Search the Newspapers Browse Newspapers by Date Articles Indexed by Topic About the Newspapers Valley of the Shadow Home

Franklin Repository: 10 04, 1865 Go To Page : 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |

Washington
(Column 5)

Summary: The Repository's Washington correspondent relates that large numbers of rebels have come to the city recently seeking a pardon from the president. Other news from the capital concerns the continuing trial of Werze, the commander of the Andersonville prisoner camp, which has brought "to light nothing but additional details of the murders and sufferings" of the soldiers while in that "prison pen of death."

How They Look At It
(Column 6)

Summary: According to the Mobile Tribune's correspondent, Southerners should not shy away from the political process if they hope to receive compensation for the property they lost during the war. Rather, they should rally behind W. W. Boyce, the "great statesman and diplomatist" whom, he says, "will control the government" and "make Presidents tremble and the leaders of the party crawl on their bellies" before him.

Origin of Article: Mobile Tribune

Editorial Comment: "We have abundant information as to what the President, and Mr. Stevens and Mr. Sumner, and various other public men think of reconstruction: but we have heard but little as to the views of the Southern people themselves. Are they in favor of 'restoration?' and if so, why? What do they expect to gain or lose by it? Fortunately, we have the answer at hand. Some of the restorationists at the South have the grace of being plain spoken, and among these is a correspondent of the Mobile Tribune, who thinks that if the State Rights party in hte South plays its cards properly, they will get pay for all their slaves and all the property which Gens. Sherman, Grant, and others destroyed. Moreover, he says that 'if we don't have whom we chose for the next President, it will be our own folly.' Hear him:"

[No Title]
(Column 7)

Summary: Since his return to the helm of the Doylestown Democrat, Gen. Davis, the Democratic candidate for Auditor General, has zealously advanced the cause of the rebels, reports the article. He has published editorials contending that Southerners should have all of their rights restored immediately, that slavery is not and cannot be abolished, and that the rebel debt should be liquidated.

Origin of Article: Village Record

Last Appeal
(Column 1)

Summary: Stressing the importance of the upcoming election, the editors implore voters to reject the entreaties of the Democrats because they opposed the war effort and denounced the men who fought for the Union as "hirelings and mercenaries."

Full Text of Article:

CITIZENS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY! Another and an important election is at hand; one which appeals to every voter for deliberate, intelligent, unprejudiced action. Indifference on the part of any citizen at such a time is criminal. The right of suffrage is an inestimable privilege, but it is a great error to suppose that it is a privilege that the good citizen can exercise or not, as he feels inclined. The duty to exercise it whenever occasion offers is an imperative one, and that man who fails to do so, through indifference or neglect, disregards an obligation he owes to his government.

There has never been an election, under our present system of government, so unimportant as to release the citizen from his obligation. The interests of society or the State are always either to be promoted or prejudiced by the election or defeat of one or other of the contending parties. It is impossible in the nature of things to have such matters so evenly balanced that the citizen is left without a preference. If weighted in the balance one or other of the tickets will strike the beam. There is always sure to be some consideration that will incline the balance.

Never were parties further from an equipoise than they are this Fall. The opposing candidates have not equal claims upon you, nor can the sentiments of both commend themselves to the honest judgement of the same mind. The issue is one made up of individual qualification and merit, vital principle and moral effect. You are familiar with the opposing parties and you know their respective candidates. You know that one is represented in this campaign by men who have been faithful to their country in her greatest trial, some of whom have deserved the gratitude of their countrymen by services in the field and others by faithful adherence to her cause at home; and you know that the other side asks preferment for men whose course during the time of national troubles indicated a sympathy with our enemies, and whose efforts were given more to retard, than to help on the work of conquering rebellion. Can you hesitate as to which of these you will give your support? Would it not be base ingratitude to open the doors of preferment to men who turned their backs upon the government when it was in danger, and to close it upon those who in that crisis rendered her what assistance they could? The ticket the Union party presents to you is unexceptionable. The State ticket bears the names of two of our most eminent soldiers, who have gathered their honors where the danger was greatest, while the District and County tickets are composed of the names of men all of whom have given evidence of their patriotism by services on the field or by faithful adherence to their country's cause at home, and who are well qualified to discharge the duties of the offices for which they are candidates.

