Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-06-05
n that of Parliament can restrain its Op-

iy less than that of Parliament can restrain Its op-
eretion.n
IN Duannes on Statutes 1923, it is said, 81 when
ae legislature has used words Of plain and defn-
ne IMPORT 1t would be very dangerous to put upon
tnem construction which would amount to hold
ing enat Inc Legislature did not mean what it has
eAprSsHeu; IN recent American work on Statu-
tary laW IS said, that the intention of the Legis-
ia'ere " Ss learned from the words it has used,
anu II mat intention is expressed in a man
ner devoid OF construction and ambiguitv there is
no yoom for Interpretation or constrnction and the
Judges not at liberty, on eonsidersons of noIi
cy, or hardship, TO depart from the words of the
Statute that they have no right to make excentions
or insert qualifications, however abstract iustice'
or the Justice of the particular case nav seem To
require it. Sedgwick on Stat. Com. law, PCS.
It is obvious that to do So would be to transcend
the boundary separating Judicial construction from
Judicial Legislation.
It's recognized principle of exposition, too that
it is not allowable to interpret what has no need of
interpretation
Now, let these principles be applied to the plain,
positive, unequivocal provision of the Constitution
50 that the accused hath right to speedy public
trial, by impartial jury of the County IN which
the crime shall have been committed"
What is there in this simple provision to inter
pref or construe? Is it possible to raise doubt
to the intention or proper meaning OF the clause
Our language admits of no more explicit or precise
expression of intention. If it possible to cavl
as to the phrase, speedy public trial." or i'm
partial jury, it is certainly impossible TO do So as
regards the concluding words, jury of the County
in which the crime shall have been committed"
What is the simple import of the provision Of the
Code under consideration? 1t ia, that, under cir
cumstances, the Court may deny the accused this
Constitutional right, and force him, against his WILL
to be tried by q jury of different County. And
upon what reason is il attempted to vindcate this
enactment? This merely, that, otherwise, the alb
surd and unreasonable Consequence will in some
no al hoS iad az
all This is by no means either necessary or logi-
cal sequence But if it were admitted to be So the
cases and conclusive answer is, thus the funda-
mental law is written.
The practical inconvenience, and mischievous con-
sequences, which may occasionally arise out Of q
strict adherence to the Constitution of which the
present case is an illustration, may be an aILsufi-
Gent reason induce the Legislature to modify the
existing law, regards the necessary qualifications
of jurors in criminal cases of the higher grade but
it can be no reason for PLAIN violation of the
Constitution. For this, possible consequences,
however apparently unreasonable or absurd, can
be admitted TO afford sufficient reason.
The provision of the Constitution is, in itself,
wise just and necessary safeguard to the rights and
liberty of the accused. Like all general rules, and
principles of law, it may in exceptional cases, be
attended with inconvenent consequences in its prac-
teal operation but these must necessarily be sub
mitted to for the sake of the criminal Statutory effect
of the principle.
IN the OEgdElLdIlcuOI (sIeIur
the clause of the constitution in question: to be read
emitting the word District" which was used in
the original constitution of 1896 with reference to
the district system then existing but which was abol
ished in 1909.
The act of 1927 was free from any constitutional
objection because 1t required the assent of the prS
oner to charge of the same. 1t will scarcely be
denied that under ordinary circumstances, prise
aer who, is jaris, may wave this, as well as any
other legal right if done advisedly. And although
the provision of the CODE it stands upon The stat
ute book, is imperative and void because it assum-
ed to confer upon the courts the exercise of pow
er not allowed by the constitution, yet, suppose
the consent of the prisoner to the change of same
would obviate all objection.
The judgment will be reversed, the order for the
change of venue vacated and the case remanded to
the Circuit Court of Lawrence, for trial Judgment
reversed MCKINNEA
Correct CODY: J. CLARK Clerk