Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1866-07-27
9AiafellallgQns,
DIsFRANCHIsEMENT OF DESER-
TIERS.


The following opinion of the Supreme
Court in the case Of Huber VS.. Rely was
read by Justice Strong
The act of Congress under which the
defendant below justifes his refusal to
receive the vote Of the plaintiff Is the one
approved on the 3rd day Of March, 1865.
The twenty first section IS the only one ap-
Dlicable to this case, aud it is as follows
And be it further enacted, that in addition
70 the other lawful penalties of the crime of
dese,tien from the military or naval serv ice,
an persons who have deserted the military
or naval service of the United States, who
shall not return to said service, or report
themselves to Provost Marshal within six
ty days after the proclamation hereinafter
mentioned, shall lie deemed and taken to
have voluntarily relinquished and forfeited
their rights of citizenship, and their rights
TO become citizens and such deserters shall
be forever incapable Of holding any Office of
trust or profit under the United States, or
of exercising any rights of citizens thereof;
and all persons who shall hereafter desert
the military or naval service, and all per-
sons who being duly enrolled, shall depart
from the jurisdiction ofthe district in which
he is enrolled. or 90 beyond the limits Of the
United States, with intent to avoid any draft
into the military or naval. service, duly or
dered. shall be liable to the penalties Of this
section. This is followed by clause
authorizing and requiring the President to
issue his proclamation setting forth the pro-
visions ofthe section, and we know judi
cially that this was done on the 18th Of
March, 1865.
The act of Congress is highly penal. 1t
imnoses forfeiture Of citizenship and depri-
ysfion of the rights Of citizenship, as pen
altieg for the commission of crime. Its
avoged purpose is to add TO the penalties
which the law had previously affixed to the
ofFense of deseTtIon from the military or
naval service Of the United States and 1t
denominates the additional sanctions proVl-
ded as penalties. Such being Its character,
it Is, under the well known rule OF law, to
receive a strict construction IN favor Of the
citizen.
The constitutionality of the act has been
assailed on three grounds. The first of
these Is that 1t Il an e1 post fdct0 law, impo-
sing additional punishment for an offence
committed before It's passage, and altering
the rules of evidence so as to require differ
ent and less proof Of guilt thanwas requir-
ed at the time of the pecpetratlon of the
crime. The second objection is, that the
act is an attempt by Congress to regulate the
right Of suffTagc in the States, or TO impair
it' and the third objection is that the act
proposes 10 inflict pains and penalties upon
Offenders before and withouta trial and con
viction by due process of law, and that 1t IS
therefore prohibited By the bill Of rights.
In the view which we take of this case,
and giving to the enactment the construe-
ton which We think properly belongs to IL,
it Is unnecessary to consider at length, eth
er oftbese objections to its constitutionallty.
Itmay be insisted, with strong reason,
that the penalty Of ferfeitarc of citizenship
imposed upon those who had deserted the
military OF aaval service prior to the pas
sage Of the aci is not a penalty for the orig