Then again, have you the honor and credit of your STATE and NATION at heart? If you have, will you aid that party that seeks to establish them both on an enduring basis of peace and prosperity, by reaping the rich fruits of the nation's triumph, that endeavors to maintain their honor and integrity by enabling them to redeem every pledge of citizens and soldiers, and that is pledged to advance the interests of labor everywhere; or will you support that party whose whole purpose is to give victory to the conquered, to destroy your national credit and bring you again under the power of the spirit of SLAVERY? You have to choose for yourselves.

The Union party never made you a pledge that it has not faithfully redeemed. Your memories are treacherous indeed, if you have forgotten how often the Democratic party have broken the word of promise to your hope. The latter now seeks power through the aid of the very men who were most active in inaugurating rebellion, and promises to restore them to the supremacy that Democratic subserviency gave them before the war. Its sympathies are just as much with these men now as when your capital was besieged or your State invaded; and for a poor mess of official pottage it is willing to barter off the grand results of the war, which were purchased at such a fearful cost, and to surrender into the hands of the vanquished the trophies of the conqueror. Shall the power of this government pass into the hands of men who acknowledged allegiance to such a party? If you permit it, your troubles have only commenced. If you wish to secure peace and prosperity to the Republic you must commit its government into the hands of its friends, and exclude from place and power all who sympathize with its enemies.

SOLDIERS! Our cause appeals to you for your active, undivided support. DEMOCRACY has no claims upon you. It has merited your stern rebuke. Remember how it attempted to disfranchise you when you were braving the dangers of the field, and how it used every means to weaken you and strengthen your enemies. It never rejoiced when you achieved a victory nor wept when disaster overtook you. It opposed every effort that was made to strengthen your ranks, and denounced you as hirelings and mercenaries.

You triumphed over your enemies with field and earned a nation's thanks. The price of that victory was the lives of your noble comrades, the ghastly wounds of others and the heroic labor of all. Will you now permit that enemy, aided by the cupidity and subservience of the DEMOCRACY, to reap the fruits of the victory you gained? You saved the REPUBLIC by your bullets, assist it now with your ballots. You acted well your part as soldiers, let the same love of Country, and devotion to freedom characterize you as citizens. One and all, stand firm.

UNION MEN OF FRANKLIN COUNTY! You made for yourselves a glorious record during the last four years of danger and trial to the Republic. You contributed both blood and treasure in patriotic abundance to the defence of your Government, and suffered uncomplainingly the fortunes of war, that the government might live. You performed your entire duty with a fidelity which will be remembered and extolled by those who come after you. Will you falter now when there are no hardships to be endured, no exactions to be demanded? Will you, by supineness and indifference, permit the old enemy you have so often vanquished to triumph in this contest? We trust not. Victory is within your grasp. Exert yourselves to the end that a full vote may be polled and all will be well. A large majority of the voters of our County are undeniably with us and nothing but disgraceful lethargy on you part can give success to your enemy.

We entreat you to do your whole duty as citizens, and to exert yourselves as men having a due regard for the honor of your State and the general welfare of the people.

[No Title]
(Column 3)

Summary: An endorsement for Dr. Alex Stewart, of Shippensburg, who is the Union candidate for the York and Cumberland district.
(Names in announcement: Dr. Alex Stewart)

Scandal
(Column 4)

Summary: In response to an article that appeared in the Gettysburg Compiler in which Robert McGaughy charged David McConaughy with "professional dishonesty" for allegedly withholding a patent from him, McConaughy denies the accusation and posits that McGaughy's accusation stems from his own misapprehension of the facts related to the case.
(Names in announcement: D. McConaughy)

Trailer: D. McConaughy

An Insult To The Heroes Of Gettysburg
(Column 4)

Summary: The article chastises the Democratic legislators from the state who have thwarted attempts by the Assembly to honor Gen. Meade for his heroic stand against the rebels in the Battle of Gettysburg.

