Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-11-05

then made OF Grundy in that superintendent,
was of course made for this fraction of it,
together with the balance of the county.
Then where did they in that appprtionment
put Erundys In other words, where was
the sovereignty of Grundy county thrown
or assigned for the next ten years thereafter
Most assuredly 10 the 14th Senatorial Dis
trict and not in the Stb. And If the last ses-
sion of the Legislature intended to add that
fraction 10 the 9Th Senatorial District and
thereby diminish the 14th District, it being
unconstitutional to have done SO, any such
an act is simply a nullity.
can see plainly that some Senators, and
even the majority of the committee, are dis
posed 60 seek refuge behind the inadvertency
of the las legislature. which, in recapitula->
ting the political divisions of the State men-
TONED Ssqaaichie= as one of the counties
the 9Th Senatorial District. Does
any Senator intend to be understood as TAX
ing the position that the last legislature re-
districted the State? Most certainly they
had no power under the constitution TO have
done SO at that time. Nor is any such energy
upon the part of that body manifest in any
OF their acts or proceedings. In setting forth
the different Senatorial Districts as they
found'ihem in the Statutes, they inadvertent-
~ mention, Sequatchie as being in the Sth
District; not that they Intended 10 make any
change in the said district. They made a
similar mistake in the recapitnlation of the
Congressional Districts, for instance, the
county OF Putnam is mentiOnedas cunsttu-
ting a part of the I'd, aud then also ia the
4th Congressional District it is reckoned.
This inconsistency OF course was uninten-
tional and matter of accidency, and shows
that the mind of the last legislature was
never engaged either in .redsfriciing the
State or in any manner altering or chang
ing the same. But let us see whether that
legislature could have made such change.
The 4th section of article of the coDstitu-
ton says: That an enumeration of the
qualified voters, and an appprtionment OF
the General Assembly shall be made in the
year 1871. and within every subsequent term
OF ten years; and then the 9Th section of the
same article says: The number of Senators
shall, nj the several periods of making the
enumeration, be apportioned among the
several counties or districts according to the
number OF qualified electors in each" Thus
We see from the foregoing section that The.
appointments which are to regulate Sena-
torial Districts are fixed by the constitution
10 be every ten years. The last apportion-
ment was made in 1851, and the legislature
then passed from its jurisdiction of such
duties and powers until the next ten years
thereafter, which will be in 1861, when
under the constitution they may resume their
jurisdiction over such subjects of legislation.
Will Senators stick 10 the position that the
Legislature OF 1873, meeting between the
periods of superintendent, bad the power to
re-dislrict the State? Aud if they had not
the power to re-district it they certainly had
not the authority to change or alter those
districts, and thereby virtually re-dstrict it.
For what they cannot do directly they can
not do indirectly. That principle of law Is
SO well settled as not TO admit of comment
Then the question rccurs upon the true con-
struction of section 5 of article 10 OF the con-
stiIuiiun, and more particularly upon the
meaning OF the phrase "strlcken on" Whe-
Their stu cken off, means anything more
than taken OFF," For it will not be denied
that the fraction under consideration was
taken off, from Grundy by changing the
lines between Grundy and Srquatchie. so as
TO INCLUDE that territory and those citizens.
or take off that much of Grundy and add
it to Seouatchie. In the proper construc-
ton of The present constitution, much aid
NAV be derived from an occasional refer
ence to the old constitution, tor the new is
nothing more than revision OF the old,
and in the greater part of the new the same
spirit and intent is embodied that actuattd
the trainers OF The old; and, in fact, some
parts are ulik,. verbatim Ell Luertim. For in
stance. the bill OF rights in the one, is sec
ton by section. and word by word with now
the same as the old constitution. And " hen
we come TO compare section OF article of
The old constitution with section OF article
10 of the new. we see that the only change
that was made of the old was in reference to
the requisite area of new county, the eX-
tent 10 which new county might be re-
duced in the formation of Il new one, and the
length of time that such new county should
vote back with the county or counties from
II ,I1.I,t ,Ly..T Tba al
tuition requiring six hundred and twenty-five
square miles for new county, and reten-
ton of that much to the surrounding old
counties, and then requiring the fractions to
vote with the counties from which they were
respectively taken. until enlitlt<i 10y numbers
To a member While the neH constitution
reduced the requisition OF area TO three hum
dred and fifty square miles. and require four
hundred and fifty qualified voters upon the
part of the new and forbid its approximation
toward the county site of the old county
n ,arer than twelve miles. aud only required
the fractious to vote back with their mother
counties until the next appOrtiohmcnt, at
which time, if their numbers should not
b.. sufficient to enttle them TO member
provision might be made for them by f1oate-
rial districts. In all other particulars, and
more especially in reference to tbeir sove-
reignty and representation, il was not in
tended to be changed. Let's read the old
constitution upon that point. "a
The section above referred to of the old con-
situations, after going on To state the size, DC,
of a new county, says: " All new COUNTIES,
as 10 the right of suffrage and representation.
shall be considered as part of the county or
counties from which they were taken until
entitled by numbers to the right of represen-
taton." Now you see the word taken used
in the old constitution precisely where strick-
en- of is used in the now. or present constitu-
ton, and hence your narrow and lin ted
construction of the phrase stricken off goes to
the ground. But when we whip you on those
points you tacitly acknowledge the error and
weakness of your position by going of upon
the invalidty OF the whole election in Sc
quatche, and propose 10 throw away the
votes that were cast in the Hamilton fraction
which would still elec: MIR. Minnis. You
seem to be willing TO be driven from every
position you have taken provided The alter
native Of your resort will still favor Mr.. Min
Mss election. Bat let us examine this last
resort under which you take refuge. While
il is true that it was irregular for S,quatchie
to have holden the election under her own
officers. still all that part of Sequatchie ex-
cept this little Grundy fraction in dispute
voted when and where it would have voted
and for the same officers as il IL had voted
WIN anu uuutT "a io
mother county; and, therefore, is very easily
counted in the returns of the 9Th Senatorial
district. Aud besides, that is snch an irregu-
larity as would not come in conflict with the
Constitation-theA particular officer ander
whom you vote or the particular manner OF
conducting these elections not being directed
by the constitution. but left TO the Legisla-
ture. They might have voted with Hamilton
without voting under her officers. aud espe-
n g.
officers that Hamilton voted for-that il, the
same candidates. they would certainly be held
to have voted with her. The question il no,
as To what set of officers presided at the cleo
ton: lint vhe-a shsiI 49, 49, = - a
Ia otbeT words. the Hamilton traction hasIns
voted with Hamilton for the same candidate
and in the said election being identified with
Hamilton in everything else except the presid-
ing officer. " ould those people be- disfranchised
hecanssc ,,f an accidental inlOt maliIy over