Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1861-07-16
For the Daily Patriot.
The Unconstitusional Appointments
of Gov. Harrfs-His Vfndfcation-


mad foe appointments in the Militia service
of the State, in palpable violation of its Con-
stitution. This charge is very Craze one,
and with merited gravity we will answer it.
But, at the alleged fact and its application,
| we trust during the discussion, we may be
occasionally INDUCED in an involuntary
| smile.
Think of this truth, that although Gov.
| HARRIS has made over flco hundred different
appointments, the astute Banner can desig-
nate but fee which it deems in violation OF
| law. AS to their fidelity to the State, 10
their capability, or entire qualification, it
seems to be perfectly satisfied. But who are
the gentlemen whose appointment to Office
have been supposed illegaR They were all
members of the recent General Assembly,
| and their names are as follows: w. G. WELT
THoRSE, J. D. PORTER, Jr., 10. G. PICKETT, S.
T. BIckNEII, and ]. W. GILLESPIE. The for
mer was Speaker of the House of Represent
| atives, and originally Democrat. The other
four were members, and originally Opposition
For sometime the columns of the Mash
| vile Bq7ner" have teemed with bitter denun-
Citations of Gov. HARRIS, because (as 1t al
leged) in all his appointments to Offices OF
honor and profit, he discrminated against his
| old party opponents, and under "the mock
| cry of no party, party-let us have no con-
| test gave them to his old political friends.
| But here are five important appointments
four of whom were formerly the political en-
| emies of Gov. HARRIS and these the Banner
declares to have been made in violation of
the Constitution. Thus, it seems Gov. HAIR
RS has violated the Constitution to promote
to Offices of honor and profit four of the old
political friends of the Banner, whom this organ
daily declares the Governor would not trust
with Office, and had Disseminated against in
all appointments. Does not this seem pass
ing strange?
But what is stranger still, is the fact, that
the Nashville Banner is in the habit of de-
nouncing those whom it terms original Dis
rmionists, and charging all such with having
precipitated the country into the momentous
revolution through which we are passing;
and yet it is daily advocating the claims TO
the Gubernatorial chair of WIN. Ell. Polk,
whom it denounced in 1856 and 81 as Dis
unionist. The Bdnner now calls its Oaon friends
aud those of Col. w. III. Polk, the Union
men OF a very recent date, and those of Gov.
HARRIS, the disunionists of an anterior period;
yet the Banner now advocates the claims of
WM. III. Polk to the most honored Office in
the State, as its most esteemed friend, whom
this very paper in 1856 branded as Dsun-
iOnist. Will the smiles of its approval now
mantle his "infamy" then-can the Banner
explain this remarkable phelomeraon? Its po-
litical inconsistency is more incomprehensi-
bic TO US than the startling visit of that
aerial messenger of war, whose fiery tale
nightly illuminates our hemisphere.
We will now discuss the constitaionqltiy of
the fee militia appOin ments to which we have
heretofore alluded. The Banner of the Ilth
inst. quotes Sec. 10 of Article ii of the State
Constitution to prove their illegality. This
Section is as follows:
"No senator or representative shall, during
the time for which he was elected. be eligible
to any Office or place of trust, the appoint
ment to which is vested in the executive OF
the general assembly, except to the Office OF
trustee ola literary institution"
Now is this all of the Constitution upon
this point? By no means. May we not be
involved il palpable absurdities, by adopting
detached portions of any instrument or vol
ume, the expression of the whole? Does
not divine revelation in one sentence declare
that 1T is easier for camel to go through
the eye of a needle than for rich to en-
ter the Kingdom of God" Unexplained by
other portions Of Holy Writ, is it not impos
sible for the rich to be saved? If the Editors
of the Bganer had read other portions of the
Constitution, or reflected even upon this, ats
explicit proof would have resolv. d itself in
TO airy nothing.
1t is true this clause positively asserts that
mo member of the General Assembly, during
the tame for lcich he aras elected shall be eligible
to any Office or place Of trust, except the Of
fee of literary trustee-the appointment to
which is vested in the Executive or General
Assembly" Here let US PROFOUND few
questions. Does this clause declare that no
member of the General Assembly, during the
time for which he is elected, shall be appoint
ed to any Office in the militia service of the
State? If it does not disqualify the men,
bers of the Legislature, in express language
from such service, have we any right to as
sumo it does by Implication?
Were not United States Senators elected,
as are Confederate Senators now, by the
General Assembly? Certainly. Well, then,
can any member of the General Assembly.
during the period for which be is elected, be
chosen Federal Senator? According to the
Banners construction, no member of the Gen
eral Assembly can be. But, was not Colonel
JOHN BELL elected United States Senator in
l847, while member of the General Assem-
bly,? and have there not been others so elect
ed since the adoption of the Constitution?
Thus the Banner asserts, by its false position,
that member of the General Assembly shall
not be appointed to place in tie militia of
the State, but may be appointed to place in
the United States Senate, when the section
which it quotes, declares "no member of the
General Assembly shall be eligible TO any
place or office of trust in the gift of the General
Assembly or the Executive, during the time
for which each member is elected, except
trustee of Literary University" This ses-
ton has about as much reference to the ap
pointment of q member of the General As
sembly to an office in the militia service of
the State, as it had to place in the United
Ststes Senate. 1t has not the least to either
Let us now define its meaning. 1t merely
alludes to offices or places of trust in the gift
of the General Assembly or the State Execu-
tive-as the exception clearly proves by
every rule of legal construction. Now what
is the exception? "a Trustee of literary
institution" Is this the only Trustee that