The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1866-08-11
From the Memphis Buiis.ia.1
Advice TO the Disfranahised.


certificate Of registration under the new
Franchise law, addresses us rather lengthy
communication on the subject, and concludes
by asking cur advice as TO the mode and
measure of his redress
Cnder such circumstances we have no
hesitation in stating our impressions as TO
the proper course for all persons similarly
situated to pursue.
The Franchise Act of June 5, 1865, was
passed in pursuance of the 9Th section Of
the schedule to the amendment of the Con
stitution, r. tilted by the people on the 22d of
February, 1879. That section provides THAI
the qualifications Of voters and the limita-
ton of the elective franchise. NAV be deter
mined by the General Assembly which shall
| first assemble under the amended Constitu-
ton" This clause of the Constitution did
give the Legislature power to regulate the
qualification of voters and limit the elective
franchise, but not to the extent, nor in the
| sense now claimed for it by the advocates
for exclusion; for it is clear that the pro
Founders of the constitutional amendment
who were careful to alter us little as possible
the organi: law Of the tate-never design
ed that the Legislature shoHld set aside the
Bill Of Rights, which are expressly "excep-
ted out Of the general powers Of govern
ment, and forever TO remain inviOlaJe." One
section Of the Bill Of Rights expressly de
clares that all elections must be free and
! equuL" Now neither the convention which
proposed the one amendment Of the Consti-
tuition with the schedule and resolutions
thereto amended, nor the people who ratified
the same on the 22d Of February, 1868, ever
dreamed that they were voting away their
| Bill Of Rights, the charter Of their liberties.
| The Convention had no power to delegate to
| the Legislature which should first assemble
under the amended Constitution the right to
| deprive the people Of their liberties and
/ privileges, and they never meant to confer
/ such a right if they had it. They knew that
! the Bill Of nights is inalenabIe, and IS to re-
main inviolate forever" and in the grant Of
/ power which they conferred, it was to enable
/ that body to make such changes only az, after
mature elaboration, should be inperatiyely
/ called for by the circumstances incident to q
/ state of war. In that COnve ntiOn, there were
/ those who wished to confer suffrage on
negroes; some Immediately others remotely
! there were others who wished 10 disfran-
! chisc leading rebels; there were very few
| if any, who wished to disfranchise all en-
gagged in the rebellion; and it was finally
| agreed to leave the prOpriety Of interfering
| with the privileges Of franchise to the Leg
! islature Hence undes this grant of power
the Legislature could, if it esteemed it sound
| policy to do so, enfranchise the negroes Of
the State subject to the same provisions as
| that of the white mantle same limitation
Of age, residence and place Of voting. But
| the Legislature chose a different course
They determined not to disturb the qualif-
! cations Of voters as to age, residence, and
| place of voting; they determined not to ex-
! tend the right of voting to negroes, either at
| present or in future but they set themselves
to work to limit the elective franchise by
Furnishing unheard large class of the white
/ citizens of the State in utter defiance Of the
| express provisions of the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights, which they had solemnly
sworn to support Thus the disfranchise-
ment effected under the first Franchise Act,
passed June 5, 1865, was clearly unconstitu-
tional, and could have been set aside at any
| time by an appeal to the courts.
But suppose we are mistaken as to the
scope Of the power conferred on the Legis-
lature. Suppose the Legislature did have
the unlimited power they claim. Suppose
that the first Franchise Act was precisely
shadowed forth in the 9Th section of the
schedule. What then On the 9TH of June,
1865, it did pass an act entitled An Act to
| limit the Elective Franchise" BY the pas
sage of this act, the Legislature executed the
power delegated to it. Itexhausted the grant
Of power onferred upon it, and it had no
right to act again on the subject without a
new grant from the people. Under that law,
the people throughout the State registered
and became qualified voters Under that law,
all elections since held in the State have been
conducted Now we maintain that all who
become thus possessed Of the rights Of citi-
zenship, under the old law, have a valid right
to vote, because, according to the C0nstitu-
ton, there is no way by which a citizen in
vested " it'll the right of suffrage, can be de-
prived Of the same, except by conviction of
an infamous offense
Our advice, therefore, to the holders of
certificates under the old Franchise Act is,
to hold on to them-to 90 to the polls at the
first election that shall be ordered and offer
TO vOte-and that. if refused, Immediately
bring suits against the judges of election, in
heavy damages, for depriving them of their
rights. 1t makes but little difference what
shall be the action Of the Circuit courts on
the question. If they decide in favor the
I voter, the damages will accrue with the right
to vote if they decide against the voter. then
take it to the Supreme court where, we feel
an abiding confidence, judgment accord
ing to the law and the Constitution will be
obtained, the infamous law be set aside, and
freemen again invested with all the rights of
citizenship. This appears to the only
redress from the tyranny and oppression of
the constituted authorities of our State, and
this, we rejoice to believe, is adequate to the
redress Of all our grievances Lei it be tried.
a nj L Il II. i