Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1867-01-31
The Desfrfcr Qu.sfion.


The Dcscrfor Question.
The right Of dcsertcrs to vote, or
those denominatcd such by our loyal
ncighbors, is question of vital i'm
portance to every citizen. Ifthe title
of American citizenship is held by as
slight a tenure as our jealous loyalists
would have us believe, we had better
cast about for some moro sure or safer
landing. The citizens of our county
are particularly interested in this
question, because very lengthy and
wise % opinion bearing upon this
point, was promulgated through the
columns Of the journal, last fall. If
plain Constitutional rights and pro-
visions are rendered nugatory by the
demagogue and the highwayman, it
becomes the duty of those who still
have some respect for that old instru-
ment, to have it properly interpreted
and administered, or, falling in this,
to take the last right we possess-rev-
olution-and thunder it into the ears
ofthose hermaphrodite statesmen, who
are now marching us over the route
to national ruin. Among the few
substantial "hitching posts" we hap
pen to find by the wayside, we lay be-
fore our readers a synopsis of the able
opinion of our townsman, Judge Bar
rett An election board in Wayne
county was recently prosecuted before
him, for refusing TO take the ballot OF
a so-called deserter. The case was
brought up at the last term of Court
in that county, when he disposed oft
by delivering the following opinion /:
The case has been made up, we un-
derstand, with view of reaching the
main questions raised under the act
of Congress and of the Legislature Of
Pennsylvania in reference to the right
of certain persons called deserters to
vote. Everything has been admitted
deemed necessary to present the ma
ked question.
The acts Of Congress have been
passed upon by the Supreme Court,
and their ruling is with the plaintiff.
Until an alleged deserter has been
tried and convicted no election beard
can reject his vote. This decides the
question raised by this issue, and we
need not 60 further
The act Of 4th OF June, 1866, passed |
by the Legislature of Pennsylvania,
was intended to accomplish what the
act of Congress had failed to do. The
Constitution Of Pennsylvania fixes the |
qualifications of voter within the
State Of Pennsylvania in the following
words; ain all elections by the citi-
zens every white freeman of the age of
twenty-oneyear ,havingircsidedinth in this
State one year, and in the election dis
trict where he offers to vote ten days
Immediately preceding such election, |
and within two years paid a State or
county tax, which shall have been as
sessed at least ten days before the
election, shall enjoy the rights of an
elector." Thus age, residence and the
payment Of tdreS are made the qualifi-
and the Legislature had not
the power to pass a law imposing the
penalty Of disfranchisement upon
citizen Of the Commonwealth when to
enforce il must deprive him of clear
constitutional right. In this broad
view Of the case we are called upon TO
pronounce the law void, because it is
in conflict with the provisions of the
of the State.
But it is contended that the Legis-
laturc may impose the penalty of dis
tranchisement as a punishment for
crime. Admitting this, can the act of
June 4, 1866, be enforced ? The Con
stitution declares that "trial by Jury
shall remain as heretofore; and the
right thereof remain inviola;c." One
Of those rights is "to have speedy
public trial by an impartial jury of the
'icinage." This act proposes to infict
he penalty before trial of any kind,
either by jury or by courts-martial.
The board of election officers are not
\ jury competent to try and decide
he question of desertion. The Legis-
ature cannot clothe them with that
power. 1t would be submitting the
question of their guilt or innocence to
| tribunal unknown to the Constitu-
ion, and upon evidence not even rem
Tered under the solemnity of an oath
Every provision of the act imposing
he penalty of disfranchisement before
rial, conviction and sentence, is in
conflict with the provisions of the Con-
of the State of Pennsylvania,
Ind therefore void.
Neither the acts of Congress referr-
ID to, nor the act of the Legislature of
Pennsylvania, were binding upon the
board of election officers in this case.
Being in violation of the provisions of
he Constitution, the officers should
lave obeyed the latter.
The plaintiff was, therefore, entitled
o vote; and having been deprived of
hat right, judgment is entered in ia
.or of the plaintiff and against the
Ieiendants for one dollar and costs.
q. II. BARRErI, Pres't Judge.