The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1867-08-01
For. the Pioneer.--
The Constitution AS 1t Is,
VERSUS
The constitutional Amendment

1Ac constitution AS 1t is,
VERSUS
The Constitutional Amendment.
Another chief ground of opposii
tion urged by the leaders of the Dem
ocratic party to the passage of the
proposed Constitutional Amend
ment, is, that its effect will be, to
disfranchise all those who deserted
from our army or navy during the
! late war.
In order to make this objection Of
any potency whatever, in the minds
of candid men, they have heretofore
urged that the passage Of this amend
ment would necessarily result in the
disf'ranchisement of the many thou
sand brave men of this State, who
served faithfully until after the -srs.r-
render of Lee, and then, only aban-
doned their commands and returned
to their homes, because they con-
scientously believed they had faith
fully performed their contract with
the government, by honestly serving
out the term of their enlistment, viz !:
"three years, or during the aoor,' -
which practically closed with Lees
surrender
All over the State, these leaders
have been busily speaking, and writ
ing, and printing, the most beautiful
and pathetic encomiums concerning
the bravery, the sacrifices, and the
sufferings of these patriots, during
their actual service, and then, with
apparent most righteous indigna-
ton, have they changed front, and
deprecated the injustice and ringrat-
itude to them, of which we would
be gnilty, in passing gthistamendment
ment which they claim would neces7
sarily disfranchise, and disgrace
them and their posterity.
Now if there was ever any founda-
tion for this branch of this objection,
it was effectually removed by the
act of Congress, of the Eth ult,
which distinctly provides, that no
soldier or sailor, shall be held or
taken to be a deserter, from the ar
my or navy who faithfully served
according to his enlistment, until
the 10Th day of April, 1865.
But as all men of information are
aware, there was no foundation for
this branch of this objection before
the passage of this act, but it was
simply used as a characteristic trick
of the lying demagogues who in
vented it, to deceive the ignorant.
1t is well settled that soldier or
sailor cannot be a deserter in any
sense of the term used in this
amendm ent, until after he is cohvic
ted of that crime, by due course of
law. Until such conviction, he can
not be lawfully punished for such
crime; he may stand charged with
it, but nothing more; as man may
stand charged with any other crime
which, partly owing to our defective
machinery Of criminal jurisprudence,
is quite a different thing from being
convicted Of it. @5s
Our army regulations make it
the duty of company commanders
to enter the names of all such of
their men as leave without permis-
sion, and whose absence they can
not be satisfactorily accounted for
in some other way, upon the mus
ter rolls as deserters. The same
regulations also provide that desert
ers shall suffer death, or such other
punishment as shall be adjudged by
by a court martial. But the trial
and sentence must always proceed
punishment for the crime: must in
fact proceed any authoritative
knowledge that such crime has been
committed by the accused.
Every one familiar with army life
we'll knows that nothing is more
common than for soldiers names to
be entered upon the muster rolls as
deserters, who are never convicted
of, or even tried for this crime.
But this is only in accordance with
the genius of our entire system OF
jurisprudence, which never tolerates
the punishment of an individual fol
a crime, until after he has been duly
convicted of the same, by an impair
tial jury Of his countrymen. -
Every one is liable to be charged
with any species Of crime, by any one
who may see proper to do. it's from
whatever motives, but it is far other
wise with their liability to suffer the
penalty.
The idea that it was the intention
OF the trainers of this proposed
amendment to indiscriminately dis
franchise all soldiers and sailors
whose names were merelyentered up
on the rolls asdeserters, with other
evidence Of their guilt,o even to dis
franchise any, except such as had
been, or should be duly convicted
of this high crime, for which even the
terrible penalty of death is provided,
and frequently inflicted by all civil
lied nations, would be simply too
ridiculous for comment, had not the
falsehood, in accordance with Andy
Johnson's policy, been so persistent
ly repeated that even some of it's
very authors have probably come
to believe it.
Tt is plain then, that this late act
of Congress was notpassed to secure
men actually conUicted of wilfull de
sertion from any penalty, but only
to secure certain class, technically
charged with this crime which
they never had any intention of com
mitting, from the probability ofyex-
atious and expensive prosecutions,
to which they were still technic-
ally liable, but which could only
have resulted in expense to the gov
ernment, and the acquittal of the ac-
cused, as no courts could ever have
been organized. that would have con-
victed any of this class of men, of
, this infamous crime.
But is there not q slight flavor of