Valley Spirit

THE Repository, in commenting on an editorial article in our columns several weeks since, in relation to the contest then pending between Gen. Coffroth and Mr. Koontz for a seat in Congress as the Representative from this district, accuses us of occasional stupidity. We do not intend here to deny the charge, and freely acknowledge that we are not at all times as smart as our contemporary with his "score of assistants." It were folly for an humble individual like ourself to claim anything like the immense ability, weekly displayed in the columns of that journal. The idea of any one man measuring sentences with a "score" of individuals such as do the scribbling for the Repository, is simply preposterous and we distinctly disclaim any intention of the kind. The "score" composing the editorial "staff" of that paper, comprising as it does lawyers, doctors, loafers, teachers, book-store keepers and Yankee vagabonds generally, no doubt monopolizes nearly all the talent in this section, and we freely accord to them all that they claim in this respect.

But in this matter of the contest between Messrs. Coffroth and Koontz, we must be permitted to deny that they have exhibited their usual prescience. In proof of what we assert in the way of denial we would refer to the columns of that paper for the past several months. Week after week, its readers were favored with an editorial on this Coffroth and Koontz business, and taking everything as true and made by authority, its readers never dreamed of any other result than that Gen. Koontz would get the seat and our friend Coffroth be left out in the cold. We must confess that we feared as much ourself. The swagger of the writer almost convinced us that he knew all about it, and that right and justice would be overslanghed in the decision of this question, as it had been in others. Article after article was written by some one of its "score" of editors and published in its columns which in view of what has since been done by the Committee, would have had no other object than to prejudice the decision of the case. Gen. Coffroth was abused without stint and made the subject of the writers ridicule. Even the grave charge was made that he became a party to a corrupt bargain in order to secure the seat. All the influences which the editor could bring to bear to defeat General Coffroth were freely used, but alas for the mighty influence of the Repository without avail.

As early as the 20th of December the Repository said:

"[unclear] committee on elections in Congress will report in favor of giving Gen. Wm. H. Koontz the seat as having the right prima facie, and he will be qualified while Gen. Coffroth will be allowed to contest and make out the best case he can. As Gen. Koontz was elected and Gen. Coffroth was not, it is eminently proper that Gen. Koontz should be sworn."

On reading this almost any one would have been satisfied that the thing was even then fixed, and that the Repository knew all about it, but as we were a little "stupid" we did'nt believe it--in fact we knew better--and wrote an article setting forth the simple facts of the case and urging, in our feeble way, the admission of Gen. Coffroth to the seat, on the ground that he was of right entitled to it. We did it with all due deference to the superior acuteness of our neighbor, and we now submit whether the facts have borne it out for its assumption of prescience. The assertion that Gen. Koontz "will be given the seat as having the right prima facie" and that "he will be qualified while Gen. Coffroth will be allowed to contest and make out the best case he can," has not been borne out by the decisions of the Committee and the writer in the Repository occupies the position of a blatant braggart. Before the article accusing us of stupidity had appeared, the case had been decided the seat given to Gen. Coffroth "leaving Mr. Koontz to contest and make out the best case he can."

We are altogether too modest to claim that anything we said on the subject had an effect in the decision of the question, and we ascribe the result to the merits of the case, but at the same time, we confess to a slight suspicion that the Repository after all had much to do with it. The editor of that journal is a very cunning man, and sometimes when he wishes to damage a man very seriously, he takes to advocating his cause in his paper as the most effective mode of doing it. In most cases this plan works admirably. Everything said in his favor is taken against him, and the poor devil who imagines his cause aided by the advocacy of that paper, finds out in the end that it was that which "eviscerated" his case. On the whole we are somewhat inclined to the belief that such is the fact in the present instance. The Repository did'nt like Koontz, and, as the most effectual way to kill him off, it took to abusing Coffroth and puffing Koontz. The result is before the people. Our friend Coffroth has the seat, while Koontz--poor devil "will be allowed to contest and make out the best case he can." Verily the Repository hath influence in our national counsels.

The Committee selected to try the right to a seat in the Senate of this State for the 19th district, between Messrs. Duncan and McConaughy on Tuesday last reported giving the seat to Mr. McConaughy, and ousting the sitting member, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan, in order to shorten the proceedings and bring the matter to a speedy issue, put in a demurer, by which he acknowledged that the non-reporting drafted men had voted for him as alleged in the petition of the contestant, thus placing the whole on the constitutionality of the law disfranchising that class of men. He did this in the belief, that the committee would take the opinion of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth, on the matter, but he has been disappointed. The Committee at first, did intend to take an opinion from that officer, but after an interview with Hon. Simon Cameron, whose creatures they appear to be, and knowing full well that that opinion would be adverse to his political interests, declined doing so, and decided the question in accordance with their party predilections and in violation of right, justice, their oaths, and every honest instinct which should govern men in such cases. We now and here denounce the men who have been guilty of this infamous outrage, and in order that they may be held up to the scorn and contempt of all honorable men we append their names: WILMER WORTHINGTON, MORROW B. LOWRY, GEORGE LANDON, I. D. SHOEMAKER, J. L. GRAHAM, and THOMAS J. BIGHAM.