Attempted Assassination:
(Column 4)

Summary: The article calls on the authorities to capture, convict, and hang the "scoundrels" who tried to kill Gens. Sherman and Grant. Should the authorities fail to act decisively, it says, "cowardly ruffians" will continue to act with impunity.

Origin of Article: Philadelphia Enquirer

Editorial Comment: "Deliberate and evidently preconcerted efforts were made to assassinate Gens. Grant and Sherman on the 27th ult. While Gen. Grant was returning from Indianapolis at an early hour on that morning, a switch at the end of a curve at Guilford had been turned intentionallly, and the car in which the General rode was thrown from the track and dragged some distance but no one was injured. About the same time a train on the Ohio and Mississippi road, carrying Gen. Sherman, was thrown from the track this side of Lawrenceburg. No one was injured. The Philadelphia Evening Telegraph thus pertinently inquires where rebel savegery is to end and what is its true remedy:"

Have Deserters A Right To Vote?
(Column 6)

Summary: An abridged copy of John Cessna treatise on the congressional act banning deserters from voting. In his report, Cessna substantiates his stand on the issue by relying on articles from the state constitution as well as from the bill of 1860.

Editorial Comment: "We give below a lengthy argument from the pen of Mr. Cessna, Chairman of the Union Central Committee, on the constitutionality of the Act of Congress disfranchising deserters. The crowded slate of our columns compels us to omit certain portions of it, but we tried to preserve the line of the argument unbroken. It is just such a paper as we would expect from an able lawyer like Mr. Cessna, and as a fair examination and interpretation of a law that has too long been defied, it will commend it self to all impartial minds:"

Full Text of Article:

We give below a lengthy argument from the pen of Mr. Cessna, Chairman of the Union Central Committee, on the constitutionality of the Act of Congress disfranchising deserters. The crowded state of our columns compels us to omit certain portions of it, but we have tried to preserve the line of the argument unbroken. It is just such a paper as we would expect from an able lawyer like Mr. Cessna, and as a fair examination and interpretation of a law that has too long been defied, it will commend itself to all impartial minds:

"On the subject of elections, the Constitution of Pennsylvania provides:

Article III
"Section I.--In elections, by the citizens every white freeman, of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in this State one year, and in the election district where he offers to vote ten days immediately preceding such election, and within two years paid a State or County tax, which shall have been assessed at least ten days before the election shall enjoy the rights of an elector; but a citizen of the United States who had previously been a qualified voter of this State, and removed therefrom, and return and shall have resided in the election district, and paid taxes as aforesaid, shall be entitled to vote after residing in the State six months; Provided, that white freemen, citizens of the United States, between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-two years, and having resided in the State one year, and in the election district ten days, as aforesaid, shall be entitled to vote, although they shall not have paid taxes."

It is important here to observe that it is not all white men that are entitled to vote, but white freemen. Throughout the entire section the words "citizens of the United States" are used in the same connection, and it is apparent that the word "freemen" used in this section is equivalent to the word citizens.

In the case of the State of Tennessee vs. Ambrose, 1 Meigs' R., 331, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the word "freemen" used in the Constitution of Tennessee was equivalent to the word citizen. This is, of course, conclusive on this point.

During the progress of the war for the suppression of the rebellion, various laws were passed to raise an army sufficient for the purpose. It was found that some persons resorted to different disreputable ways to avoid the draft, and others deserted the service. To prevent a repetition of the former, and to punish the latter offence, Congress enacted a law partly as follows, viz:

"An Act to amend the several acts heretofore passed to provide for the enrolling and rolling out of the national forces, and for other purposes." Approved March 3, 1863.

"SECT 21. That in addition to the other lawful penalties of the crime of desertion from the military or naval service, all persons who have deserted the military or naval service of the United States, who shall not return to said service, or report themselves to the Provost Marshal within sixty days after the proclamation hereinafter mentioned, shall be deemed and taken to have voluntarily relinquished and forfeited THEIR RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP, and their rights to become citizens; and such Deserters shall be forever incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under the United States, or of exercising any rights of citizens thereof; and all persons who shall hereafter desert the military or naval service, and all persons who, being duly enrolled, shall depart the jurisdiction of the district in which he is enrolled, or go beyond the [illeg] of the United States with intent to avoid any draft into the military or naval service duly ordered, shall be liable to the penalties of this section. And the President is hereby authorized and required forthwith, on the passage of this act, to issue his proclamation setting forth the provisions of this section, in which proclamation the President is requested to notify all Deserters returning within sixty days as aforesaid, that they shall be pardoned on condition of returning to their regiments and companies, or to such other organizations as they may be assigned to, until they shall have served for a period of time equal to their original term of enlistment."

