Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1881-02-17

OF mot guiity."
The Chief Justice gave the boy some
good advice, and told him he might go.
The boy had enough sense to know he
had been treated we'll, and SO thanked the
jury before he left the hox
Margaret Dever an offender who comes
around with each court, and who gets off
on the ground of being a kleptomaniac,
was remanded to the sheriff custody
until the May term.
The following cases were nolle py0se'd.
Bridget Conner for selling liquor without
license; John W. Wilson, et al and
William I. George for assault and battery,
and otners for practicing medicine ana
retailing without licenses
Court adjourned until Friday at 10
O'Clock
All the s'sts in the auditorium of the
Conrt House were well filled when court
w g cell to order Friday morning al 1911
O'CLOCK
In State vs.. j. II. Christy, the defendant
plead, d guilty to selling liquor without a
lie nse and was sentenced to pay the usual
fines
The Chief Justice then proceed to
Tyre. IL was as follows:
Gentlemen of the .j,uy: The ninth section
of chapter 16 of the Revised Code-being
general provisions respecting elections-is in
these words:
II at any election, the presiding officer, or IL
judge Of the election, shall knowingly and wilfuly
receive or advise and consent TO the receiving Of
the vote OF any person not entitled to vote at such
election. or ii slchpresiding officer or Judge shall
knowingly or willfuy refuse TO receive, or advise
and concur in refusing to receive the vote OF
any person entitled to vote at such election any
such presiding officer, or judge shall for every such
oiense forfeit and pay the sum of 5000 to any per-
son who will sue for the same or such presiding
ofilcer, or Judge shall for every such 0liense be
deemed guniy of q misdemeanor, and shall he
lined not less than $50 nor more thnn
1900. Both the aforesaid penalties shall
not be incurred for the same ohense: and
conviction upon an indictment, or judgment in
an action of deDt may be pleaded III abatement OF
the alternate proceeding. But in all cases an
offender under this section shall be further liable
10 be indicted and punished an IN other cases. for
wifu and corrupt perjury in having violated his
oath or affirmation. as such presiding officer or
Judge.
The defendant was the inspector at the last
general election, held on the Tuesday next
after the first Monday of November 1880, for
the Western district of the Second ward of
this city, having been elected to that Office at
the inspectors election (ou 'little election us
it is familiarly called) held on the first Tues
day OF the preceding month of October
Ellis Furgerson offered his ballot to the
defendant at said general election, and it was
refused by him on the ground that he was Il
deBerter from the army of the United States,
who did not return to or report himself to
provost marshal within 60 days after the lssu-
ance OF the proclamation of the President
dated the llth of March 1865, section 1896 of
the Revised Statutes of the United states pro-
yidlng that deserters who did not do so, ''aro
deemed to have voluntarily relinquished and
forfeited their rights OF citizenship, us well rs
Their right to become citizens and such
deserters shall be forever incapable of hold
ing any office of trust or profit under the
United States, or of exercising any
rights of citizens thereof" One of the
two officer of the election associated
with the inspector challenged the right
OF Furgeson TO vote, alleging that he was
such deserter; and 1t being admitted By the
Attorney-Gencral, for the purpose of this
case, that the allegation was, in fact, correct.
and the defendants counsel having also adj
mitted that Furgerson, but for that section,
had perfect right to vote at said election,
we are required to decide III matter of law
for your instruction the question raised
Whether the said section affected such right
30 as to disfranchise him. This certainly, is
a very grave and important question, and re-
qulrcs that we should exercise great caution
i'll deciding 1t for it is just that kind of one
about which men would he likely to differ, in
the present state Of political sentiment, ac-
cordlng to their party connections. But 1t Is
one far transcending in importance ordinary
controversies between opposing political
forces, and therefore should receive that calm,
deliberate and thoughtful consideration
which your courts of Justice are supposed, ut
least, to be best able to give to questions
growing out of the conduct of men III places
to which party has elected them. Our trust
Iyh hat yl,ol
spect to the law by which you are to be gov
erned in making up your verdict, will be
received by you and others as being free from
all taint of suspicion ON the score of politics
for we have nothing to do with parties, their
struggles riyalries or interests, but feel our
selves to be concerned only to decide what we
take the law to be-"
1t WAS contended before us by the learned
COUNSEL for the defendant that the provision
oil the law OF Congress with respect to dc.
serters from the military or naval service of
the United States, as expressed i'll the section
referred to, disqualified Furgerson to vote at
the last general election, and therefore his
vote was properly rejected; whereas the
Attorney-General takes a different yiew CON
tending that such provision has no effect to
disirnnchlse citizen of u state from voting
at State election, and therefore the defend
ant, having refused to receive the vote of
Furgerson, Ii liable to the penalties of the
btCtlOu VI our Ntult Nlhlllttt HbONe Ftclltu, Ill
this State OF the matter, it is our duty to tell
you what we think the net of Congress means.
70 do this understandingly we must construo
that act in the light of the facts of history, as
well as by its terms.
When the colonies separated from the
crown of England they announced themselves
in the Declaration Of Independence to be
''free and independent states" In that con-
dition they remained to the close of the war
which followed it, and down to the month of
September 1857, when the Constitution of the
United States was formed. During the
interval between l776 and 1887, they in-
dividually possessed every power of sovereignty
which any nation enjoyed. At the latter
period they formed a union with each other.
and created II government for the benefit of
the whole, parting with some Of the most
valuable of their sovereign rights to the new
creation, such as the power TO declare war,
coin money &c., but retaining and reserving
to themselves or to the whole people of
them, such as We're not expressly conferred
upon the new government, or necessary to
the exercise of those which were expressly
granted In their unrestricted conditionthey
held. as Il matter of course the sovereign
right of determining who should be citizens
of them; and under this they invested with
citizenship from time to time, the foreigners
who ilOcked to our shores But the laws of
the states being different upon that subject
and to promote equality of action, Congress,
by the Constitution was clothed with the
power to prescribe a rule for naturalization
which should be uniform all over the Union.
Whether the trainers Of that instrument
meant to deprive the states of the power to
naturalize, or simply to invest Congress with
the power to regulate their actlUn-leavlng
them to make citizens of foreigners it Is
needless now to inquire the right To act in
depcndently of the states having been assumed
by Congress, and afterwards aequesced in
Before that time there were. strictly speaking,
no citizens of the United States: but When
naturalization took place by Congressional
action, some status was necessary to be given
to the new made political unit and lie became
u citizen of the United States, entitled, 50 far
as protection from the General Government
was needed to the same care as a citizen of Il
State, and subject as they to perform services
to 1t whenever its eNigcnclcs required them.
But they did not, therefore, become citizens
of any State, and could only acquire citizen
ship in them by such terms of residence. &c.,
as they imposed. Here, then, We have two
classes of citizens ns-citizcus of the several
states, who were also citizens of the United
States, and citizens of the United States who
were not necessarily citizens of amy State
but they were all citizens Of the United States,
with the right OF protection of person and
property by il and the cOrrelat'vG duty Of
allegiance to it. When the naturalized for
eigner complied with the condition to acquire
state citizenship in the state where he settled,
he became n citizen of such state, and was
then placed upon the same footing AS any
other state citizen. And in neither case could
any act of the General Government affect his
status as a citizen of state. There was a
dual or double citizenship existing, yet no
'divided duty" but rather convenient and
not hostile allegiance. The decision of the