Some of these men pretend to be honest, and honorable, and two of them are recreant teachers of the word of God, but we do not believe that the same number of the vilest individuals, from the purlieus of our cities, could be induced to act the part, which they have noted in this matter. They are the miserable tools of a miserable trickster, who has heretofore covered himself with the infamy which attaches to bribery and corruption of the deepest dye. The rascals have their day. It will be short. Honest people will not long tolerate such rascality.

In another column of our paper will be found the opinion of Judge King, in the matter of the contested election for District Attorney of this county. It will be observed that the learned Judge expresses no opinion on the 1st and 2nd points of the respondent, for the reason that if even the law of Congress disfranchising non-reporting drafted men and deserters be constitutional the provisions of the act cannot be enforced in this case. He is of the opinion that a Board of Election officers are not competent to decide on the question whether a man is a deserter or not. And by taking for granted the mere allegation of a defunct Provost Marshal that he is such, they are assuming more authority than is delegated to such functionaries. He seems to be impressed with the idea, and so holds, that no man can be justly and lawfully deprived of one of the dearest rights of a freeman, until his guilt shall have been judicially established. The question of the Constitutionality of the act of Congress disfranchising the class of men alluded to, did not arise in this case, but we are informed that the learned Judge gave it as a dictum, that the act was clearly unconstitutional--that Congress had no power to prescribe the qualifications of electors in Pennsylvania.

We congratulate the people of our noble old State, that its Judiciary have still the nerve to disregard the assumptions of illegal power on part of the Federal government and its underlings, and that in the hands of such men as Judge King, the law will be administered regardless of the behests of party or party expediency. Although the Senate of a great State may nullify, for party purposes, the election laws of the commonwealth and approve the unconstitutional Ex Post Facto Laws of Congress, by which white men are declared infamous outlaws and are disfranchised, without trial, upon the mere allegation of men who for a brief hour strutted upon the stage in all the glory of shoulder straps and gold lace, yet the Judiciary are to be trusted as the safeguards of the franchises of the people.

The select committee of the Senate to try the matter of the petition of the electors of the Nineteenth Senatorial District composed of the counties of Adams and Franklin, complaining of an undue election and false return of Calvin M. Duncan, as Senator elect from said district, report:

That upon the return of said election, Calvin M. Duncan appeared to have received, in said Senatorial district composed on the counties of Adams and Franklin, six thousand one hundred and eighty-eight (6,188) votes, and David McConaughy six thousand one hundred and sixty-three (6,163); and the said Calvin M. Duncan was certified to be elected by a majority of twenty-five votes. That upon the hearing of complainants and respondent, your committee do find and report that of the votes received, counted and returned for the said Calvin M. Duncan, ninety-three votes, as claimed by petitioners and admitted by respondent in the pleadings, were cast by deserters from the military service of the United States and we find that under and by operation of the act of Congress of the United States, approved the third day of March, A. D. 1865, entitled an act to amend the several acts heretofore passed to provide for the enrolling and calling out of the National forces, and for other purposes, the said deserters so having cast said votes as aforesaid, for said Calvin M. Duncan, were to be deemed and taken to have voluntarily relinquished and forfeited their rights of citizenship, and were not therefore qualified electors of said Senatorial district or of this Commonwealth. Your committee, regarding said act as valid, and knowing no right or power in them to question it, have found the said ninety-three votes so cast as aforesaid, by said deserters, and returned for said Calvin M. Duncan, to be illegal votes and have therefore deducted the same from the said six thousand one hundred and eighty-eight votes returned for the said Calvin M. Duncan, and have ascertained and do report the whole number of legal votes cast and returned for the said Calvin M. Duncan to be six thousand and ninety-five (6,095); and having deducted the said illegal votes cast and returned for the said Calvin M. Duncan from six thousand one hundred and sixty-three (6,160), being the whole number of legal votes cast and returned for the said David McConaughy, do find and report the said David McConaughy to have received an actual majority of sixty-eight (68) votes of the whole number of legal votes cast and returned; and your committee do therefore decide and report that the said David McConaughy had the greatest number of legal votes, and ought to be admitted to the contested seat as Senator election from the Nineteenth Senatorial district.

J. J. BIGHAM, JAMES L. GRAHAM, GEORGE LANDON, J. D. SHOEMAKER, M. B. LOWRY.

Messrs. Editors:--Of all the infamous measures which have of late years been attempted to be foisted upon the country, that of negro suffrage is the most shameful and degrading to the white citizen. No other proposition yet advocated is so degrading to white Americans and so fraught with evil to the country as this. The purpose of Congress to legislate negro suffrage into the District of Columbia is but the entering wedge, to force it on the Southern States before they shall be admitted to their constitution rights in the first place, and ultimately on the North also. The enactment and enforcement of such a law on an unwilling people carries with it poison to the very vitals of American liberty. The sentiment of the people of the Union was shocked at the time it was determined to free the negro in the South, but the only wonder now is that his right to vote was not proclaimed at the same time. That such a right can be conferred by Congress and enforced without provoking another civil convulsion, is a problem which the future alone can solve. The devil very probably has sufficient influence with the present Congress to have this element of mischief thrown upon the country, but we hope the good sense of the people will assert itself in time to prevent much of the evil which will inevitably result from the passage of such laws. The negro differs in skin and brain from all other races of men, and the effort to make him the equal politically and socially, of the white race, is the offspring of folly or madness which could only excite the pity and contempt of all right thinking people, for its advocates did not their craziness endanger the place and welfare of the nation. We hope President Johnson will restrain those miserable fanatics with his Executive veto, until the people can replace them in the halls of Congress, with honest and sensible representatives.

