The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1866-04-26
Letter from Br. Bowen 70 senalOI


GoRDoSsvILLE, April l7th, 1866.
Hon. John ". smith:
ESTEEMED FRIEND.-There can BE- but
two reasons given which, in my opinion,
are entitled to be called arguments for lin
iting the rightao vote SO far as those who
were engaged in the la'e rebellion are con
eerned. Zone is, that they should be depriv-
ed Of this right as punishment for what
We call their treason. To this argument,
l would offer two answers.
First, it is against ali the precedents Of
enlightened christian civilization, to pun
ish by acts Of legislation. The whole spirit
and genius Of our institutions are averse to
such legislation. All over the world the
tendency is to enlarge, not restrict human
rights in all free governments, and in none,
whatever the form Of the government, does
the law permit any ones civil or political
rights destroyed or abridged, except for
crime, whereof the party shall have been
tried and convicted. From their origin
this has been the nature and practical oPs-
rations of our free institutions. Our funda-
mental laws, the sacred charters Of our liber-
ties provide that no person shall be punished
for any crime until after fair trial and
conviction according to law. To punish,
therefore, by an act of legislation without
such trial and conviction, it is submitted, is
to violate the fundamental laws Of our free
form government, and 10 establish prece-
dents which are as unwise as they are dan
gerous in their tendency. If men have
committed crimes-the high crime of
treason for instance-which unfit them for
participation in the social, civil and politi-
cal rights Of their countrymen, let them be
tried, and il found guilty, punish them ac
cording to law. But should executive
clemency intervene and the punishment be
remitted, after such trial and conviction, it
certainly would not be competent for the
Legislature TO pass law Furnishing for the
same'ofense. And what possible difference
can 1t make, if executive pardon has been
legally extended before the formal trial and
conviction, as it has been in every
case where the oath of amnesty has
been taken, as prescribed by the
President, or his special pardon grant
ed. In suchcase the guilt appears as pail
psble without the trouble and expense of
trial as with it, the acceptance Of the par
don being an acknowledgement Of the guilt,
and the law being satisfied has no further
demands, while society is lawfully vindi-
Gated and has complete security for the fu-
ture. Justice thus shows itself tempered
with mercy, which is its divinest and most
powerful form.
Besides all this, such law is er-post facto
in its nature. Il prescribes a penalty un-
known to the law when the crime was com
mitted, and is consequently violative of the
constitution Of the United States. am no
lawyer, but this proposition appears plain
to me. Neither State Legislature, nor a
convention of the State, has any authority
under the Constitution Of the United States,
10 pass any such law, or ordain any such
ordinance. A law depriving men, other
wise qualified, from voting is premature in
its nature, and afIixing penalty that did
not exist when the crime was committed, is
necessarily erPost faeto in its operations,
and of course unconstitutional.
Pardon me for addressing you through a
newspaper. By permission of the Editor
will continue to do so until I discuss several
other points Of objection to a law disfran-
chisirg men against whom the law has no
charge.
Very truly, your friend,
JeHE W. BowEN.