Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-04-16

laAAW1eo
NuNrCTPAL COURT INJUNCTION CASE.
In the chaneery courtroom yesterday
morning, an argument was heard by
the chancellor, Hon. VIM. NJ. Smith,
sitting in chambers, upon an application
from John Donovan, clerk of the law
and criminal courts, P. NJ. Winters. sher-
if; and VIM. Wallace, attorney-general,
to enioin the municipal court of Memphis
from performing the functions it as
sumes. Mr.. Ed. Yerger read the appli-
cation and Mr.. Randolph the reply.
Judge J. w. Smith stated that he should
confne himself simply to questions Of
law. The case wal one whose interest
was not confined to the complainazts,
but extended to the general community,
/ for in the case before the chancellor the
provisions of the constitution had been
violated, and the courts Offered the only
refuge for justice. The defense would
no doubt take the ground that there
was no right to go behind the acts
of q legislative body. The legislature
I mas AU0LEEu AuAEE y AIGAA
saving, for instance, how bills shall be
passed. They have made rules for the
government of the house according TO
those ruiz an amendment to an amend
ment oslnot be made as vas done in
this bill. Section one and two went to
the senate with six sections added in the
house. The question was, will senate
concur in the amendments. The bill
was not on its third reading in the
senate, and it had no right to add
other subject matter to the bill. The
Legislature admits the authority Of the
journal Of the house, as is shown by in
stances in which legislatures have gone
to their journal, to see whether 2 law
had been passed according to the consti-
tuition. That Journal is kept by the
clerk Of the senate and published, and it
is official and binding. This journal
shows that six sections were offered as
amendments in q manner contrary to
the rnIes, and those rnles we're not sus-
peuded on this occasion. The bill in cues
ton is general in It's character chang
mo the ~previous law, and affecting all
the people of the state. In this case the
bill before the legislature was not amend
ed in the body Of it, by the Legislature,
but the charge complained of came in
as an amendment to an amendment.
The bill should De read and adopted three
times, but in this case the amendment
in question was read once only in
the house aud once in the senate, as the
official journal shows. The Journal has
the same signatures as the bill itself, and
is binding in its character. Is this bill
constitutional? It provides q new Office,
a Judge, 10 be appointed by the governor.
The constitution says expressly thst
iudces shall be chosen by the people,
Certain qualifications are stated In this
hin. as the time Of residence in the state.
which are not in accordance with the
; constitution. The constitution fixes the
salary of Judges, and IL requires that the
state shall pay the enicer; but this bill
! saws the salary shall be paid by this city.
The provision of the constitution is
general this bill violates that provision.
. Another question Is, does this bill inter-
{ fere with vested rights? These com
claimants are officers legally holding
e their positions. Appointments made by
. the military governor OF the state were
I ratified bv the new notifications Of the
0 constitution. A construction placed by
some upon n of the sections would
give the governor the power of making
{ certain appointments for 8 term of years
Int the same construction would have
prevented the governor attaining the
: position he now holds. The constitution
mentions certain Officers to be elected
amongst them are that of sherif-only
one for each county. This bill appoints
: an officer TO perform the duties and re
!, eeive the fees of sheriff, in this county
and the constitution is non the less VIC
y lated by the appointment Of this officer
because Of the evasion of calling him
- marshal. II these officers have beei
!, appointed in a way contrary to the con
! stitulion, and II their appointments m
terfere with vested rights, the court
have power to estop the exercise {
!, those duties. He had, as had bee
a agreed, spoken only on the munic
:, ipal bin, leaving the two other
MI. NJ. r. Hill followed Judge Smitf
The questions raised ~ the bill are in
u portant ones, if they amount to anythin
We at ell. as they refer to the constitutio
As and the very framework Of all laws, il
volving the very sovereignty of the PEI
n pie itself. Sovereignty resides in Il
people, but must be exercised by an agen
We Iise national government is limited, b'
be the state goyernment-iegislatiye exc,
live and judleiary-exerclses the fu
:, sovars.Snty Of the people, except as it
II. limited by Is constitutions, n~ationaTar
ny cote If in this STATE the legislature b
mot the power to appoint judges, u
a3ys other side must point out the pTohieitio
lid There is no such prohibition, but an e
nress grant Of such power, The cons
our svtion names but one court, but civ
raj nowsr 10 appoint inferior courts. ~
~nartiss said to be infringed upon receiv
s@' tbsir appointments under that provisi
Of the constitution which gives
legislature power to establish