In the matter of the Contested Election for District Attorney for the County of Franklin, D. Watson Rowe vs. Wm. B. Stenger.

OPINION OF JUDGE KING.

This case comes before us on the petition of twenty or more of the qualified electors of the County of Franklin, complaining that Wm. S. Stenger was not duly elected to the office of District Attorney; that the election was undue, and D. Watson Rowe was duly elected to said office.

The respondent has filed a motion to quash this petition for the following reasons:

1st. Because said petition was not filed within ten days after the election for said office of District Attorney, held on the 10th day of October, 1865.

2nd. That the act of Congress of March 3d 1865, so far as relates to all persons drafted into the military service of the United States prior to the passage thereof, is an ex post facto law and therefore unconstitutional and void.

3rd. Because the said petition is too vague, indefinite and imprecise to entitle it to a hearing.

4th. Because it does not appear that, if all that is stated upon the face of the petition was proved, the result of the election would be changed, or that the Court would be compelled to declare the election an undue election.

5th. Because, were, if it be true that the alleged persons named in the petition, were deserters from the military service of the United States, and that they did vote for the said Wm. S. Stenger, still said persons were qualified electors of Franklin County and this Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the Act of Congress of March 3d, 1865; entitled "An Act to amend the several acts heretofore passed, to provide for the enrolling and calling out the National forces and for other purposes."

The first reason assigned has not been pressed, and but little stress has been laid on the second, by the counsel for the respondent; and the views we are about to submit on the principal question in the case, as presented by the fourth and fifth reasons, render it unnecessary to express any opinion upon the third reason assigned. We come, therefore, to consider whether the votes of Curtis Dulabon, George Miller, John Tallhelm and Abraham Sheely were illegal, on the ground that these voters, had been drafted into the military service of the United States, and had failed to report to the provost marshal of the 16th District of Pennsylvania, composed, in part, of the County of Franklin.

The counsel for the respondent make these points:

1st. That the act of Congress of March 3d 1865, so far as relates to all persons drafted into the military service of the United States, prior to the passage thereof, is an ex post facto law and therefore unconstitutional and void.

3d. That were, if the act be Constitutional, the voters referred to, in the petition, could not be disfranchised, without hearing and trial according to the law of the land.

The first and second of these points involve questions of very grave importance and require time for their investigation; and having arrived at the conclusion that the provisions of the act of Congress cannot be enforced in this case; for the reasons we shall presently note, we express no opinion in regard to them.

That Congress has power to punish desertion, or refusal to report when drafted, or for evading the draft by leaving the jurisdiction of the United States, we entertain no doubt; and no punishment that can lawfully be inflicted for such offenses can be too severe. These are crimes against the country of the most dangerous tendency, and admit of no palliation or excuse; and it is held that no man can justly and lawfully be deemed guilty of them, until such guilt has been judicially established. No man can be deprived of life, liberty or property unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land. Both the federal and State constitutions guarantee this fundamental right to every citizen. Have these safeguards been provided, in the organic law of the federal and State governments, for no purpose? Is there any dearer right than the elective franchise, and is that left entirely without protection? We can best answer these pregnant questions by quoting the eloquent language of Justice Coulter, in the case of Brown v. Hummel, 6 Barr 91--"The talismanic words, I am a citizen of Pennsylvania, secures to the individual his private rights, unless they are taken away by a trial, where he has an opportunity of being heard, by himself, his counsel and his testimony, more majorium, according to the laws and customs of our fathers, and the securities and safeguards of the Constitution. Sir Edward Coke defines the meaning of the words, by the law of the land--for they were used in magna charta, and have been sprinkled with tears and blood of many patriots--to be a trial by due course and process of law. * * * * It is against the principles of liberty and common right to deprive a man of his property of franchise, while he is within the pale of the Constitution and with his hand on the altar, without hearing and trial by due course and process of law." In another part of the same opinion he speaks of the right of suffrage as the most important of all a man's franchises and asks: "Who does not feel its value; and who but would turn pale if he thought he could be deprived of it without hearing or trial." These fundamental principles of civil liberty, cannot be overlooked or disregarded by the courts, to which we all look for protection, without seriously imperiling the safety of the people. It is a thousand times better therefore, that Mr. Rowe should lose the office he claims than that his right thereto should be declared by trampling under foot the sacred right, to which we have just adverted, that no man shall be condemned without an opportunity of being heard in his own defence.

For the reasons we have thus hastily and imperfectly presented. We sustain the motions to quash the petition.