Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1866-02-02
LegaIitr Of DE peserter Yote.

county on the 10th inst, in which he decides
| that deserters cannot be disffanchised with
out conviction by due process of law. OF
the three points raised by the defence, he
decides but one as that governed the case,
leaving the questions as to whether the law
Is &c post facto aud as to the power of Con-
gress to regulate suffrage in the States,
undetermined. The case viii 60 the Supreme
Court in May next. We subioin the opin-
ion;
This case colues before us on the petition
of twenty or more Of the qualified electors of
the county of Franklin, complaining that
w. >. Stenger was moi duly elected to the
office of District Attorney; that the election
was undue, and d. Watson Rowe was duly
elected to said office
The respondent has filed motion to quash
this petition for the following reasons:
L. Because said petition was not fled
within ten days after the election for said
office of District Attorney, held on the 10th
day Of October, 1868
,. Because said petition was not filed un-
til after the time of swearing the said w s.
Stenger into Office had expired, nor until he
was In fact sworn into said office without any
objection being made.
8. Because the said petition is too vague,
| indefinite, and unprecise TO entitle it to
| hearing.
4Because it does not appear that, if all
that is stated upon the face of the petition
| is proved, the result of the election would
be changed, or that the court would be COM
PEELED to declare the election an undne elec-
tiOn
5. Because even ifit be true that the ale
ged persons named in the petition were
deserters from the military service Of the
/ United States, and that they did vote fol
the said William S. Stenger still said per-
sons were qualified electors of Franklin
| county and this commonwealth, notwithstan-
ding anything in the act of Congress Of
| March B. 1865, entitled an act to amend
the several acts heretofore passed, to pro-
! vide for the enrolling and calling out the
national forces and for other purposes. y
The first reason assigned has not been
| pressed, and but little stress has been laid
on the second by the counsel for the res
| pondent; and the views we are about to sub
init on the principal question in the case,
| as presented by the fourth and fifth reasons
| render 1t unnecessary to express any opinion
| upon the third reason assigned We come,
! therefore, to consider whether the votes of
| Curtis Dulepon, George Miller, John Tai
| helm and Abraham Sheeley were illegal, on
| the ground that these voters had been draf-
ted into the military service of the United
| States, and had failed to report to the Pro-
vost Marshal of the 10th District of Pennsy-
vania, composed, in part, of the county of
Franklin.
The counsel for the respondent make three
points:
l. That the election laws of this common
wealth are exclusively within the complete
and absolute control of the State authorities
and cannot be modified or changed by Con
gress.
.. That the act Of Congress of Sd March,
1865, so far as relates to all persons drafted
into the military service of the United States
| prior to the passage thereof, is an &c post
tacto law and therefore unconstitutional and
| void
3. That even if the act be constitutional
the voters referred to in the petition could
not be disfranchised, without hearing and
| trial according to the law of the land
! The first and second of these points in
voige questions Of very grave importance and
require time for their investigation; and
| having arrived at the conclusion that the
provisions Of the act of Congress cannot be
enforced in this case, for the reasons we shall
| presently state, We express no opinion in re-
gard to them.
That Congress has power to punish deser-
! ton or refusal to report when drafted or
! for eyading the draft by leaving the iurisdic-
| ton of the United States, we entertain no
/ doubt; and no punishment that can lawfully
| be Innlcted tor such offences can be too severe
These are crimes against the country of the
| most dangerous tendency, and admit of no
| pal.latl0n and excuse; and it was on account
| OF this very enormity, that we hold that no
! man can justly and lawfully be deemed guilty
| OF them, until such guilt has been judcially
| established. No man can be deprived of
/ llfel liberty or property unless by the judg-
| ment or his peers or the law of the land
! But the Federal and State constitutions
| guarantee this fundamental right to every
citizen. Have these safeguards been proyi-
! ded, IN the organic law of the Federal and
State governments, for no purpose? Is there
any dearel right than the elective anchise.
and Is that left entirely without protection?
| we can best answer these pregnant ques-
tons by quoting the eloquent language of
Justice Coulter, in the case of Brown VS.
Hummel, 6 Barr, 81: THE talismanic words
| am citizen of Pennsylvania, secures 10
the individual his private rights, unless they
are taken away by trial, where he has an
opportunity OF being heard, by himself his
counsel and his testimony, more Dlaj0riaBa.
according to the laws and customs Of our
tathers, and the securities and safeguards Of
the constitution. Sir Edward Coke defines
the meaning of the words, Jy the lar Of the
land they were used in Mama Char
td, and have been sprinkled with the tears
and blood OF many patriots-to be a trial by
due course and process Of law:
| lie Is against the principles Of liberty and
common right to deprive man of his pro-
perty or franchise, while he is within the
pale OF the constitution and with his hand
on the alter, without hearing and trial bv
! the course aud process of law y
In another part Of the same opinion he
! speakes of the night of suffrage as the most
| important of all a man franchises. and
asks who does not feel its value and who
but would turn pale if he thought he could
be deprived of it with out hearing or .ial.
These fundamental principles of civil liberty
cannot be overlooked or disregarled bv the
courts to which we all look for protection
without seriously imperiling the safety of
the people 1t Is thousand times better
therefore, that Mr.. Rowe should lose the
oflce he claims, than that his right thereto
should be declared by trampling under feet
the sacred right to which we have lust ad
yerted, that no man shall be condemned
without an opportunity of being heard in
his own defence
For the reasons we have thus hastily and
imperfectly presented, we sustain the mo-
tion to quash the petition.