Year: 1867

"a The Columbus Journal the Radical organ
at the State Capital, attempts a defense of
the proposed Constitutional amendment,
idisfranchising larger number of Ohio sol
oilers than it enfranchises of negroes. The
Journal would do well not to attempt to
defend proposition like that, for it is to-
tally indefensible. A lame apology for it
only. serves to expose its weakness, and the
folly OF those seeking to foist it into the
State Constitution. The Journals argu-
ment is that those soldiers who left their
commands, supposing the war was over,
are not disfranchised by the amendments,
for it applies only to those who desert in
time of war. But the Journal knows, if it
knows anything about the subject it at
tempts to discuss, that the war was not
over when the soldiers referred to supposed
it was, and by act of Congress, was not to
cease until the President by proclamation
should announce the fact of its cessation.
The President had not then issued any such
proclamation. The soldiers who left their
commands before the President issued his
proclamation, and did not return within a
specified time, were returned as deserters,
and are, therefore, disfranchised by the
amendment. So the Journals defense or
apology for the provision distranchising
soldiers amounts to nothing.


The Journal attempts to smooth over the
injustice and Wickedness of this attempted
disfranchisement of soldiers in the Consti-
tuition by lashing itself into passion about
the awfulness of the crime of desertion, and
then justifying disfranchisementf for that Of
fense, because the laws of Ohio disfranchise
persons convicted of certain great as
rape arson, bigamy, etc. But there is wide
distinction between putting forfeiture of
the elective franchise in the Constitution
and leaving it to depend on legislative
enactments. ~.


Putting it in the Constitution, as the
Radicals propose to do with the clause dis
franchising certain soldiers, it becomes ir-
repealable by act of the Legislature
But the laws making a forfeiture of the
elective franchise the result of conviction
for crime, may be repealed at any time, if
the Legislature find them working injus-
tice or hardship.


Again, by the laws of Ohio, a man can
be disfranchised for crime only on convic-
tion after trial in a court of competent ju-
risdiction. But the proposed amendment
takes away the elective franchise from a
soldier without requiring a conviction for
any crime in any court, civil or military


A man disfranchised for crime may be
pardoned by the Executive, and restored to
all his lost rights. But the Radical amend
ment to the Constitution does not contain
any provision for anything of the sort.
According to that amendment a soldier
charged with desertion, and not being able
to procure discharge that has the word
"hOnOraOly'' IN IL, is forever smut out from
voting for a candidate for any office, even
for a constable, and as consequence from
holding any office. '' - -


Many soldiers who enlisted for three
years or during the war, naturally enough
supposed that when the rebels had gener-
ally laid down their arms and surrendered
that their term of enlistment had expired.
For this error in judgment, the Radicals
propose to alter the Constitution so as to
make them forever incapable of voting or
holding any office. Radical folly or mad
ness has seldom proposed anything more
unjust, tyrannical and oppressive tlIan this.
-PLGin Dedle". '.' -l