The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1866-12-07

the two can stand together. will not everv
rule of construction forbid that the old shall
be repealed or abrogated by the new? For
the new provision, to have the effect of re-
pealing the old, must not the repeal be clear
and explicit, or must it not be of such
character that the two cannot stand to-
gether?
Now. to give the section quoted from the
/ schedule of the amendments the effect to
repeal Art. ", Section of the old COusti-
tuition it must vest in the Legislature the
full power and authority to declare who
shall be voters hereafter in this State Does
this mean that the repeal of all laws and
constitutional provisions authorizing per-
sons to vote, and give power to the Legis.
lature to make such laws? What may the
Legislature determine under this power?
The power must be strictly construed
/ They have no power to amend, but to de-
termi0e ''uuder the Constitution as amend
ed the qualification of voters and the limi-
tation of the elective franchise" If they
can only determine under the Constitution,
and are not authorized to amend the instru
ment itself, can they so determine as to re-
peal or destroy Art. 1, Section lst of the
Constitution, aud all power is Inherent in
the people? May not full scope be given to
the power granted in these amendments,
without repeal of the other provisions in
the Constitution touching the right to vote?
What were the amendments proposed by
/ I'll 4 81 - 81 Ia9
/. That slavery aud involuntry servitude,
except as punishment for crime, should
be abolished
| 2. The Legislature shall make no law
recognizing the right Of property in man.
3. AbFOgating Section 81, Art. of the
Constitution. ...-. -... .r
] These amendments, if ratified by the
people, Would emancipate large class who
had before that time been slaves. These
persons would necessarily be in our midst.
Was not this power we are considering
given to the Legislature that they might
provide for the enfranchisement of these
persons thus made free? And would not
this afford ample scope for the exercise of
/
And they might desire to limit the elective
franchise as to this class of persons to some
intellectual or property qualification. To
thus limit the power delegated to the Legis-
lature is in accordance with fair rules Of
censGruetion- Does not the context bear
out this interpretation? Under what we're
they to exercise the power delegated?-
Under the amended Constitution? Did the
amendments in any way refer to any other
class of persons than those who were made
free by them? Was it necessary that the
power to determine their rights to the cleo
tive franchise should rest somewhere. Was
l. at all necessary that the power should
be given to change or alter the elective
franchise as to other persons? If the con-
vention or people had intended to give to
8 them the power of disfraechising those al
ready clothed with the right to vote, would
they not have been more explicit in confer
ring the power?
By thus constituting the power delegated
to the Legislature We are able to make each
and every part of the Constitution stand
Any other construction. the one has to give
way to the other. The court is therefore
|, content to hold, that the power delegated to
the Legislature by the amended Constitu-
tion does not vest them with the power tc
determine the qualifications of voters in al
cases, but only Sc far as the freedmen are
concerned. -
f If the court is correct in the determine
g ton of the foregoing proposition, then i
r necessarily follows that the Legislature have
r transcribed their powers in the passage o
: the act under consideration, so far as they
d have attempted to alter the qualification t.
o vote of those who were already voters unde
It the old Constitution, and to that extent th'
i act is void, and would not excuse the re
: spondeut from giving the necessary ceFtif
! cate to the relator.
e But there is another question in thi
a case which l feel bound to examine. 1t i
y one which might have arisen under tn
'f constitutional government of some of ou
II sister States, but it is no great complimen
to them to say that it has never yet Occurret
y in any Of them. The decentralization c
IS civil war and the disorganization ineiden
to that most dangerous period immediatel
ii following. when the strong aim of the mill
70 tary power has be9n Withdrawn and th
r. more reliable, if not stronger arm of tb
n law has not yet resumed its sway were re
le quiFed to produce the state of facts upo
le which such question can alone be raised
Of The old landmarks are, at such period
he swept away or lost sight of, aud new one
IS have not yet been created.
he Now, for the 6rst time in the constitI
I'd tional history Of this country, the Iegisls
to tive department Of the general GOvernmer
be and of our own State. have not been c0utsr