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

sembly of this State to exclude some of the
members Of each duly returned by the cleo
tors, sense of duty equally cOnstraius this
Court to examine inpO the constitulionality
of the act, and to ascertain whether if uu-
constitutional the fact can be noticed in
this case.
The facts which raise this question are as
follows:
The General Assembly of the State bav-
ing certain measures before it, in relation
to the elective franchise. portion of the
House of Representatives. sufficient in num-
Der to reduce that body below a quorum,
thought it was their duty to resign their
seats in order to paevent the hasty passage
Of so important a measure, and 10 ascertain
by vote the wishes of their constituents.
To fill the vacancies thus created, his Ex-
cellency the Governor of the State, as IN
duty bound, issued his proclamation to the
proper officers. directing elections to be
held in the several districts according to
law. These elections were accordingly held
and new members elected, among whom,
however, were number (fifteen, we be-
lieve,) who had resigned their seats as
aforesaid.
When these members, with their certif-
Gates in due form, went to Nashville to take
their seats, the House of Representatives,
or rather those members of the House who
had not resigned. and one or two whom they
had selected from the new comers refused
to allow them to take their seats, but for
mally elected them to the ndmber Of fifteen
IN the House and two in the Senate. This
was done, not because there wsssny inform
ality in the elections, nor in the certificates
of the proper officers, nor because the ap-
plicants we're not pOssesse of all the con-
stitutional qualifications, and able and will
ling to comply with all the constitutional
requirements. but simply because they had
directly OF implicitly sssented 70 the move
ment which had left the House without
quorum, and thereby, in the opinion of
those weo refused to join in this action, had
disqualified themselves from eligibility to
seats in the House. This was the sole
ground upon which their fOreible exclusion
from the body to which they had been sent
by the people, was put by the dominant
majority.
In the Senate, about the same time, the
Hon. Cave johnson, a recently elected
member to that body, was excluded upon
another ground. 1t was not pretended
that he lad not been elected, duly and le-
gally to fiji the vacancy. nor was it denied
that he had all the necessary qualifications.
but the Senate chose to refuse him admit
tance because his symparhies had been with
the South 10 the late rebellion. In both
cases, that is to say, 10 the case Of the ex-
cluded members from the House, and in the
case of the excluded member from the
Senate, each of those bodies chose to add to
the qualifications or disqualifcations made
by the Constitution, others of its own
framing. Was this right? If not, was the
body from which they were thus wrOngfully
| excluded any longer a constitutional GEN.
eral Assembly? Such are the grave
points which this Court is called upon to
/ decide.
The requirements to eligibility to the
the General Assembly as prescribed by the
/ Constitution aFe found in Art. II, Sections
8 and 10 of that instrument, and the con-
stitunonal disquali6cations in Sections 81
| aud 26, of the same article. It is not neces.
sary to quote those sections nor to detail
their provisions, for it is not pretended thai
thew have anything to do with the action
taken by the two Houses in the cases before
US. Nor is it pretended that there is anV'
thing in the amendment to the Constitution
nor in the law of the laud, directly justly
! ing the exclusion. But it is cOntended tha
each House of the General Assembly hal
the exclusive right to Judge of the qualif
cation of its members, and its decision can
not be revised.
The Constitution, Art. II, Sec. XI, Ger
tainly provides that: ''Tbe Senate ant
House of representatives, when assembled
shall each be judges of th,
qualification and election of its members.
The Constitution must, like every othe
witing, be construed as whole, not b.
piecemeal, (Mosely vs. State, Nd, I36
( and when we look to it as a whole, the ob
viOus meaning of the clause in question j
that each House shall be the judge Of tb
constitutional zuali6caSS ions Of its members
, and the legality of their elections. Thss
are questions which they may properly de
eide, for every member is interested 10 hsv
! ing them properly decided, the decision be
. ing equally binding upon all. To that ez
tent each House may be admitted TO be
) when acting ia good faith, the supreme 81
bitter, and it's decision in a given case. al
though it might appear to others to b
: erroneous, cannot be revised. But 1t
t altogether different question when one {
. these Houses goes beyond the plain prOVil