Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-03-27

| These facts involve the consideration r
: the constitutional validity of the acts of III
General Assembly, respectively, passed o.
! the 9Th of June, 1865, and the Sd of Nav
! 1866
The questions raised are of the creates
consequence, and they have been discusse,
with great zeal and ability on both sides
With the consequences thatmay follow from
r any decision we may make, as well as tn,
wisdom and policy of the laws, we hav,
nothing to do. We cannot enact laws q,
change their results for good or for evilupor
society. Our duty is to declare and enforc,
them as we find them written, and test thei,
validity by the Constitution.
For the proper understanding of the cues
tons involved, it becomes necessary to look
to the situation and condition of the country
at the time the constitutional amendments
and schedule. under which these laws were
passed, were submitted to the people, and
the causes that led to their adoption.
| In 1861, a large portion of the people OF
the State of Tennessee, and other Southern
States Of The Union, attempted by an armed
rebellion to throw off their allegiance to the
| Government of the United States. and to
erect within the territory separate and in
dependent government, and war followed
which continued until 1865. During IFS nro-
gress the Governor, and many of the officers
Of the State, fed, carrying with them the
archives and treasure of the State. Most Of
the courts of Justice were closed The peo-
pie of the State were without an organized
! State Government A dismal anarchy over
spread the land. Rowing bands of banditti
plundered the citizens with impunity. They
were without protection Of law, and there
was no security for life or property. Fear
had seized upon the hearts Of the people.
The land was drenched in blood. and an
archy reigned supreme.
While yet the smoke of battle fingered
around, the loyal people of the State assem-
bled in convention at the capital ofth State
for the purpose Of recognizing the State
Government under the authority of the Gov
eminent Of the United States, and to place
the State in her ancient mornings from
which she had been so violently driven by
the act of a portion of her people, and to
restore the supremacy Of the law, bringing
order out of chaos, and thus secure to the
people peace, safety and happiness. The
convention recognized to the fullest extent
the principle that all power is inherent in
the people, and all free governments are
founded on that authority, and instituted
for their peace, safety and happiness For
the advancement Of these ends, they have
at all times an unalterable and indefeasible
right to alter, reform or abolish the govern
ment in such manner as they may think
proper. These principles in this country
are well recognized political truths, indie
pendent Of any written constitutions OF
laws.
The convention thus assembled proposed
to the people, for their ratification or reiec-
ton, certain amendments to the Constitu-
ton Of the State, with schedule thereto
annexed, all of which were ratified by the
people at the ballot-boX, whereby, upon the
proclamation of Andrew Johnson, then Mil
itary Governor of the State, the authority
Of the President of the United States, the
said amendment and schedule were declared
to have been adopted by the people of the
State and said amendment became a part
Of the Constitution, and the provisions of
said schedule, for all the purposes for which
they were assigned, had all the force of con-
stitutional provisions.
By the 9th section of the schedule it is
lprovided the qualifications Of voters, and
the limitation of the elective franchise may
be determined by the General Assembly
which shall first assemble under the amend
cd Constitution.
By this provision Of the schedule, the
sovereign people conferred upon the Gen
cral Assembly designated, the same absolute,
unlimited and sovereign power to determine
the qualification Of voters and the right to
limit the elective franchise, which the mem
bers possessed in their sovereign capacity.
Under this provision of the schedule, the
acts of juno 5, 1865, and May 3, 1866, de-
termining the qualification Of voters, and
limiting the elective franchise, were passed.
Both these acts impose great restrictions
and limitations on theright of voting, which
did not exist under the Constitution of 1884.
Article 4, Sec. l.
We are, at this advanced term, amidst the
varied and complicated duties that have
been imposed upon us during the session,
unable to do more at present than to an
nounce the result of our decision. The cleo
tive franchise is not an inalienable right or
privilege, but a political right, conferred,
limited or withheld at the pleasure OF the
people acting in their sovereign capacity.
Each State may define it in its own constl-
tuition, or empower its Legislature to do SO,
The right once granted may be taken
away by the exercise of sovereign 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 pans
and penalties, in the sense Of the Constltu@
ton OF the United States Itfollows, II the
Convention of 1865 could under the ratlil-
cation Of the people, declare the qualltlca-
ton of voters and limit the elective fran
chise, it could delegate the power to the
Legislature.
1t might have left the elective franchise
open to the action of all future Legislation,
but 1t chose to limit it to the General AS
sembly which should first assemble undef
the Constitution. and is, therefore, binding
on the people of the State.
The relator was pardoned BY the PresI-
dent Ofthc United States, the effect OF which
was to restore him to the rights and privll-
eyes Of n 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 re-
store him To the exercise Of those rights
Women and minors are citizens yet, by
the Constitution, they are prohibited from
the exercise of political rights. 4th Dey. 20
No one has ever doubted the proposition
that according to the institutions OF this
country, the sovereignty of State exists
{ with the people Of the State and that they
may change, alter abolish OF reform Their
government at pleasure. Luther VS.. Dor
den, Howard. l. This being so, It follows
that they had right to determine who
should exercise the right of suffrage.
We have examined the late cases decided
by the Supreme Court Of the United Safes
, in which the validity Of section Of The
r Constitution of Missouri came underrevlev
T before that court, requiring every attorney