The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1866-07-20
Decision Of the Supreme Court
Disfranchisosneut of Dcscrarr>.

The following opinion OF me N't-
creme Court in the case Of Huber VI.
Reilly, was readily Justice Strong:
Theact Of Congress under which the
defendant below justifie- his refusal to
receive the vote of the plaintiff is the
me approved on the Sd day Of March,
1853. The twenty-frst section is the
Jnly one applicable to this case,
md it is a. follows: And be it fur
her enacted, that in addition to the
Dther lawful penalties Of the crime OF
le-artion from the military or naval
service, all persons who have deserted
the military or naval service Of the Z
nited States, who shall not return to
said service, or report themselves toa
Provost Marshal within sixty days af-
ter the proclamation hereinafter men
toned, shall be deemed and taken to
nave Observation-Disclosures and for
Ieited their rights Of citizenship, and
their rights to become citizens; and
such deserters shall he forever inCapa-
Die ofhoIding any.otfi ce of trust or pro
fit under the United States, or of eXer-
cising any rights Of citizens thereof;
and all persons who shall hereafter de-
sert the military or naval service, and
all persons who being duly enrolled,
shall depart tLejurisdiction Of the dis
,rict in which ne is enrolled, or 90 be-
yond the limits of the United States,
with intent to avoid any draft into the
military or naval service, duly order
ell. shall be liable to the penalties OF
this section" This is followed by q
clause authorizing and requiring the
/ President to issue his proclamation set
ting forth the provisions Of thesection,
and we know judicially that this was
/ done On the 18th Of March, 1865.
! The act Of Congress Is highly penal,
1t imposes forfeiture of citizenship and
deprivation ofthe rights ofcitizenship
as penalties for the commission of ;
crime. Its avowed purpose is to ado
to the penalties which the law had
/ previously affixed to the crime Of de-
sertion from the military or naval ser
,.i.o of taa limited states. and It de-
nominates the additional sanctions pro
vided a, penalties. Such being lis char
acter. it Is. under the well known rui,
of law, to receive a strict construction
/ in favor of the citizen.
Tho consti+n4ionalitv of fhe act ma
,aan as.aiIed ON three grounds. Th,
first Of these is that it is an e.s post li,cd
j.v iDoo-ipg additional punishmen
.or ,n offence committed before it
,.s.a,ea and altering the rules Of evi
dance so n, To require different end les
nroof or guiIt than WAS required at tn
time nj The pprpet.atioa Of the crime
The second objection iy. that the act
an affamnt Inv .oDrre-s to regulas
tho rio5t If sn,Iraap in the States, q
toi,np,ir II. and the third objection
that the act proposes to intiic5 pain
and nenaltie5 upon offenders before an
wifhout 2 trial and conviction by du
nrorsss Of law, and that it is therefor
prohibited Dv the bill ofrights.
:. 40 ,.;o,,- which We take of tn
o,-o an1 gi,-in., to the enactment th
o.,, a.,,,,4.,,ctio, u,bicb Wet think properl
hoIono. to if il j. unnecessary to COZ
s;dar' n Ienofb. either If these obie
irons fo lis ro4-TifptionaIity. II ma
hn insisted with strong reason, tn;
the nenalty of forfeiture OF citizenshi
IMPOSED upon those who had deserte