In pursuance of that Act of Congress, President Lincoln issued his Proclamation.

If this Act of Congress is constitutional, and applies to those persons who, before its passage, had been citizens of Pennsylvania, and are guilty of the offences described in the Act, then it is perfectly clear that such persons have forfeited their rights of citizenship, and cannot vote. We hold that the Act of Congress is strictly constitutional.

Prior to the passage of the Act of 1860 (Penal Code) a convict, who had served his time in prison, could not vote.

The first article, eighth section, of the Constitution of the United States, among other things, declares:
"1. Congress shall have power --
"2. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.
"5. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
"12. To declare war.
"13. To raise and support armies.
"15. To make rules for the government and regulations of the land and naval forces.
"16. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS and repel invasions.
"19. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department of offices thereof."

Prior to the passage of the Act of 1863, which imposes the penalty of loss of citizenship upon Deserters, Congress had passed several Acts for the "raising of armies" and to "suppress insurrections," and had also made "certain rules for the regulation of the land and naval forces," -- Chief among these was the Act of March 3, 1863, usually known as the "Conscription Act," a part of the provisions of which are hereinafter inserted.

The constitutional power of Congress to pass this Act, and their general power to raise armies, are fully vindicated and sustained by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the Philadelphia cases reported in 9th Wright, 295 and following. In these opinions the liability of drafted men to the rules and regulations of war are clearly set forth. The constitutionality of the law cannot be doubted. We are equally clear that it applies to citizens of Pennsylvania, and that a person cannot lose his "citizenship of the United States" and retain his citizenship of Pennsylvania. We find in the Constitution of the United States:

ARTICLE VI.
"SECTION 2--THIS CONSTITUTION, AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution of laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

The Supreme Court of the United States have ruled as follows:
"Since the adoption of the Constitution no states can, by any subsequent law, make a foreigner, or any other description of persons, citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument." 19 How., 393; also, 21 Law Rep.

It is a well established fact, and indeed a constitutional command, that the system of naturalization shall be general, and no State can regulate the subject to suit its own views. It is not possible that any person can be a citizen of the State in which he lives, and not be a citizen of the United States. Nor is it possible that he can be a citizen of the United States and not be a citizen of the State in which he lives. The opinion of Attorney General Bates, given November 29th, 1862, on the question of citizenship, sustains this position. He says:

"The phrase 'a citizen of the United States,' without addition or qualification, means neither more nor less than a member of the nation. And all such are, politically and legally, equal--the child in the cradle and its father in the Senate, are equally citizens of the United States. And it needs no argument to prove that every citizen of a State is, necessarily, a citizen of the United States; and to me it is equally clear that every citizen of the United States is a citizen of the particular State in which he is domiciled."

"Every citizen of the United States is a competent member of the nation, with rights and duties under the Constitution and laws of the United States, which cannot be destroyed or abridged by the laws of any particular State. The laws of the State, if they conflict with the laws of the Nation, are of no force. The Constitution is plain beyond [illeg] on this point. Art. 6, 'This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties, etc. shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State notwithstanding.' And from this I assume that every person who is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, holds his great franchise by the laws of the United States, and above the control of any particular State. Citizenship of the United States is an integral thing, incapable of existence in fractional parts. Whoever, then, has that franchise, is a whole citizen, and a citizen of a whole nation, and cannot be (as the argument of my learned predecessor seems to suppose) such citizen in one State and not in another."

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agree with Judge Bates in his definition of the word "citizen." In 1 Grant, p. 424, Judge Woodward says:
"So was the word 'citizen' well understood, as it is now understood, to mean a human being--a natural person, capable of acting, contracting, suing and being sued without legislative aids--a person of whom allegiance is predicable, and who may be guilty of treason."

