Columbia democrat and star of the north. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1867, 1866-07-25
AND RloHT-ooD AND OUR COUNTRY.

| crime were intended, or that it was designed
| that a criminal might be sentenced in one
| court to undergo part of the punishment de-
nouneed by the law, and be punished In
another court by the imposition OF the re-
mainder The law as it stood when the act
of 1865 was passed had provided a tribunal
| in which alone the crime of desertlon could
be tried, and by which alone the penalties
for desertion could be inflicted. The conse-
| quences of conviction may be noticed in 9th
e crourts, but the tribunal appointed by the
law for that purpose is the only one that can
| determine whether the crime has been COM
mitted, and to adjudge the punishment.
| The act of March Sd, 1865, is not to be
considered apart from the other legislation
respecting the crime of desertion. 1t is one
of series Of acts pertaining to the same sub
ject matter. 1t must therefore be interpret
ed with them all in view. This is an admit
ted rule Of statutory construction. So long
ago as Rex VS.. Laxdale, / Burrows, 147,
Lord Mansfield said when speaking of acts
of Parliament, that all which relate to the
! same subject, notwithstanding some Of them
! may be expired or not, notice must be taken
! to be one system and construed consistent
ly. SO Chancellor Kent in the first vol
ume OF his commentaries, page 1914 said;
I 1T is to be inferred that code of statutes
relating to one subject, was governed by one
spirit and policy, and was intended to be con-
sistent and harmonious iii It's several parts
and provisions. In looking through the
numerous acts of Congress relating to the /
deSertion from the military or naval service.
1t is plainly to be seen that they all contem-
plate a regular trial and conviction prior to
the lntllctlOn OF any penalty, and cOurts mar
tial are constituted and regulated for such
| trials. The Goth article of war, enacted on
the 10th of April, 1906, brightly S Dig 75)
Is intheSe words "All officers and soldiers
who have received pay, or have been duly
enlisted in the service Of the United States.
and shall be coRricted of having derserted
the same, shall suffer death or such other
punishment as bg-seateRce Of court martial,
Shall be inflicted" =" Other enactments have
been made at different times respecting the
punishment to be inflicted for the offence
The punishment of death in time of peace
was abolished in 1890 Corporal punish
ment by stripes was abolished by the act of
May l6, 1872, and by the act Of March I'd,
1883, that section of the repeating act was it
self repealed, so far as itappies to any en-
listed soldier soh0 shall be coaUtctedb by gon-
eral courtmartial 0fthe crime Of desertion."
By the act of Jan. IL, 1912, an additional
penalty was prescribed for desertion, and it
was declared that ''such soldier shall and may
be tried by court martial and punished.
Brightly's Di So The 9Th section Of the
act of March 8, 1868, which declared that
any person failing to report after due service
of notice that he had been drafted, shall be
deemed deserter, enacted that such per-
son shall be arrested by the provost mar
shall and sent to the nearest post JOr tr5fd By
court mdrtiat, unless, upon proper showing
that he is not liable to military duty, the
board of enrolment shall relieve him from
the draft. All these acts of Congress man
ifestly contemplate trial for observation-disclosures
martial, and the inhiction of no punishment
or forfeiture except upon conviction and SEN
tence in such courts. The act Of 1906 pro-
yided for general courts martial, and made
minute and careful regulations for their or
ganization, for the conduct of their proceed
ings, and for the approval or disapproval of
| their sentences. Subsequent acts nude some
changes, but they have not restrained the
jurisdiction or diminished the powers of such
courts 1t is to such a code of laws forming
! a system devised for the punishment of de-
sertIOn, that the 2Ist section of the act of
March Sd, 1864, was added. 1t refers plain
| ly to pre-existing laws 1t has the single OBJ
iect of increasing the penalties, but it does
not undertake to change or dispense with the
machinery provided torpunishing the crime.
The common rules of construction demand
that it be read as ifit had been incorporated
/ u.
act of 1906 and Its supplements had pre-
scribed that the penalty for desertion or fail
ure to report within designated time after
notice of draft, (which the act of 1868 de-
clares desertion) should be punished on con
viction OF the same, with forfeiture of citi-
zenship and death, or in lieu of the latter.
such other punishment as by the sentence of
a court martial may be inflicted would any
one contend that any portion of this punish
ment could be inflicted without conviction
and sentence Assuredly not. And if not,
so must the act of 1865 be construed now
1t means that the forfeiture which it pre-
scIibes Ike all other penalties for desertion,
must be Gdjudged to the convicted person
after trial by acourt martial and sentence APP
proved. For the conviction and sentence of
such a eOurtthere can be no substitute They
alone establish the guilt of the accused and
fasten upon him the legal Consequences
Such, we think, is the true meaning of the
act, a construction that cannot be denied to
it without losing sight of all the previous
legislation respecting the same subject mat
ter, no part of which does this act profess
to alter.
it may be added that this construction is
not only required by the universally admitted
rules of statutory Interpretation, but it is in
harmony with the personal rights secured by
the Constitution, and which Congress must
be presumed to have kept in view. 1t gives
10 the accused trial before sworn judges, a
right to challenge, an opportunity of defence,
the privilege of hearing the witnesses
against him, and of calling the witnesses in
his behalf 1t preserves to him the common
law presumption of innocence until he has
been adjudged guilty, according to forms of
law 1t gives tinality to single trial IF
tried by court martial and acquitted. his
innocence can never be again called in ques-
ton, and he can be made to suffer no part of
the penalties prescribed for guilt On the
other hand, if record of conviction by a
lawful court be not prerequisite to suffer
ing the penalty of the law, the act of Com