Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-07-06
AuiOn aud 1ispateh.
sArURpAY. IuLY Lee.
Largest CIreuIatlon in 0Ity nnd state.


as seditious and rebellious the circular adj
dress Of the Central Conservative Commit
tee, addressed to the County Courts. The
Governor denounces said circular as in
tended to nullify the franchise Law of the
State by false and rebellious construction
for wicked and revolutionary purposes.
He assumes to declare what the Legislature
intended by the franchise Law, not BY what
r. enacted IN plain, unssnbiguoas langHage,
but by his own distinctive knoaleige. or
from Information derived from some source
other than the law itself 1t has always
been supposed that il is the duty Of the
Governor Of the State to see that the laws
are executed as plainly written in the
statutes, and that it is the province Of the
courts Of the country to construe and de-
clare the law in all doubtful questions. But
the Governor claims the right to personally
know what the Legislature intended, and
to execute that intention, whether it be SO
written in the printed laws Of the land or
not 1t is believed to be the first time in
the history Of the government where the
Governor Of any State has assumed to de.
clare circular addressed to the people as
seditious, rebellious and revolutionary,
which merely suggests to them their legal
rights and points to the books aud page
where the law is plainly written. Is it
seditious and rebellous for the courts to
read and interpret the laws enacted for their
guidance, when written in plain and un-
ambiguous language, or must they look
alone to the Governor to learn
what the law is? Surely some
little Of constitutional liberty and free re-
publican government yet remains to the
citizens of Tennessee. And notwithstanding,
the edia Of the Governor, We will attempt
to sustain the advice given to the County
: Courts in said circular put forth by the
Central Committee
Section S4l Of the Code provides that
'The County Court at the session next pre-
ceding the day Of election, shall appoint
three inspectors or judges for each voting
place TO superintend the election"
Section S42. "If the County Court fail to
make the appointment, or any person ap-
pointed refuse to serve, the Sheriff, with
the advice Of three Justices, orif none be
present, three respectable freeholders, shall,
before the beginning of the election, APP
point said inspectors or judges"
1t will be seen at once that Sherifs had
no power to appoint judges of elections,
| except in cases where the County Court
failed to appoint or the sppointees failed
to attend or refused to serve. The 10th sec
ton Of the last franchise Law, passed 25th
of February, 1867, page 81, enacts that
"The Judges and clerks of all elections shall
hereafter be selected and appointed by the
| Commissioner Of Registration in each
/ county, in the same manner and governed
| by the same rules and lars heretofore pro
vided by law, conferring the said selection
and appointments by SssrfS" What rules
and lars are referred to The provisions of
section S42 Of the Code, and none other.
The Commissioner Of Registration can APP
point judges to hold the election in the
same manner and by the same rules and
laws that the Sheriff could by section
S42 of the Code He is invested by
section 10 of the franchise law with
the same power 10 appoint judges and in
the same manner, that the Sheriff had.
Sec. SAP of the Code. And the Commits
sioner is substituted for the Sheriff, and
with the powers Of the Sheriff. No more,
nor no less. The Sheriff could, in no in
stance, appoint judges to hold the election
when the County Court appointed and the
appointees attended and were willing to
serve. This is too plain for argument,
Section S4l, conferring the right to appoint
the Judges TO hold the elections upon the
County Court, is unrepealed. 1t is in full
force. Section S4l Of the Code and the
10th section Of the franchise law can and
must stand together, and must be construed
together as one act. They are not incom-
patible, nor inconsistent, with each other.
They are both necessary 10 keep up the
long established law Of the State; the only
change intended by the franchise law was
10 confer upon the Commissioner Of Regis
tration the powers Of the Sheriff. The
Legislature did not intend to repeal section
SAL If they had intended to repeal it,
they would have used the words, in the
same manner and gouerHed By the same rule
and laus heretofore pForided By iGW conteTiRs
the said selection upon the County Court aaC
SbeIb. But the Legislature used no such
language, but simply conferred the powers
of the Sheriff, in that respect, upon tn,
Commissioner. And must so have intend
ed. or they would have employed the ap
propriate language 10 convey differen
intention. But the Governor says tbs
Legislature intended to take the appoint
ment f5om the County Conrts and confer j
upon the Commissioner The law as plain
ly written is otherwise When the Law
is plain and unambiguous, whether it be
expressed in general or limited terms, thu
Legislature should be intended TO meal
what they haveplainly expressed, and con
sequently no room is left for construction
. Bacon's Abridg. 2l0.
The general expressions in statute ma,
be restrained by subsequent particuls
words, which show that in the intention o
the Legislature those general expression
are used in a particular sense. Adams Is
Woods, Cranch r. $50. So we insist th
general expressions used in the l0th sec
tion Of the franchise law are clearly re
strained and limited to the powers Of th'
Sheriff, under section $40 Of the code, an,
/. none other can be claimed for the Com
missioner Of Registration. The Legislative
r. intention to repeal former statuteis neve
q presumed, nor are implied repeals encour
y aged. The provisions Of subsequent ac
must be inconsistent with those OF prio