In 7 Penn. Law Journal, page 115, Van Metre vs. Mitchell, Judge Grier decides:
"No State legislation can interfere with the provisions of an act of Congress, or protect from punishment any one who may incur a penalty prescribed by such act."

Let us now ascertain who are "Deserters" contemplated by the act of Congress taking away the right of citizenship. The inquiry is rendered simply by a reference to the act itself and the law regulating the "military and naval services," from which desertions are alleged to be made. This act was known as the "Conscription Bill," and was in part as follows:

An Act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for other purposes, approved March 3d, 1863.
"SECT. 8--That in each of said districts there shall be a board of enrollment, to be composed of the Provost Marshal, as President, and two other persons, to be appointed by the President of the United States, one of whom shall be a licensed and practising physician and surgeon."
SECT. 12--After ordering a draft, this section proceeds: "And the persons so drawn shall be notified of the same within ten days thereafter, by a written or printed notice, to be served personally, or by leaving a copy at the last place of residence, requiring them to appear at a designated rendezvous to report for duty."
SECT 13-- ...And any persons failing to report after due service of notice as herein prescribed, without furnishing a substitute, or paying the required sum therefor, SHALL BE DEEMED A DESERTER, and shall be arrested by the Provost Marshal, and sent to the nearest military post for trial by court-martial, unless upon proper showing that he is not liable to do military duty, the board of enrollment shall relieve him from the draft."

On the 24th of February, 1864, Congress passed another law, which read as follows:
SECT. 16--"That copies of any record of a Provost Marshal, or board of enrollment, or of any part thereof, certified by the Provost Marshal, or a majority of said board of enrollment, shall be deemed and taken as evidence in any civil or military court in like manner as the original record; provided that if any person shall knowingly certify any false copy or copies of such record, to be used in any civil or military court, he shall be subject to the pains and penalties of perjury."

How are Deserters to be known? It will be seen from the 16th section of the Act above quoted that copies of papers, duly certified by the Board of Enrollment or by the Provost Marshal, shall be evidence. Under the system regulating elections in Pennsylvania, the judges and inspectors compose the tribunal by which must be determined all questions (prima facie) touching the right to vote of all persons claiming the right of suffrage. From them an appeal lies to the tribunals provided for the trial of contested elections. But the board of judges and inspectors must first decide. They must determine whether the applicant is over or under twenty-one years of age; whether he is white or black; whether he has or has not resided within the State or the election district a sufficient length of time to entitle him to vote. They must also determine whether he is sane or an idiot or madman; whether he is a native or a foreigner, and if a foreigner whether he has been naturalized, and any other question which may arise under the law. All this they do by examining witnesses and hearing evidence, as directed by the law or as indicated by their own good sense. There is nothing in this new duty, growing out of the questions of desertion, more difficult than these duties. If the books of the Provost Marshal or enrolment board show an individual to be a Deserter, and he claims to be innocent of the charge, he will have no trouble in producing papers or witnesses to show that at the time of the draft made in which he was drawn he was serving the country as a volunteer, or that having deserted, he returned under the proclamation of sixty days' amnesty and was pardoned, or show some other legal defence. It will be observed that the person who left his district or his country to avoid the draft, and who was subsequently drawn, and had notice left at his last known place of residence, is as much a deserter as he who ran away after having been duly mustered into the service.

The authorities already produced appear to be conclusive of the subject. But there is still another view of the question which is equally decisive. The right of expatriation has been recognized by the laws of nations from a very early period in history. It was regarded as one of the firmest foundations of Roman liberty, that the Roman citizen had the privilege to stay or renounce his residence in the State at pleasure. It is conceded that this doctrine has been differently held by different nations. It has been definitely and conclusively settled in the United States that the right of election (choice of allegiance) exists in every citizen. This view is taken by Chancellor Kent. 2 Kent; 39 &c.

