Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1866-12-04
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Judge Campbell on the Franchise
Act.
J. c. REED
Manddnas.

EDWARD A. BYRYE.
In this case the relator alleges that he
is citizen of the United States; that he
has resided in Montgomery county for
several years, and is twenty-one years
of age; that under and by virtue of an
act of the General Assembly, passed on
the 9th day of June, 1865, entitled IAN
act to limit the elective franchise" he
appeared before the Clerk of the County
Court of Montgomery, on the Sd day Of
June, Of the same year, and made proof
privileges of an elector under said act,
and was duly registered as voter that
the Clerk thereupon issued to him GER
tificate under and by virtue of said act
under which he voted in subsequent
elections. The certificate is made part
of the petition and referred to as exhibit
(A). The relator goes on to complain
and allege, that the General Assembly,
since he registered as aforesaid, to-wit,
on the Sd day of May, 1866, passed an
act, directing the appointment by the
Governor of other persons than the
clerks as the registers of voters, and that
by this act the elective franchise law of
June the 9Th, 1865, is changed and a
new registry of voters required and that
the defendant, Byrne, has been appoint
ed to register the voters of Montgomery
county under and by virtu. of said act.
He further complains and says, that he
appeared before the respondent and ex-
hibi,ed his certificate issued by the clerk
under abe act of June the 9th, and Of
fered to prove the fact that he was reg
istered voter, but that the respondent re-
fused to grant him certificate, and to
register him as vo'er.
The respondent for answer thereto,
says that he'propounded in writing to the
relator the following .interogat ories, to all
of which he answered in the negative !:
First, have you been discharged from the
United States Army since 1862? Second,
did you vote in either of the elections OF
November 1864, or February or March,
1865? Third, do you propose to prove
your past loyalty by two unconditional
Union men 7 Fourth, have you been ap-
pointed to any Office by either the civil
or military Governor of Tennessee ? The
respondent also says in his answer and
return that he does not believe the rela-
tor has been Internationally loyal; and
that for the reason that he has not in
anywise complied with the franchise laws
of May the Sd, 1866, he refuses to giant
to him certificate, etc.
The counsel on both sides agree that
the exhibits in the case shall be read as
evidence, and statements in the petition,
not denied in the answer, shall be con-
sidered as evidence. So the only diff
Guilty is the settlement Of questions Of
law, presented by the case as made out
The Judge then proceeds to argue the
case at length, and arrives at the follow
irg conclusion ;-[E Pun LEDGER
On the whole this Court holds lst,
that the General Assembly, in the pas.
sage of the act of June the 9th, 1865, ex-
hausted the power delegated by the 9th
section of the schedule, and that the act
itself was, in the opinion of the Court, a
full exercise of the power conferred I'd,
the 9th section of the schedule is not
comprehensive enough TO Rbrogate art.
". Sec. | OF the constitution and thereby
allow authority TO result to the General
Assembly, to limit and restrict suffrage
without restraint or check; 3D., the 4ih
art lst sec. ofthe constitution is in force,
except, so far as il may haye been aftec-
ted by the act of June 18th, lsGS, and
therefore the General Assembly cannot
legslate on franchise except as to eFimi.
nails 4th, the 4th section, ! and 2, and
the act of June 9th, 1855 (if it was a
proper exercise at the delegated powerl
is the law Of the land as 10 franchise,
which can only be effected by constltu-
tonal convention; 5th, the power dele
gated TO the General Assembly was an
extraordinary and unusual delegation of
power over rights and privileges at the
time existing, and therefore calls for
strict construction, and not liberal one;
9Th. 10 submit or delegate to the General
Assembly, by construction ofa constliu-
tiopar anehdmeBl genetal IL lis i5fir9y
unlimited powers over the right Of ssF
frage, would be holding adverse to all the
principles of law intended TO secure ex'
isting and vested rights and privileges;
7lh. the question of suffrage is one which
belongs 10 the people in their primary
capacity, and for this additional reason
q delegation ofpoEer oTsr u, " q .flaNsse
in the Constitution, musl be e%erclsed IN
a restricted sense, lest the source Of the
power might be overturned by the crea-
lure; 9TH, lha sel Af May id, 1867, being
passed after the delegated power was eg-
haustod, aud for other reasons given, is
as unauthorized by the Consti ution, and
therefore void, so far as it restricts suf-
frage; 9th, that part of the act requiring
a registration Of voters the court does
not hold against. So, it appearing from
tie iac,s If this sase lnal Ips tslaiof mas
RI'vested tight 10 'frhhchiss hinder Tie
amended Constitution, and has sli the
qualifications Of an elector, it is the legal
dnty of The respondent to register him as
a voter, TO enforce which duly percmp-
tory writ of mdHdaiRHs will issue as
prayed. JoHS ALFx. CAMPBELL
The British House Of Lords.
Tt. fonaor gfi.asg in commanding