North Branch democrat. [volume] (Tunkhannock, Pa.) 1854-1867, 1866-09-26
ence to Receivins or Rejecting votes OF
Alleged Deserters.

Having been consulted by several Off
GERS of Election Boards, in different Dis
tricts of this County, in reference to their
duty under the late Act of Assembly which
purports to disfranchise all persoLs whose
names appear upon certain rolls lately fur
nished by the Adjutant' General, and having
promised to examine the question at an
earlv day and make known to them through
the medium of the County papers, or 9th
erwise, the result of such examination,
herewith submit the following opinion, in
fnlfilment of my promise.
The recent Act of Assembly derives its
vitality, if any it has, from the Act of Con-
gress of Sd March, 1865, which imposes
forfeiture of rights of citizenship as an
additional penalty for the crime of deser-
ton, and extends such penalty to all per-
soLs duly enrolled who shall depart their
several Districts with intent to avoid any
draft, DC.
This act of Congess has received judi
cial construction from the Supreme Court
of this State since the passage by the Leg
islature of the Act of Assembly now under
consideration. 1t is probable that the mem.
bers of the late Legislature would have
spared themselves the pains bestowed upon
this statute if they had had an opportunity
to examine the decision of the Supreme
Court before its passage.
This Act of Assembly forbids election
officers ito receive any ballots from any
persons embraced in the provisions and sub
ject to the disability imposed, By said act Of
Congress-" and imposes certain penalties
for violation of its provisions. It also
imposes similar penalties upon all persons
so disqualified, who shall vote, or offer to
vote at any election, as well as upon all
persons who shall "persuade or advise"
any election officer to receiUe the vote of any
suchperson or persons.
BY the very terms of this statute we are
referred to the Act of Congress before
mentioned for a specification of the class of
persons intended to be embraced in its pro-
visions, and the Supreme Court has decided
in the case Of Huber rs Reilly, that this
class only includes such persons as have
been duly convicted hy a court martial,
lawfully con stituted, Of the offence of deser-
ton.
The Supreme Court recognizes the pow
er of Congress to impose forfeiture of the
right to vote as part of the penalty for
the otfense OF desertion, but distinctly holds
that neither this nor any other part or por-
tion of the penalty prescribed by law can
be imposed until Court Martial duly con.
stituted shall have determined the gnilt OF
the offender-,hat this Act of Congress
must be considered in connection with 9th
er Acts relating to the same subject, consti-
tuting together, system defining the of.
fence, and its punishment, and prescribing
the tribunal authorized to take coouizance
of it-that this whole subject belongs, not
to State, hut to Federal jurisdiction that
Congress can no more pass over to state
tribunals of any sort jurisdiction of offcnses
against the United States than the State
authorities can convey TO the Federal courts
jurisdiction of offences against the State
that the penalties can not be imposed in
part by one tribunal and in part bv anoth.
er, and that in no case can a Beard Of
election officers be considered a competent
court for the trial ofpersons charged with
this offence, and the imposition of any part
of the penalty prescribed therefor.
And whv should not this be so held p
The Constitution of this Commonwealth
provides, among other things, that in all
criminal prosecutions the accused shall have
information of the nature and canse of the
accusation, in order that he may be prepar.
ed to meet the same This statute provides
for no actual previous notice to him of any
sort Of accusation. The constitution oiyes
to him the right to meet the witnesses
against him face to face. The statute makes
imperfect lists manufactured erparte and
upon mere hearsay prima facie evidence of
guilt. The constitution gives to him the
right to compulsory process to secure the
attendance Of his own witnesses. The
statute gives to this newly invented court
no power to issue any process whatever for
such purpose, nor any power to enforce ODE.
dience thereto. The constitution gives to
him the right to trial "by due process
of law" The Supreme Court say that a
trial by the Election Board is not by duo
process of law. The constitution declares
that no person shall be twice put in ieopar-
dy for the same offence. The statute pro-
poses to infict the " additional penalty
on a conviction by an election board, leav-
ing the remainder to the tribunal having
jurisdiction of the offense.
And what tribunal is created by this
act of assembly for the trial of persons
accused OF this offense! The officers com.
posing it. though unsworn to try issues in
criminal cases, NAV act both as prosecutors
and a. Judges. Without power to enforce
attendance of witnesses, to make and pre.
serve a record of trials, convictions and
acquittaIs, their judgement. when rendered,
in binding upon no other tribunal. At the
next election new set of judges try the
accused again for the same offense. and
perhaps impose another fraction of the
same penalty. In case of acop;ttal