ballot was reject
ed by an election officer, named Huber. on
the ground that his name appeared on a
provost marshaIs list as deserter. Belly
thereupon entered suit in the Common
Pleas of Franklin county against Huber,
and recovered judgment. Huber appealed
to the Supreme Court, whose decision has
now been rendered affirming the judgment
of the Franklin county court-which is
that, Reilly "not having been convicted of
desertion and failure to return to service,
or to report to provost marshal, and not
having been sentenced to the penalties and
forleitures of the law, was entitled to cot" ."
Chief Justice Woodward and Justices
Strong and Thompson, constituting the
majority of the Court, affirmed, whilst
Justices Read and Agnew dissented.
"The decision of the Court does not as
sumo the unconstitutionality of the act OF
Congress, under which the case arose,
though it recites the grounds upon which
its oonstitutionality has been assailed -
first, thet it is e1 post facto; second, that
it is an attempt to regulate the right of
suffrage in the States; and third, that it
proposes to infict pains and penalties be-
fore and without trial and conviction by
due process of law.
"Upon the first it is stated that it may
be insisted that the penalty is not pre-
scribed for the original desertion but for
persistence in desertion.
"Upon the second, it is stated that the
act operates only upon the individual Of
fender, and does not override State law,
but leaves each State to determine the
qualifications of the voter.
Upon the third, it is stated that the
law does not presume to infict the addi.
tional punishment of defranchisement upon
deserters, except upon trial and conviction
by court martial according to the provis-
ions of previous acts to which the act in
question is only supplemental.
According to this view person who
deserted from the military service previons
or since the passage Of the act of March
8. 1865. might be disfranchised. but only
after trial by regular court martial, con-
victien. sentence and approval of sentence,
the same as in other cases in which deser-
ton is punished. According to this view,
also, record from provost marshaPs
office, the War Department, or Adjutant
Generals Office, charging man with de-
sertion and classifying him as deserter,
as not sufficient to entail distrsnehiscn,ent:
and no election officer or board Of election
can assume authority to reject any mans
cote upon such grounds. There is no au-
thority, therefore. under which an election
board can assume to reject such vote ex-
cept through the regular record Of an ap
proval sentence of court martial
Election officers cannot presume to try
men for the crime of desertion, because,
among other reasons, their decision would
not be bar to subsequent trial for the
same offence by competent tribunal, and
it is not lawful to have two courts to try
one offence-each to administer a portion
of the punishment. Besides this, it is held
that it is not in the power of Congress to
confer upon an election board, which is ex.
clusively of State creation, jurisdiction to
try offences against the United States.-
Congress cannot vest the judicial po,0er o,
the United States in any State or souer-
eighty. Hence even the Legislature 0,
Rennsylvania cannot prescribe penalties tor
offences against the United States, nor au-
Morize either State courts or election boards
to try or punish offenders against the Uni.
ted States. The State disfranchisement
act, based as it is upon the act of Congress
and interded to be cooperative with it, is
therefore hulity. Only through courts
martial can deserters be punished, and as
no State is authorized to constitute such
courts, the legislation falls to the ground,
Although the constitutionality of the
act of Congress was not an issue in the
case, and although the court does not con-
slider that subject in full in all its bearings,
Chief Justice Woodward does not hesitate
to say that he considers the act TO be ea
post tacto in respect to all soldiers who de-
serted prior to March 8, 1865.
This decision of the Supreme Court will
enable every man in Pennsylvania, quail,
fed under the State election laws, to vote,
unless he has been tried, convicted, and
sentenced to disfranchisement for desertion
by court martial, and unless the sentence
has been approved by the Commander in
Chief of the Federal army. Should any
election officer or board refuse the vote OF
any man, exceptsRs above, he or they will
be subject to severe punishment. Not
withstanding these facts, however, there
may be attempts made to intimidate per.
- .l.o1s. c.uo.k ord %rsa al