The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1866-12-07
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Judge Cooper Declares the Franchise
Law Unconstitutional.
Radical Legislation Dtsseesed 6y a Master
Haud.


Hand.
B. L. Ridely VS.. Freeman Sherbrooke, Mandamus.
The Court IN this case finds itself called
to pass upon the most important point which
can possibly be submitted to judicial tri-
buual. It could not arise under the Eng
lish system, where Parliament is without
the restraint Of a written Constitution, and
where such constitutional provisions as are
supposed TO exist, rest only in the bosom Of
the very body which can alone announce
and construe them. And in entering upon
the discussion sof the questions Submitted
to the court in this case it may be promised
that these questions do not in the least affect
the validity of the present State Govern
.neut The court recognizes the principle
that the judiciary is subordinate to the po-
litical power, and has nothing to do with
lis rightfulness or wrongfulness. Itaceepts
the authority of the Government behind
which it holds Office as an ultimate fact be-
hind which it cannot go. Until changed
by the people it is entitled to, and should
receive our obedience. G
1t may also be added, that in determin-
ing the grave and important questions sub
mitted for its decision in this case, 1t ought
not to be influenced by any considerations
growing out of the policy or impOlicy, the
wisdom or want of wisdom, in the passage
of law brought in review. Whether it is
fraugbt with blessings to US as a people, or
comes laden with disorder, are not ques-
tiOns within the jurisdiction of courts of
Justice: such questiuns must be left to the
decision Of another forum. We have only
to deal with the question, whether the law
which we are called upon to decide, is 10
conformity with the fundamental law, which
the government has prescribed as guide
for its several departments. The very Con-
stitution itself, under which all depart
ments act, may imperatively require the
courts, to enquire and see whether the de-
partment has thus conformed its action 10
this Constitution. And il satisfied Of this
fact, this court cannot hesitate in the course
1t will pursue. I y. vEga.a-5.s III
1t is insisted by the relator in this case
that, the exceptions and qualifications of
the elective franchise, impaired by the act
of the present General Assembly of the
State of Tennessee, known as the ''frsn-
chise aet," are unconstitutional aud void,
and that although he may fall within the
number or class therein specified, still it is
the duty of the respondent as register of
votes of the county of Rutherford to regis
ter him as voter, aud issue to him GER
ticate, as required by the duties of his
Office, and the respondent having failed to
perform said duties. this court is applied to,
in order to compel, by proper process, the
issuance of said certificate to him.
1t is admitted by the pleadings and con-
ceded in the argument of this case, that SO
much of the act Of Assembly as creates the
Office of register of votes, is constitu iona
and valid. 1t is also conceded that the re.
spordent is the legal and duly qualified Off.
Ger under said act. At this point in the
investigation and for the present argument
the court accepts these admissions aud con
cessions to be true, the court being fully
/
that one part of an act of assembly may b,
constitutional and another part of the same
act unconstitutional.
The court is also satisfied, that indepen
dent of special grant of power in the con
stitution, to the Legislature to create sucl
an office, that the Legislature possesses it
by virtue of its general powers as Legis
lature.
But then is any part of this act of assem-
bly, unconstitutional and therefore void
t. This Is a question cat all times one of mucl
d delcacy, and which should be weighe
3 we'll before being decided in the affirmative
e it should seldom if ever be so decided in
doubtful case" Whenever it is clear, an,
! indisputably against the fundamental law
;, and the court is thereby impelled to so de
I: eide it, it would be unworthy of its station
]. could it be unmindful of the solemn obligs
tion which that station imposes. But it
not on slight implication and mere conjeC
ture that the Legislature is to be pronounc
ed to have Tsnscended its powers, and j
le acts to be considered as void.
The opposition between the Constitute
and the law should be such that the jude
- feels clear and strong conviction of the
incOmpatibility with each other.
Crauch, 33I)
10 determining this question, we assun
as premise which cannot be controgert,
that, the amendment of the Constitute
under which this act is sought to be esta
Eshed and held valid, was the act Of Il
% sovereign people Of the State Of Tennessee
= that the Legislature which passed the a.
if they bad not forfeited their right to
:. called Legislature, we're invested wi
s,ll ,,ovars 10 carry into effect the amen