Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-03-25
SUFFRAGE LAW In TENNESSEE.
Deciaion Of state supreme Court.
Suffrage Declared not an Inalion-
ablo-Risht. but Political
Privilege.

1865 and 1866, The decision given Is i
the case Of Ridley vs.. Sherbrsoke. II
virtually settles all other cases before The
court The petitioner was voter undel
the constitution Of 1864, and had sines
exercised all the privileges Of citizen
Of Tennessee. He had taken part with
the southern Confederacy, but had been
pardoned by the President; had ap
piled for certificate Of registration
as a voter under the act Of 1866
but was refused. The petitioner then
applied for and obtained man
ddmus nisi, to compel his regis
tration. The cause came on to be heard
BY the Hon. Henry Cooper, Circuit
Court Judge, who decided that the de.
PENDANT was in error, and not a legal
and constitutional officer of the State,
said officer being created by the body
calling itself the Legislature Of Tennes-
see, when by law said body had ceased
to exist, and therefore the officer created
by them was no officer, and the appoint.
ment of the defendant in error was null
and void. On these grounds Judge
Cooper dismissed the petition, and the
relater appealed TO the Supreme Court.
This tribunal in deciding the case went
into the history of circumstances under
which the Constitutional Convention
was called and argued as follows;
"The convention recognized to the
fullest extent the principles that all
power is inherent in the people, and that
all free governments are founded on that
authority, and instituted for their peace,
safety aud happiness; for the advance
ment Of these ends, they have at all times
the unalterable and indefeasible right to
alter, reform or abolish the governmental
such manner as they may think proper.
These principles in this country are well
recognized es political truths, independ-
ent OF any written constitutions or laws.
The Convention thus assembled proposed
to the people, for their ratification or
rejection, certain amendments to the
constitution of the State, with a SEIZED
ule thereto annexed, all of which were
ratified by the people at the ballot box
Whereby, upon proclamation of Andrew
johnson, then Military Governor of the
State, said amendmentand schedule was
declared to have been adopted by the
people of the State, and said amendment
became part of the constitution; and
the provisions of said schedule, for all
purposes for which they were assigned,
had all the force of constitutional pro.
visions.
By the ninth section of the schedule il
is provided, that the qualifications of
voters and the limitation o. the elective
franchise may be determined by the
General Assembly which shall fret as
semble under the amended constitution.
BY this provision of the schedule the
sovereign people conferred on the Gene.
raj Assembly, and designated the same
absolute, unlimited and sovereign power
to determine the qualifications Of voters
and the right to limit the elective fran
ohise which the members possessed, in
their sovereign capacity.
1.-THE Court further decided that the
elective franchise is not an inafenable
right or privilege, but political right
limited or withheld at the pleasure of the
people acting in their sovereign capac-
ity. Each State may define it in its
own constitution, or empower its Legis-
lature to do so. The RICH. once granted,
it may be taken away by the exercise of
the sovereign power, or forfeited foE
crime under the laws of the State, and if
taken away by the sovereign power of
the State, as BY alteration in its consti-
tuition, no vested right is violated, or
bill of attainder passed, or act Of pains
and penalties, in the sense of the Con-
stitutiou of the United States. 1t fol-
lows, if the Convention Of 1865 could,
under ratification Of the people,
declare the qualification of voters,
and the limits of the elective franchise,
it could delegate power to the Legisla-
ture. 1t might have left the elective
franchise open to the action Of oil future
Legislatures, but il ehose To limit i to
the General Assembly, which should first
assemble under the constitution, and is
therefore binding on the people Of the
State. He (the relatorl was pardoned
by the President, the effect Of which was
ID restore him to the rights and privileges
of a 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.
The Court further says: eve have
examined late gases decided by the SUI
prsme Court Of the United States, in
which the validity of section of the
constitution of Missouri came under re-
view before that court, requiring every
attorney, minister of the Gospel, school
master, trustees of charitable institutions
all to take an oath restrictive in its char
acter before be could exercise the privi
leges of his calling. Thateourt held, %
wen as we can understand fEom the
newspaper reports af the case, that
where citizen has an Office, employ
ment or calling, the State cannot, d.
rectly or indirectly, declare forfeiture
Of the Office or calling pursued by the
citizen as means of living, by the i'm
position, Of an oath which the party can.
not take. The citizen has right to la
bor With his hands or Intellectually.
These are civil rights, and inalienable,
Of which he cannot be deprived by the
people Of the State. But political rights
stand upon very different principle
II is a political privilege or grant that
may be extended or recalled Is the will
Of sovereign power
Butler and Bingham.
An irrepressible conflict seems to have
sprung up between Bingham, Of Ohio,
and Butler, Of Massachusetts,. On