Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-10-22
that act, but IL is insisted that the Justices Of
the fleace on the first N..nflax in .Ianrlarx


that act, but il is insisted that the Justices Of
the peace on the first Monday in January,
1858. completed the organization, so that the
new county was as thoroughly aa organized
county a. the counties of Davidson aud Ruth
erf0rd- 1t does not clearly appear in proof
what was done by the justices at the time re-
fired TO. or On any other County Court day
afterwards; bat suppose it is true as siatedin
the report OF the majority That they elected
or appointed persons 10 all the county Offices,
the exercise of such a power is palpable
violation of the Constitution, and could not,
therefore. aid the position of the majority.
The Constitution provides that tn. Sheriff,
County Court Clerk, Trustee, and Register.
shall be elected by the people, and by the
second section of the 7th article it is declared
that, " should q vacancy occur Subsequent TO
an election in the Offices of Sheriff, Clerk.
Trustee or Register, it shall be filed by the
Justices No such contingency as a va
cancy subsequent to an election" occurred
in this case. and ii is only upon that coRtin-
gency that the justices have the constitution
al power to fill these Officers. This view ap-
plies with equal force To- the appoint ment of
Circuit Court Clerk by the Judge assigned
to hold the Circuit Court in Srquatchie coun-
". Chief Justice Catron in Smith VS.. Nor
mant. 5 Yerger's Reps. 272. says :. When
ever a State Constitution prescribes partic-
ed. il prohibits every oiher mode of execut-
ing such power. On that particular subject.
the authority rs exhausted by the constitu-
iional provision. and an attempt to render il
nugatory by law, would be an attempt at re.
peal"
1t may be said that the persons elected or
appointed by the justices We're officers de focto
if not de jure, but the question Of their con-
slitutional right to hold the offices does not
iurI ID toll v in this Ehi, IuStiao
Catron answers this portion WHEN he says
in the above case q 1t is an axiom in gov
ernment. that what the Legislature has not
power itself TO do, cannot be- conferred on an
agrnt the principal having no authority,
the deputy can have none.o Ii is proven
sflirmatively, that there was no election Of
county officers by the people before the
Grundy fraction was added 10 the new county.
il does net appear in proof that there has
ever been an ,l,c,ion OF county officers by
the people. Bnt the undersigned have in
support of theII position on the question 81
fact. a Legislative ,ssI rtion IA late us the Tau
day of March. 1858 that the new county was
not organ zed. See Private Acts OF 1851 6.
chap. l42. see. 3, page 34s.
As to the other questions of fact. the un-
der>igned have but little To add 10 what they
have already said in previous parts OF this
report. 1t is incidentally established by the
PROOF thaI the ufunny lr2cIiOH Wa ~ TX
embraced in the new county when appilca-
tion was first made to the last General As
sembly for the creation of the new county !:
that it was included in the original draft OF
the hrst act and stricken out To abide an ln-
terriew betw. en- the citizens OF the fraction
and their Representatives in the other House;
that bill Of Injunction was issued i'll the
month of February, 1858. to prevent the
estahlishm mt of The new county that the
Hamilton fraction did not nave the territory
or population required 10y the Constitution
without the Grundy fraction and that the
Giuudy fraction was added TO obyiate Con-
stiiutional objections and to remove all just
cause of litigation against the establishment
and organization of the new county. That
the Grundy fraction was added in order TO
form an integral part Of a new county, and
TO give constitutional breath aud lie 10 what
had been done. cannot be. ic the opinion ui
the undersigned. the subject of successful
controversy.
(Concludtd NoudGy.)