Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1866-04-18
KNOXVILLE, TENN, WEDNESDAY, APRIL Is, 1866

persons were entitled to vote. and were admitted to
exercise the elective franchise at said election.
And we cannot approach this branch of the cast
except by tering disorder and confusion, fol
| it seems wild system had been adopted by The
County Court Clerk of authorizing certain persons
to issue certificates. 1t is shown here that Esquire
Angel and others had written authority to issue
tifcates and did so, but there registration Of
| the voters to whom he gave certificates, and the
Clerk failed to ratfy his acts in the premises by
fusing to register the of the voters when the
certificates we're returned to him after the election
| for that purpose
| 1t is also proved that Renfro issued certificates
but certainly without authority of law because the
| Clerk had appointed another deputy, which was O
/ revocation of Renfros appointment, and it is not
insisted he was ever reapponted. 1t has been well
said in the argument of this case, that the voters
names must be registered by the Clerk to protect
the law from evasion and violation.
The law positively says, "no one shall be permit
ted by the judges of election to vote unless regis
tered" And from the language employed it is clear
that the Clerk must register the of the voter
Simultaneous with if not previous to the issuance OF
| the certificate
The Clerk is required to open and keep regstra-
ton of voters and this cannot be complied with by
having half dozen men in different parts of the
county, giving out certificates, and returning the
names to the Clerk for registration after the election
is over. Such system might be attended with the
grosses frauds. The registration OF voters must be
kept open at the Office of the Clerk, and the law re-
quires that officer to keep his office at the county
town or county seat
From all that appears from the registration made
by the Clerk, there sxtyone voters registered,
and there is controversy as to whether all these
persons were legally registered but it is conceded
by all that forty-nine of these legal and in
strict conformity with the conditions and provisions
of the law.
However this question may be, whether sixty-one
only fortynine persons were in possession of GER
tifcates, upon the presentation of which it the
duty of the judges of election to permit them to
vote, it does not change the result and therefore
need not be any further determined Taking this
view of the law and the facts presented in proof
the Court has nothing further more to do than
declare the contestant Naremore duly and consttu-
tionay elected having received the largest number
of legal votes poed at said election. And any other
view or construction would have TO be arrived at by
deciding the franchise law unconstitutional null and
vod-a responsibility the Court is unprepared to
sume And it is very true that it may seem to work
great hardship to require every voter to register
and procure a certificate of such registration before
admitting him to exercise the privileges of Amer
ican sovereign yet it eminently necessary to guard
the sanctty of the ballotbox and keep the elective
franchise sacred by securing the political power of
the State in the hands of the loyal, and those who
the friends of the governments of the State and
Nation.
Therefore, John T. Naremore by executing bonds
and qualifying prescribed by law viii assume the
responsibilities and be required to perform the du-
ties of Clerk of this Court.
l.. G. HoUK, Judge Sc.