Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-04-18

TIE MUNICIPAL COURT INJUNCTION
CAsE.-The argument in this case was
resumed before the Judge Of the chancery
court yesterday. 1t will be seen that
Mr.. Randolph made some new points
for the defense
Mr.. Randolph said he should take the
position thus :5eFthe law complained Of
was unconstitutional, it was not in the
Jurisdiction of the court to eujoin that a
court of chancery would not enloin 4
t%respasser, or restrain the exercise of I'M
constitutional powers. Judge Trigg had
so decided in the matter Of the freed
mems bureau. The court Of chancery
has no powers to enjoin an official but
what the code may have conferred. All
the argument that the law is null or
unconstitutional, only goes to show
that the Ghance-y court cannot enloin.
The powers of the chancery court to en-
Join, under the code, are restricted to
cases OSgoOd law and constitutiOnally
constitt0ed office. However the amend
ment complained of came to be tackled
on to the original bill, the legislators
have power to make their laws in such a
way as they see proper. matters having
no connection with bills are often SO
tackled on to them by congress the
whole law of evidence in this country
was recently changed by an amendment,
tackled by congress 70 an appropriation
bill. Mr.. Randolph read from the au-
thorities in explanation of the name
of making amendments in legislative
bodies. Amendments are not required
to be read three times in the legislature
Of Tennessee. The constitution expressly
gives power To each house to make
amendments. This Legislature itself a.
the exclusive Judge Of its own manner
of receiving, rejecting or amending bills
il executes its own rules, and the courts
of the country cannot interfere with its
independent action. The constitution
confers no powers on the courts to do so.
The legislature Judges for itself what is
constitutional, as far as its own sphere is
concerned, as does the executive. The
constitution denies one of the three Sec
tious of the government the power to
interfere in another, except SO far as the
same constitution permits or directs, and
no such permission OF direction is given
as that the chancellor is now asked TO
exercise. 1t is not claimed that the
court has no power of Injunction, but
that power is only where the law, as it
stands, is in opposition to the constitu-
ton. The constitution gives the legisla-
tire mower to determine their own rules
OF proceeding, and with their aoti2G
the court Of chancery cannot interfere.
Where an Injunction is made, 1t must
be on plain conflict between the law and
the constitution. Where is the provision
in the constitution iDfriDged upon by
this act? The only attempt at proving
infringement regarded the sheriff TO
all the rest no effort has been made 10
point out the section of he constitution
alleged to have been violated. It has
been said Gov. Brownlow has acted with
u%surpation Of powers. l am mo- here as
the defendant of the governor, but other
usurpations have produced u~surpatons,
and many irregularities exist as the con-
sequence, The power OF the governor to
%appoint. as he has done, officers in this
case, has been questioned. II You come
TO the conclusion that these people seek
to hold .ffice under an invalid law, orby
unconstitutional appointments, ana they
are no officers, but mere ~trespassers,
then the chancery court cannot enjoin
them. There is nothing in the consti-
tuition prohibiting the appointment to
office In the manner done in this case.
The nresumption Is in favor of eonstitu-
tIonality in case there is nc contrary pro-
hibifion on legislature and government.
The provisions in the code refer 10 regu-
lar elections the power to fill vacancies
Is conferred upon the legislature to pro-
vide for. The fact Of the constitution
prescribing how a certain class Of vacan-
cies shall be filled, does not prohibit the
legislature filing up vacancies arising
10 some other manner, IN such other way
as il may see ft. The constitution gives
the acting governor certain powers
:. -, ruhs4h freffFr fkn ~.
nointments now complained of. 1t has
heen said the stactingn governor was
the governor acting when the cOnstitu-
ton was amended but it is a specifying
phrase. denoting the governor acting at
Inc time a contest about ONCE may arise.
The ruling by which it is sought to en-
ioin these offices would empty the bench
Of this and every other court in the state,
IA eaoh OF their incumbents was APP
reunited in the manner complained of.
The mower of filing vacancies, conferred
by the constitution, is expressly for a
nariod until their successors are elected
~ annaiufed. The question is, are these
nartiss Officers notOs not how long
will thew continue to be such.
When an election comes, the
question will arise-are these men
legally in office? and MOI till then. No
successors having been eiectedi there are
none 10 contest with these parties the
places TO which they have been APP
pointed. If those gentlemen hold those
appointments legally To-Day they do so
until their successors are elected and
analiAed- The court now constituted.
= q mnnicipal court, and the Legislature
has mower To- grant and corporate char
ters and nowers as it may think for the
general good, Is this a corporation
Court snch the bill creating terms and
eonsfitntes II. although the limits extend
slightly beyond those Of the city. II
This he a CORPORATION court, why must its
Judge be appointed or elected as the state
Judges ares Charters vary, and these