Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-02-14

ment or indictment by grand jury, and a
fair and impartial trial by jury Of the
peers Of the accused, and Judgment of a
court ofeompetent jurisdiction, pronounced
upon finding of guilty by the jury. UE-
I'll this is done, the charge of treason is no
disqualification TO hold Office, or exercise
any other political right in the Ssate of
Tennessee. And this ia so, however well
satisfied this House might be that any or
all of those disfranchised by this bill were
guilty of treason. The individual men,
bers would have as much right to punish of
their own mere wantoness as the General
Assembly of the State of Tennessee would
have to 50 punish by this or any other act
of the Legislature.
Again, the ofense for which this punish
ment is inflicted was against the United
States, and for this ofense the President
has, by general or special pardon relieved
very many of those which this House now
proposes to punish. If This can be done the
constitutional power of the President to par
don is of no avail Whether that power has
been exercised wisely or unwisely, cannot be
questioned in this manner.
There being no mode by which this pun
ishment can be inflicted except that pointed
out in our organic law, how, then, can this
act be enforced except by revolutions and
the destruction of our system of repnbli-
can government? If attempted and sue
cessful, then this will be a despotism in
stead Of a republic, and will be controlled
by physical force instead Of law That the
action of the majority Of this House tends
to such state Of things, it seems to the I'M
dersigned, no intelligent and candid mind
can fail to see. While protesting to punish
Rebels, the majority themselves, in the
name of loyalty, are in rebellion against
the well established principles of our CON
stitution. "The voice is Jacobs voice, but
the hands are the hands of Esau"
Warned by the past, with vivid recol-
lections of the sad and terrible war which
was brought upon MS by disregard of the
constitutional laws of the land, We cannot
look upon the action of this House without
the deepest anxiety and solicitude for the
peace of the State. We have had enough
of bloodshed and war. 1t is within the
power of this Legislature, by the exercise
Of good statesmanship and a Just and rea-
sOnable policy, 20 restore peace, harmony,
prosperity and goodwill among all the peo-
pie of the State. If they fail to do so, and
evil result from their failure, the cOnse-
quences be upon them and not upon u.s.
Finally, we protest against the passage of
the bill for the reasons stated, and recapit-
ulate:
LIST. Neither the Legislature nor a con-
yention has the power to disfranchise any
person qualified to vote under section |, ar
ticle 4, of the constitution of the State.
3D. The Legislature cannot enfranchise
the negro, because he is prohibited from
voting by said section /, article 4, and his
political status has not been changed by the
amended constitution of February %, 1865.
Sd. That the attempt to enfranchise him
by this bill, or by any other ac. of the lie.
gislature, is not within the power of the
Legislature, and all such acts are simple
utilities and void. 81
4th. That the bill itself is a most unjust
and arbitrary discrimination against the
native white man and white persons of for
eign birth in the State, and in favor of the
negro.
9Th. This discrimination is pre-eminently
calculated to produce strife between the
white and the black race in this State.
For these and many other reasons which
we might present, if it would not extend
this paper beyond reasonable limits, we
AAlNoA anu sAAAONANAy oAtbAAAAA OAA
action TO the people of the State, who will
Judge Of the correctness of our views when
they read the journals of this House.
JOHN s. BRIEN,
VIM. w. COLEMAN,
l.. NJ. THARPE, ~
J. T. STREET, 3D..
JAMES PARKS,
s. l.. WARREN,
Jos. JONES,
+. A. LOUGHMILLER,
HENRY BIGGs, r
SAM L. CoLvILLE, .
r. E. LAsATER,
JOHN LELLYETT, ..
HERYEY Brown.
| Mr.. RaulstOn thought the document Just
read was rather a singular protest. 1t sound
| ed more like a Supreme Court decision.
The Chair having decided that the pro-
test should be entered on the journal,
Mr.. Clementsappealedfr from the decision of
the Chair, claiming that the protest reflect
ed unjustly on the action of the body which
passed the law, and he thought it should
not be entered on the journal.
Mr.. Smith, of Hardeman, took the same
view of the subject.
Mr.. Brien claimed that he and his col
leagues who signed the document had
perfect right to enter the protest, and the
constitution expressly guaranteed them
the privilege of having it recorded on the
journal.
Mr.. Lellyett argued the same way, con-
tending that in the protest there was no I'M
Just reflection on that body.
Mr.. Tharpe was very we'll satisfied that
the protest in its language did not exceed
the bounds of propriety.
Mr.. Doughty was quite Of different
opinion, contending that the protest did
unjustly reflect on the action of the MAORI
ty in the House
On the question being put, the decision
of the Chair was sustained, by ayes 80
noes q. So the protest was allowed to 60
on the journal %
Adjourned until o'clock to morrow.