The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1866-02-02
OPINION OF HIS HONOR, JUDGE KING,
I'm the matter of the contested election
for District Attorney for the county OF
Franklin. ID. Watson Rowe vs., VIM. \

Franklin. ID. Watson Rowe vs.. Vim. y
SteRger.
This case comes before us on the pc
tition of twenty or more of the qualiti-
ed electors of the county of Franklin,
complaining that VIM. s. Stenger was
not duly elected to the office of District
Attorney; that the election was undue,
and ID. Watson Rowe was duly elected
to said office.
The respondent has filed a motion to
| quash this petition for the following
! reasons:
lst. Because said petition was not ii
| led within ten days after the election
! for said office of District Attorney, held
/ on the 10th day of October, 1868.
/ 2nd. Because said petition was not
| filed until after the time of swearing
| the said VIM. :. StengerintO office had
! expired, nor until he was in fact sworn
| into said office without any objection
/ being made.
| 3D.. Because the said petition is too
vague, indefinite and impreciSe to ent-
/ tie it to a hearing.
/ 4th. Because ii does not appear that,
! if all that is stated upon the face OF the
petition was proved, the result OF the
/ election would be changed, or that the
! Court would be compelled to declare
I the election an undue election.
/ 5th. Because, even, if it be true that
/ the alleged persons named in the petit
ton, were deserters from the military
sevice of the United States, and that
they did vote for the said VIM. S. Stem
ger, still said persons were qualified e.
| lectOrs of Franklin County and this
. hist
! thing in the Act of Congress of March
. Sd. 1865: entitled "An Act to amend
| the several acts heretofore passed, to
/ provide for the enrolling and calling
out the NatiOnalfOrcesa and other purpo-
Ses." a
The first reason assigned has not been
pressed, and but little stress has been
laid on the second, by the counsel for
the respondent; and the views we are
about to submit on the principal ques-
ton in the case, as presented by the
fourth and fifth reasons, render II un-
necessary to express any opinion upon
the third reason assigned.
Wecome, therefore, to consider Wheth-
er the votes Of Curtis Dulabon, George
Miller, John Tallhelm and Abraham
SheeIy were illegal, on thegrOund that
these voters, had been drafted into the
military service of the United States,
and had failed to report to the provost
marshal of the 10Th District Pennsyl-
vania, composed, in part, of the county
Of Franklin.
The counsel for the respondent make
these points:
Ist.FThat the election laws of this
Commonwealth are exclusively within
the complete and absolute control OF
the State authorities and cannot be
modified or changed by Congress.
2nd. That the act of Congress OF
March 3D., 1868, so far as relates to all
persons drafted into the military ser
vice of the United States, prior to the
passage thereof, is an er post .tdctO law
and dthercfOreunconstitu void.
, 3D.. That even, if theact be Constitu-
tiOnal, the voters referred TO, IN the pc
titiOn, could not be disfranchised, with
out hearing and trial according to the
: law of the land.
, The first and second Of these points
involve questions Of very grave I'M
pOrtance and require time for their in
VestigatiOn; and having arrived al
: the conclusion that the provisions O
, in this case; for the reasons we shall
presently note, we express no opinion
in regard to them.
That Congress has no power to pun
: ish dpsertion. or refusal to report whel
drafted, or for evading the draft by
, leaving the jurisdiction Of the United
!, / States. we entertain no doubt; and nc
punishment that can lawfully be intlic
to- Fg,,. al, off f4s1Ff no
} These are crimes against the country
of the most dangerous tendency, ant
admit of no palliation or excuse; anC
it is on account Of their very enOrmlty
; that we hold that no man can justly
, and lawfully be deemed guilty Of them
? until such guilt has been judicially es
, tabIished. No man can be deprived 0
life, liberty or property unless by the
e Judgment of his peers or the law of the
= land. Both the federal and State con
- stitutiOns guarantee this fundamental
right to every citizen. Have these
safeguards been provided, in the organ
ic law Of the federal and State Govern
Y ments, for no purpose? Is there any
> dearer right than the elective franchise
and j. that left entirely without protec
ton? We can best answer these preg
: nant questions by quoting the eloquent
= language of Justice Coulter, in the cast
= of Brown vs.. Hummell, Barr 81
''Thp talismanic words. | am a CitiZef
of Pennsylvania, secures to the indi
vidual his private rights, unless they
= are taken away by a trial, where hi
/ has an opportunity of being heard, by
! himself, his counsel and his testimony
more DlajOriln. according to the law
. and customs of our fathers, and the Sc
curitieS and safeguards of the COnsti
tuition. Sir Edward Coke defines tht
meaning of the words, By the TAR Q
the taRd-for they We're used in Hl0g1tt
n ch01f0, and have been sprinkled witt
:. the tears and blood of many patriots
D to be trial by due course and process
a of law. z q & Itis against the prlnci
: pies OF liberty and common right t
q deprive man of his property or trdl
chise, while he is within the pale of th'
] Constitution and with his hand on tn
: altar, without hearing and trial by dut
: course and process of law In an0th
er part of the same opinion he speak
Q of the right of suffrage as the most i'm
: pOrtant of all a mans franchises ant
f asks: "WhO does not feel its value
: and who but would turn pale if ht
o thought he could be deprived Of i
n without hearing or trial" These fun
! damental principles of civil liberty
: cannot be overlooked or disregarded by
o the courts, to which we all look for pro
: lection, without seriously importing
: the safety of the people. 1t is thou
= / Sand times hatter therefore that Mr