The doctrine is thoroughly discussed and fully established by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Inglis vs. Trustees of Sailor's Song Harbor--3 Peters, 305; and also in the case of Shanks vs. Dupont--same book, 395. In these two cases all the authorities and decisions bearing upon this question are fully cited and explained. Indeed, it is now the well-settled and undisputed law of the United States, that the citizen may surrender his right of citizenship, or may withdraw or change his allegiance. Our naturalization laws are founded entirely upon the soundness of this position. Pennsylvania adopted this view of the law at an early period of her history. In the case of Jackson vs. Burns, 3 Binn 85, Chief Justice Tilghman, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, said: "The principle of the English law, that no man could, even for the most pressing reasons, divest himself of the allegiance under which he was born, is not compatible with the Constitution of Pennsylvania."

By an examination of the authorities it will be seen that the only objection to the universality of this doctrine of change of allegiance arises from a want of consent in the Government. In the case now under consideration, the Congress of the United States having passed the act forfeiting the right of citizenship, consent of the Government is thereby given, and the question is rendered free from all doubt. In discussing the right and power of an individual to surrender his right of citizenship, Senator Wallace, now Chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee, when opposing the extension of the right of suffrage to soldiers, declared:

"It is said that so meritorious a class as volunteer soldiery should not be disfranchised. To this I answer that neither the Constitution of 1790 nor that of 1838 conferred this privilege, and that the act of the soldier in taking upon himself duties that are from their nature incompatible with the right of suffrages, deprives him of this privilege. HE DISFRANCHISES HIMSELF when he ceases to be a citizen and takes upon himself the duties of a soldier." Legislative Record of 1864, p. 339.

From this it would appear that all parties concede the right and power of the individual, voluntarily, to surrender his right of citizenship. If he lost his right of voting by going into the service of his country, as here asserted by the Democratic Chairman, it is contended that much more justly did he lose that right by running away from that service.

Nothing is better settled than the rule of law that when one party to a contract refuses to fulfill his stipulations, the other is not bound. The man who sells his neighbor a horse and refuses to deliver him has just as much right to collect the price as the deserter, bounty-jumper, Western or Canadian refugee has to demand the right to suffrage, after refusing to obey the call of his country in her time of need.

A single objection to the views here presented needs to be briefly met. This objection is raised by the friends of Deserters--for even they have friends about election times. They argue that these persons cannot be deprived of the right of voting without a trial--without process of law, &c. In answer to this position, we say that the Act of Congress itself is "process of law."

The conscription bills of 1863 and 1864 establish the board of enrollment as a tribunal to hear and determine all questions connected with the draft, exemption, &c. Their powers and duties are fully and clearly set forth, and carefully and extensively defined. There is much of the "process of law" embraced within their provisions. When a debtor is sued, the writ is often served by a copy left at his residence with some member of his family, judgment goes by default, and his property is seized and sold to satisfy the demand. The conscription law provides the same method of giving notice, and the results of his failure to report in time are clearly set forth, and fully made known to him by the law.

It is however confidently maintained, that the terms of the Constitution, relied upon by those who sustain the cause of Deserters, such as "trial," "due process of law," &c., do not apply to cases of this kind. This defence could not be set up by the citizen against the Crown in England, nor will it avail him against his Government in the country. The very same section of the same article of the Constitution of the United States which authorizes Congress to raise armies and to provide rules for the regulation of the army and navy, authorized Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, &c., "and to make all laws which may be necessary and proper for carrying into execution these powers." When the power is given to Congress to lay and collect taxes and to raise armies, this power is not to be defeated by allowing the citizen privileges which would effectually defeat the end proposed. The citizen cannot interpose against the proceedings of Congress adopted for either of those purposes, his right of "trial," or the plea that his personal rights or his property are being taken from him without "due process of law." This appears to have been the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in 18 Howard, 272. The whole question is there fully examined and reviewed by the Court, and both the opinion and judgment fully sustain the view here taken. The decision of this question must be conclusive of the question. On this point Judge Woodward says:

"I am to take the instrument in the sense in which it is received by the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States. Among the judicial tribunals of the country, if not in other departments and places, that Court is the supreme and final arbiter of questions under the Federal Constitution. The respect entertained for members of that bench makes that duty of following them, on a constitutional question, easy and pleasant, which the theory of the government makes imperative." 1 Grant, 424.

