Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-03-22

capacity. Under this provision of the
schedule the acts ofJune 5, 1865, and May
8, 1866, determining the qualifications Of
voters and limiting the elective franchise
were passed.
Both these acts imposed great restrie
tions and Limitations on the right of voting
which did not exist under the constitution
Of 1884, art. 4, sec. l, and we are at this
advanced period of the term, amidst the
varied md complicated duties that have
been imposed upon us during the session,
unable to do more at present than to an
nounee the result Of our decision.
The elective franchise IS not az inaliena-
bic right or privilege but political right
conferred. limited or withheld, al the pleas
ure of the people acting in their sovereign
capacity. Each State may define il in its own
constitution, or empower lis Legislature TO
do 50.
The right once granted, was not taken
away BY the exercise Of sovereignty power
or forfeited for crime under the laws Of the
State, and if taken away by the sovereign
power of the State, as by an alteration in
its constitution, no vested right is violated
or bill of attainder passed, or act of pains
anu DEudAAACo al Tic hCiAoN u TIC NNIntA u
ton of the United States. Il follows If The
COW ention OF 1865, could, un1er The fati-
feation of the people, declare the qualifi.
cation of voters and limit the elective fran
chise, il could delegate the power to the
Legislature. It might have left the cleo
tive franchise open to the action of all future
legislation, butt chose to limit it to the Gen.
eralAssembly which should first assembleu I'M
der the amended constitution The power
over the subject was delegated to a special
General Assembly, and itsexercise limited to
the time that body had under the co,Stitu-
ton its legal existence, and it could there
fore be exercised at any time within that
period. The passage of the act of 1865
did not, therefore, exhaust the power dele
gated, but the Legislature could perfect,
alter modify or repeal it at any time within
the period for which that body, as a General
Assembly, was elected. Upou the passage
of the act Of 1865 there was an express
power reserved TO change, alter or amend
the law. 1t follows from these propositions
the act of the Legislature, passed May
Sd, 1866, was warranted by the 9th sec
lion of the schedule to the amended
constitution, aud is therefore binding on the
people Of the State.
The relatOr was pardoned by the Presi-
dent Of the United States-the effect of
which was to restore him to the rights and
privileges Of citizen Of the United States,
but it did not have the effect, without the
assent of the State where the sovereign
power had excluded him from political
rights TO restore him to the exercise Of those
rights. To be citizen Of State it does
not follow he is entitled to the exercise of
political rights. Women and minors are
citizens, yet, by the constitution, they are
prohibited from the exercise of political
rights-4th Dew. 20. No one has ever
doubted the proposition that according to
the institutions of this country the sove-
reignty Of State exists with the people of
the State, and that they may change, alter,
abolish, or reform their government
at pleasure. Luther as. Borden-7 How
ard, l. This being SO, it follows that they
had right to determine who should eXer-
else the rights of suffrage
We have examined the late cases de-
dded by the Supreme Court of the United
States in which the validity of a section of
the constitution of the State of Missouri
required every attorney, minister of the
gospel, schoolmaster, trustees of charitable
institutions, etc, ETC., to take an oath, re-
strictive in its character, before he could
exercise the privilege of his calling. The
court held, as well as we can understand
from the newspaper report of the case,
that where citizen has an office. employ
ment or calling, a State cannot directly or
indirectly declare a forfeiture of the office
or calling pursued by the citizen as a means
OF living, by the imposition of an oath
which the party cannot take. A citizen
has the right 10 labor with his hands or
intellectually.
These are civil rights and inalienable,
and of which he cannot be deprived by
the people Of the State But political
right standsupon very different principle:
il Is a political privilege or grant that may
be extended or recalled at the will Of the
sovereign power. 1t follows, therefore,
though the relator was pardoned by the
| President of the United States, and he was
restored TO his privileges as such, and
though he had the right to vote under the
| Constitution of 1884, the Legislature having
under the powers delegated to them changed
| article 4, section lst, of the constitution,
he could not claim the right to register as
a voter unless he brought himself within
| the provisions of the act of Sd May, 1866.
We think the act is binding and valid, and
! the law of the State. The relator not hav-
ing complied with the provisions Of the
| law is not entitled to relief.
His Honor, the Circuit Judge, held the
Legislature which passed the law was an il
legal body, having no authority to pass
the act of registration.
There Is nothing in this record affecting
the validity of the law it is signed by the
: Speakers of both Houses under the proyis.
ions Of the constitution, and is so, far as this
record presents the facts, a valid law.
The point was abandoned in argument
by the counsel of the relator, and is wholly
! untenable.
The petition will be dismissed.
SHAKEIFoRD.