Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-04-27
The Effect of the Amendment 10
tIAe State COnstifutiOu

nc OI Bmo AlncmOIDOnB 10
the State Constitution. -
IFromthe Cincinnati Commercial. April 20
A wonderful argument is made in favor
of that clause of the proposed amendment
| to the Constitution OF the State which dis
| franchises deserters and absentees from the
draft. 1t is, in subtance:
l. That the number of the disfranchised
| is of no consequence, because existing Con-
gressional and Legislative laws already dis
| franchise all whowould be disfranchised
by the amendmen6. ~ 3 . - 4 80
2. That.itis a provision tor the future,
not punishment for the past.
| Now, if existing legislation disqualifies
all as electors who deserve such punish
ment, and the amendment does no more,
what occasion is there for that clause of the
amendment at all ? 1t is a provision for the
future, is it {? Read the amendment. In
effect, it provides that such persons as haze
borne arms in support of any rebellion, &c.
or hare fled from their places of residence
to avoid being drafted, or haze deserted the
service and have not Subsequently been
honorably discharged, shall not be quail
| fled to vote.
1t is mere evasion to assert that the
amendment looks to the future, and not to
the past. That it would apply to cases of
desertion and draft absenteeism hereafter,
no one doubts. But that it was drawn up
with clear intent to punish past oftenses is
evident from the language of the amend
ment. Those who make the absurd argu-
ment that the amendments is a provision for
the future, do not believe it, for upon the
| heels of the assertion they appeal to the de-
cision of the Supreme Court of a neighbor-
ing State to assure us that the same tribu
nal in our own will interpose to break the
retroactive force ofthe amendment.
- Not feeling assured even of this they tell
US the worst that can happen is that the
soldier challenged at the polls as a deserter,
| 1nhn fho mo- q m no Il
| fed or restrained from voting, until he has
| been convicted OF desertion by q competent
| tribunal. Let this be conceded for the sake
of argument. 1t is notorious that upward
of 10000 Ohio soldiers are reported as de-
serters on the Provost Marshals books at
Washington. Now, if none of them can be
disfranchised till convicted of desertion, and
if the muster-rolls and other records are not
to be taken as evidence Ofdesertion (Which
is claimed by the Cleveland Herdld), what
does the amendment amount to? In other
words, if there is no evidence of desertion
other than hearsay, those who deserve dis
franchsement as well as those who do not,
will escape. scot free, and vote the same as
though a clause disfranchising them did
not exist in the Constitution. To sum it
up, the disfranchising clause of the amend
ment, so far as it affects deserters of any
grade, IS a nullity, and to be treated as such.
And the people are asked to go solemnly to
the polls and record their votes in favor of
this PickWickian addition to the Constitu-
ton. sssE
|. o, but it is said that they must do this for
its grand moral effectl The most they can
do is to put their seal of reprobation upon
those who deserted the Government in its
hour OF peril. But will it be any such seal
at all, if the amendment is only "a provi-
sion for the future?" And do We not achieve
all the moral effect required in the puni-
tive legislation already in existence-dis-
franchising laws; made by the representa-
tives of the people in Congress and Legis-
lature assembled-laws that reach and dis
qualify all who would be disqualified by the
amendment? #ts Eitf5
If the defenders of this remarkable piece
of patched eXpediency have nothing better
to offer in its favor than the arguments we
have reviewed, they will favor the chances
of its adoption by, keeping silent. The
fact is, without any quibbling or evasion,
that the amendment is intended to punish
offenses not known to the laws of the State
or to its Constitution at the time of their
commission. 1t puts upon the soldier re-
ported as deserter the burden of proof of
his innocence. Technically guilty, it
might be, aud probably would be, exceed
ingly difficult for him TO prove his inno-
cence or relieve himself of the odium of
willful desertion. It's nonsense to say that
the records of the Provost Marshafs Office
ana the muSG6r-rOllS Will not D0 uS6O against
him., They would be required to establish
in court the fact of his having been a SOL
dier at all, and if reported as deserter or
absent from the regiment upon one or both
these documents, or by any record lodged
in the War Department, the court would
have to be governed in its decision by such
record. If the records at Columbus and
Washington are not to be taken as evil
denee, then how is it proposed to reach the
cases of willful deseFtion and procure the
conviction and disqualification of those who
merit such punishment? =.
AS we asserted when the amendment was
under discussion in the Legislature, the
disfranchising clause diminishes the chances
of its adoption. 1t raises up an army of
opponents in those whom it ssrikes at.
Those who know themselves to be actually
guilty, and deserving exclusion from the
polls, are of course its enemies, and those
who are morally convinced of the rectitude
of their conduct and yet know themselves
to be technically guilty of desertion, will
not the less oppose it. Add to these thou
sands the opponents of universal suffrage,
and the fate of the amendment can be fore
cast without waiting for the second Tues
day OF October. ,-..~-.-