The Constitution and laws of the United States and of Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of the United States and of our own State; common sense, common honesty and common justice seem to agree in the power, the right and justice of the Act disfranchising Deserters.

John Cessna,
Chairman Union State Central Committee.

Local Items--Gossip With Our Friends
(Column 1)

Summary: Gossip reports on the incessant clamor caused by construction in Chambersburg as the town resurrects itself, and offers a sentimental eulogy to the memory of Milt J. Moore, one of thousands of soldiers from Pennsylvania who died in Andersonville during the war.
(Names in announcement: Milt J. Moore)

Local Items--The Election
(Column 1)

Summary: A list of the polling places for Franklin county.
(Names in announcement: D. L. Taylor, John Gordon, Christian C. Foltz, John Harvey, John Adams, Michael Cook, James Mullen, Thomas McAfee)

Full Text of Article:

The following are the places for voting in the several wards and districts:

At the Court House in the Borough of Chambersburg, for the North Ward of said Borough, and part of Guilford township.
At the House of D.L. Taylor, for the south ward of said Borough.
At the Public House of John Gordon, at the West Point of Chambersburg for the township of Hamilton.
At the School House in Fayetteville, for parts of the townships of Guilford and Green.
At the Public House of Christian C. Foltz in Greenvillage, for part of Green township.
At the Western School House, in the town of St. Thomas, for the township of St. Thomas.
At the School House in the town of Pannesttsburg, for the township of Metal.
At the School House in the town of Roxbury, for the township of Lurgan.
At the House of John Hursey, for part of the township of Fannett.
At the School House in the town of Concord, for part of the township of Fannett, and
At the new Stone School House in Morrowstown district, for the other part of Fannett township.
At the School House in the village of Quincy, for the township of Quincy.
At the Western School House in Waynesboro for the township of Washington.
At the House of John Adams in Greencastle, for Autrim and part of the townships of Peters and Montgomery.
At the School House on the land of Michael Cook in Warren township, for the township of Warren.
At the Strasburg School House, for the township of Letterkenny.
At the House of James Mullen, in the town of Loudon, for part of the township of Peters.
At the Log House on the farm of Jacob Elliot, for the Welsh Run District being part of Montgomery township.
At the House of Thomas McAfee, in Mercersburg, for parts of the townships of Peters and Montgomery.
At the Mount Rock School House in Southampton township for part of the township of Southampton.
At the Eastern School House in Orrstown, for the other part of Southampton township.

There being no judicial officers to elect, the entire ticket will be voted on one slip.

Why The Soldiers Should Support The Democratic Party
(Column 3)

Full Text of Article:

Because it opposed the war from beginning to end.
Because it sustained the rebel cause throughout.
Because it eulogized the leaders, statesmen and armies of the foe.
Because it never rejoiced over any of our Union victories.
Because it was invariably pleased with rebel triumphs.
Because it sent men from the north to join the rebel armies.
Because two leading Democratic politicians of New York were commanding generals in the rebel army--Mansfield Lowell and Gustavus W. Smith.
Because the Democratic National Convention in 1864 pronounced, by its platform, the efforts of our soldiers in the war only "failures."
Because the Democratic State Convention of Pennsylvania in 1865, by its platform, pronounced the war a "disgrace."
Because the Democratic papers slandered the Sanitary Commission, which was seeking to provide for the wants and comforts of the soldiers.
Because the party endeavored to increase the cost of the war to the utmost possible extent; in order to break it down and let the enemy succeed.
Because the party defended the rebel government in its refusal to exchange our prisoners.
Because the party defended those who murdered our prisoners at Andersonville and other slaughter-pens.
Because the party adopted every rebel tale of outrage alleged to have been committed by our troops during the war.
Because the party magnified all these alleged outrages, and endeavored to make the soldiers responsible for them.
Because the party slandered every Union general who was in active sympathy with the objects of the war.
Because it tried to make the world believe that the rebel soldiers were better and braver than ours.
Because it exaggerated our forces and diminished those of the enemy in every conflict, in order to make it appear that our triumphs were merely the result of numbers and not of skill, bravery or good fighting.
Because it refused to aid in enabling the soldier to vote.
Because when he did vote it slandered him, by representing him as voting only under duress or to please his officers.
Because it repeatedly sought to nullify the heroic struggles of our soldiers by crying out for a compromise with the rebels.
Because it underrated the results of our victories.
Because it doubled and trebled our losses in every battle in order to depress the public mind and force a peace.
Because it vilified Abraham Lincoln and praised Jefferson Davis.
Because it sought to plunge us into a foreign war in order to render the efforts of our soldiers useless in the civil conflict.

