The Portland daily press., 1869-01-27

JANUARY TEhM-6ODDARD, J., PHESIDIN6.
lUEsDAY.-State VS.. Orsamus Symonds. Indict-
ment for illegal voting in the town of Casco at the
annual September election OF 1868. The undisputed
facts that the defendant 4s years DID, voted
and voted for Gov Chamberlain that he volunteered
in the army, served six months, at the battle of
Fredericksburg, that he deserted, went to Canada,
where he remained two years; that he made appli-
cation to the Adjutant General OF the State to be al
lowed to return without prosecution; that on being
informed by the Adjutant General that his applca-
ton vas forwarded to the War Department, with
his approval, he returned home in September. 1906,
to Casco his native town, where resides his wife and
two daugt tiers; that he has remained in Casco ever
since; has voted at every election without question
that at the last September election he holding
the office of road surveyor of his district; that be-
fore voting, at the time in question, his vote was
challenged, on the ground that he had lost the right
to vote by law OF the United States depriving de-
serters of all the rights of citizenship. His name
was on the check list, and while the question was
under discussion, the Selectman's hand upon the
cover of the box but his attention diverted by the
act of reading the law, which had been there read
aloud before. the cover slipped away as to leave
small opening, through which the respondent depos-
tied his ballot. The question was raised whether
the ballot could be removed. 1t was not done; the
defendants name was not checked as a voter; hence
the prosecution that the respondent at the meeting
admitted that he had heard the law before and I'M
derstood it.
There was other testimony Tor the Government,
contradicted by the defendant, that he then and
there admitted that he had deserted and had not re-
turned, and that he claimed that he had been par
doned and had the document at home to show it.
This indictment is drawn under the statute, fol-
ire dc
this is not sufficient, but that it should be alleged
and proved that the meeting legally called, and
that the respondent voted for some officers and for
somebody.
The County Attorney replied that it was no de-
fence that the meeting was not legally called, that 1t
was not the business of anybody to scrutnize an
electors vote to determine TOR whom he votes;
that If he votes for nobody he may prove it in de-
fence. These questions were the form OF the in
dictment.
Mr. Vinton contended that the United States law
DISTINGUISHING deserter was unconstitutional and
not binding, and that if 1t were good and binding
law it not of those kind OF laws that citizens
were presumed to know; that by the terms OF our
statute it is not the man who votes without rigls
that is punished, but the man who knowingly votes
without right; and that 1t the respondent was igno
rant OF the law itse OF the meaning its terms,
supposed that the depriving him of the rights oil
citizenship did not deprive him of the right of vot-
ing, or supposed that he had been restored to the
right when in fact he had not then he could not be
convicted of knowingly violating the statute; that
jurors had right to gather their own meaning of
the terms of this United States statute that there
had been no judicial decisions upon it. The counsel
admitted generally that jurors should take the law
from the Court, but made distinction between stat
utes which had received judi ;al Interpretation and
those which had not In the latter they could
read and interpret the law for themselves. Some
statutes, by common consent, lost their force and
vitality. Nobody In this State had ever been pun
ished under this law. He likened it to the law
against prefne swearing, very generally dsregarded
with impuntty. And that even Ii desertion deprived
man OF the RIGHT to VOTE it must be shown that he
had actually been convicted or treated by the War
Department as deserer: that even his own con-
fesson not sufficient to establish the fact that be
was not on trial for deseron, and the fact OF deser
ton should not prejudice his case on this trial
Mr.. Webb considered all these positions as unten-
able: that the indictment was properly drawn; that
if he did not VOTE that is matter of defence and
not for him to alege that it proved that he did
vote that by the terms of own Constitution the
statutes of the United States binding upon us;
that al citizens are presumed to know the law that
the jury had right to presume that man who had
stayed out of his country for two years. because of
the penalties for desertion would be k ely to inform
himself of the consequences; that there was sufic-
lent proof that he heard this statute read aloud in
town meeting; that he admitted that he knew and
erstood it beore that he placed his right to vote
on paper in his possession restoring him to his
rights. which paper did not refer to the case at ALL
mere intimation of Gen. Hodgdon to the War De-
partment, not covering this matter, and not acted
on; that it was a pretence. There are no obsolete
statutes. On the purity OF the ballot box depends
the stability of representative Government. Ver-
dict, guilty.
This has excited considerable ipteres5 and has
been argued with ability upon both Sides A motion
was made in arrest of judgment and exceptions fled
The defendant recognized in $500 tor his appearance
Webb. Holden.
Vlnton.
State VS.. Henry Horr. Embezzlement, by statute
definition, larceny. of cigars deposited fer safe keep
ing by Mary A. Townsend. After the evidence was
out the Court instructed the jury return verdict
for the respondent. Verdict, not guilty.
Webb. Putnam
Slate VS.. Abner q. Harmon, for keepine a drink
ing house and tippling shop in Brunswick. Jury
out.
webb Simmons.