Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-03-09
mo1Ismp6stant IDeclsion.y

/ Last fallrthe Supreme Court of Pennsyl-i
vania promulgated their decision in Avery,
Important case, involving the right of q
citizen to vote. Congress, by act of March
Sd, 1865, declared that all persons who had
deserted CtlIe military or snavab service of
the United States, and who had not been re-
lieved of the penalty, should be deemed
and taken to have relinquished and for
feited their rights of citizenship and their
right to become citizens, and be deprived
Of exercising any rights of, citizens. The
Legislature of Pennsylvania. on the 4th of
June, 1856, passed an act based upon the
act of Congress above named, whereby it
was enacted that in all elections in Penn
sylvania it, should be unlawful for any
judge or inspector of elections to receive
the vote of any person embraced in the
provisions and subject to the disability
imposed blythe act of Congress, and un-
lawful for any, such person to offer TO vote.
The act imposed severe penalties upon
Judges or inspectors who should excuse
sach votes, and also, upon such persons, de-
priYed of citizenship by act of Congress, as
should vote or offer to vote at any election
in the State. and still further, upon any
person who should persuade. such persons
so. deprived, of citizenship to offer to, vo.e,
or persuade any officer to receive the vote.
q Judges of election in Pennsylvania com!
piled with thelaw, and rejected. the votes
of persons presumed, or known TO have
been deserters. One of the persons whose
vote was so refused, brought suit against
the Judge who refused to receive. his vote,
and recovered judgment. Tue case was
appealed to the Supreme Court of the State,
ando aftera elaborate discussion by able
counsel, the judgment of the court below
was affirmed, the supreme Court holding
that the plaintiff below ..not having been
eopUfcted Of desa5ioa dstd failure to return to
the service, or to report to a Prouost Marshal,
and not hduing been sentenced to the penalties
and .forettTes Of the Ias0' soas entitled to
The opinion of the court. was dulyspub
fished. The course of1reasoning pursued
by the court is clear, cOgeht and demon-
strative, leading inevitably to the decision
announced in iCalic above; which is. in SUBJ
stance this, that to deprive citizen of his
right to vote is a penalty, and that such pen
ally cannot be inflicted without due con-
'victionl and sentence according to law
The opinion of the court Is specially inter-
esting in Missouri, where our law makers
assume that they may deprive citizens of
the right to vote as punishment for rebel
lion, without trial, conviction or. sentence
by due process OF law. 1t will be observed,
upon reading the opinion of the court, that
the Sconstitutionalit of the actlOf Congress
is not assaled, the court treating it as oper-
alive tn tsGtufo, and intended so, to be by
Congress, inasmuch as the act provides that
cleserters might return within sixty days
and evade the disabilities imposed. IF they
did not return within the time designated,
then, their act being continuing deser-
ton, they incurred the deprivation of citi-
zensllip. But the important point of the
high and most respectable court is, that the
factof such desertion must be ascertained
and proved by trial and conviction in
duly authorized court before the penalty of
deprivation of citizenship can, attach, and
that election judges are not an authorized
tribunal to try, convict and sentence al
legeu deserters.-St. Louis Republican. % 3