Married
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 18th, Henry A. Cook and Rebecca J. McKimm, of Adams county, were married by Rev. W. G. Ferguson.
(Names in announcement: Henry A. Cook, Rebecca J. McKimm, Rev. W. G. Ferguson)

Married
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 28th, Capt. William H. Davison and Florence S. Rowe were married by Rev. J. W. Wightman.
(Names in announcement: Capt. William H. Davison, Florence S. Rowe, Rev. J. W. Wightman)

Married
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 28th, Capt. C. F. Bonner and Charlotte A. Davison were married by Rev. J. W. Wightman.
(Names in announcement: Capt. C. F. Bonner, Charlotte A. Davison, Rev. G. W. Wightman)

Married
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 21st, Levi Keller and Mary McFerren were married by Rev. J. C. Smith.
(Names in announcement: Levi Keller, Mary McFerren, Rev. J. C. Smith)

Married
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 28th, John M. Rutt and Elia, eldest daughter of Daniel Reisher, were married by Rev. J. Dickson.
(Names in announcement: John M. Rutt, Daniel Reisher, Elia Reisher, Rev. J. Dickson)

Married
(Column 4)

Summary: On August 28th, Daniel Leberknight and Catherine Raifsnider were married by Rev. T. Crider.
(Names in announcement: Daniel Leberknight, Catherine Raifsnider, Rev. T. Crider)

Married
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 26th, William Henry Wagner and Emaline Andrews were married by Rev. J. W. Wightman, who was assisted by Rev. I. N. Hays.
(Names in announcement: William Henry Wagner, Emaline Andrews, Rev. J. Wightman, Rev. I. N. Hays)

Married
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 28th, William Tarner and Fanny Nigh were married by Rev. James M. Bishop.
(Names in announcement: William Tarner, Fanny Nigh, Rev. James M. Bishop)

Married
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 28th, William H. Snake and Elizabeth J. Coffenberger were married by Rev. M. Snyder.
(Names in announcement: William H. Snake, Elizabeth J. Coffenberger, Rev. M. Snyder)

Died
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 8th, William, son of M. L. and Mary Fisher, died. He was 5 years old.
(Names in announcement: William Fisher, M. L. Fisher, Mary Fisher)

Died
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 11th, Henry, son of Harriet Frederick, died. He was 1 year old.
(Names in announcement: Henry Frederick, Harriet Frederick)

Died
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 21st, Ann Grace, daughter of Matthew S. Gordon, died. She was 15 months old.
(Names in announcement: Ann Grace Gordon, Matthew S. Gordon)

Died
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 24th, Anna A., daughter of Frederick J. and Emma Pfoutz, died. She 4 months old.
(Names in announcement: Anna A. Pfoutz, Emma Pfoutz, Frederick Pfoutz)

Died
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 25th, Charles A., son of Lewis W. and Martha E. Fletcher, died. He was 4 years old.
(Names in announcement: Martha Fletcher, Lewis W. Fletcher, Charles A. Fletcher)

Died
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 30th, Susan Emma, infant daughter of James and Margaret Heefner, died. She was 1 year old.
(Names in announcement: Susan Emma Heefner, James Heefner, Margaret Heefner)

Died
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 23rd, Frederick, son of Frederick and Catharine Harbaugh, died. He was 8 years old.
(Names in announcement: Frederick Harbaugh, Catharine Harbaugh, Frederick Harbaugh)

Died
(Column 4)

Summary: On Sept. 21st, Nancy, infant daughter of Joseph and Nancy Wenger, died. She was 11 months old.
(Names in announcement: Nancy Wenger, Nancy Wenger, Joseph Wenger)