Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-10-20

aafd Of yalus thug stamped By TIE trainers Of the
eonstitutlon 1Pon the right % suffaee, sforda
rule ~ which our legisaiion on the subec. should
Pc Construed and By Which We ought 10 consider
nied put that the various provisions Of the code,
regaistinE the manner Of voting and defining the /
dulles OF tho Sheriff and other Oficers are in the /
mAin merely directory, aud should be construed |
mos hoefAoy . sustain, not to impair, the validity
OF eieeoons II is too well settled to admit OF de-
Dees snA1 every presumption shall be made in favor
OF this validity, and hence it Is presumed that per-
sons acting IS returning officers are legally author-
lze0 70 40 90 until the contrary Is proven The
provision 81 section $40 Of the Code requiring the
SaerlDs q Sla coaniies TO hold the elections for
governor. congressman aud members Of the Gene
raj AssemoJ' IN the fractions taken of to form
new counties, is merely direotorv not imnerativs
or peremP.o'y' Ter, % section 843 il is provided
that II the Sheriff fails 10 attend in any
jnsties fthe peace present. or Il no iustioa he prs
SENT aay tnree Ireeheiders may perform the duties
Of sheriff; and IN case Of necessity NAV a., AZ ofi
GERS and inspectors Dir. CushInS IN kis 80 o.
tiOn the Law and Practice OF LeQsla.;va Assem-
bles page 70, in discussing the dnIies AZ s1nvncg
officers ia ooad9otiag elections saws, ssPbat 100
thslaW is merely directory, neglect, or mistake
or even improper conduct OF irreguarity on ,beir
part viii be fatal, though frequently msde nan;sb-
able By Law, il in other respects, there has
been substantial and good election" He
further says, on page "a, that 'SheIber a
neglect Of the acquisitions Of directory
stsuse will be fatal or to the proceedings does
not depend much upon the nature Of the neglect,
as upOa it influence in producing the result OF the
elec ion" No will say that the failure Of the
sherifs of Hamilton county had the slightest sin
Aaaacs in producing the result Of the election, and
aside from this there is 'substsntial and good cleo
ton" II can make No difference whether the fail
resulted from neglect or mistake Of duty, it is
most urquestionably embraced by the above princi-
IL. 49,.
msy be we'll argued in viss of the liberal rules Of
construction above mentioned that there was sub
stantial compliance Of section SAB Of the Code,
above referred TO.
| But the undersigned do rot admit that there was
in fact failure the part Of Mr. Conner to do bis
duty in this matter. It is satisfactorily proved By
the positive testimony of Nr. Conner, and thesome
what indefinite yet cOnfrmatory testimony Of Mr.
| Rankin that Conner verbally deputizsd Rankin 10
hold the election for him. Wetnnk that the weight
Of proof win July sustain this position; but It
not be sOntroverted but that Mr.. Conner thought
that he lad deputizsi Mr. Rankin and that the dep
! uiatiOn had been accepted. They had converse
/ ton On the 2Sth day Of June, 1859, in Wkish Mr..
| Conner said ne wanted TO do Just what Was right
and according law and if it was his duty TO hold
tue election, he appointed him Mr.. Rankin) his
special deputy Il appears that after this Mr. Con-
ner advised with a lawyer to his duty, and sent
word by Mr.. Stringer, candidate for represents
tive in Hamilton county proper to MIR. Rankin,
| requesting or directing Mr. Rankin to 60 on and
| hold tAs election and send him the retarns. It
| does NOT appear shat Mr. Rankin declined TO accept
! the depG,ation made in the FIRST conversation, or
/ that he sent any word back ID Mr.. Conner in
reply to tue message Mr. Strnger delivered; il MF.
Rankin declined or refused to accept the dsputa-
| ton, it not Communicated to Mr.. ConneF, or
known to any other person, until after the day Of
tle election. In this view Of The facts il make
40 difference 10 what character Mr.. Rankin held the
election; it viii be intended in legal contemplation
that be held it il the way that the law would make
it his duty to hold il. 1t will most certainly be
ojneedsd that Mr. Rankin could have held il sps-
eial deputy under What said TO him BY Mr.. Con-
ner; if this be admitted the Law will presume that
be held it in just the character he should hsve done
unless there proof that be repudiated that char
| acter upon the election. ltWould bs mJRstrous to
allow Rankin, holding Relations the election,
to remain silent to how he intended to act until
the e5ent was over, and thzs Permit him 10 elect.
/ SAGA thing would not be tolerated in common
agencies about trivial matters, much less would il
be in matter important the validity or inva-
lidIty Of popular election Ia the opinion Of the
undersigned there is no ht ia which the facts sad
/ Law can be viewed that kill authorize this body to
de5ide that the eleoIion in the Hamilton fraction
should be declared Invalid and the free voters Of it
I distinguished.
The undersigned have thus stated their views at
length upon the various questions involved in this
controversy, and they offer the following resolution
as embodyiRg their conclusion, and ask that it be
adopted
I ResOlvs9 by the Senate That John A. Minis ia
not entitled to a seat this floor Senator fzoa
the eighth senatorial district but thst Wm, = Tbbs
lawfully and cOnsiiutionsy elected at the late
election in this State Senator for said eighth dis
tric and is entitled &c such Ssnstor, to seat in
this body, JORDAN SroKEs,
| JNO. W. RICHARDSON,
On motioa Of Mr.. RICHARDSON, the rule was
| suspended and five hundred copies OF the reports
sld accompanying documents ordered TO be printed
for the use Of the Senate.
On motion Of Mr., PAYNE, the further consider
alton Of the subject was postponed until Wednss-
day the 26th inst, at o'olock, NJ, and then
Ga motion Of Mr.. PAYNE the Senate adjourned
| to nine o. clock to-morroW morning.