Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-02-17

lew days and, as among the Radicals Of
that body, there are several gentlemen
who can hay claim to a higher grade Of
capacity than the average Of their party
in the Honse, we take the liberty Of sug-
costing a question for their consideration,
to wit:
Did the Convention of january 1865,
which adopted the schedule Of amend
ments under which the present Legisla-
ture assumes the power to regulate the
franchise privilege in this State, and fix
it irrepealably as constitutional pro-
vision, have the power to delegate this
authority to an inferior body, and did
it do so ?
The specific business Of body called
for the purpose for which that Convention
assembled, was to propose such amend
ments to the constitution as, in its judg-
ment might seem expedient The body
in question was elected by the people to
perform that duty At least, by common
consent, it has been agreed that, though
assembled informally, and without due
election, its acts win be received as those
of a constitutional convention. Assum-
ing it to have been such, It had no power
to deyolye the most important question
that could engage its attention upon
Legislature-an inferior body in authori
ty and dignity If it had the attributes
claimed and exercised, the duty, ifitsaw fit
to alter the elective basis, could not be
pretermitted, and conferred on any other
body To do 50, was violatiye of prece
dent and principle If it had powers, it
could not diyest itself Of them, and dele
gate them to another 1t surely was not
one Of its powers to confer upon the
body known in the State as the Trainer
Of laws susceptible of repeal and altera-
tion, the power to do its exclusive duty,
and make an irrepealable law. A consti-
tutional convention exercises the sover-
eign power The most important func-
ton of this sovereignty is the determine
ton of the qualifications Of electors. 1t
is the only body in any Of the States
that has ever exercised this function,
and is the only one competent The
proceeding was, therefore, an anomalous
one, and it may well be questioned
whether, sovereign as that body assumed
to be, it had the power to part with any
portion Of its sovereignty. lift had been
regularly elected in the form prescribed,
by the people, it would have been ex-
pected to propose for their ratification
whatever alterations it might adopt in
regard to a matter so fundamental as
electoral qualifications. The transfer of
the determination of this vital question
to any other body, would not have been
contemplated by the people who con-
lerred the authority to fix it upon
the convention alone They would justly |
have looked to it to regulate the franchise |
qualification. Then, if the convention of |
1865 was such body, and is to be so |
held, it had no power to authorize the
first Legislature that might assemble
or any subsequent one, to fix
the qualifications of electors In so do
ing it gave authority to that body to re
peal existing clauses of the constitution.
1t reversed the order and grade of
and placed the Legislature,
the creature of the constitution, above the
that made it Itplaced in its
hands, too, unlimited power over the most
delicate and important rightof the citizen.
Ii is clear and admitted principle that
every act under a delegated power, con
trary to the tenor of the commission under
which it is exercised, is void This act
of the convention of 1865 was not in ac-
cordanee with the commission it bore
from the people, and was therefore un-
if the 9th section of the sche-
dule is to be construed as giving power to
the present Legislature to repeal the
first section of the fourth article of
the constitution Fer, it would be
saying in effect, that the people called
a convention to remodel the constitution,
and submit their proposed amendments
10 them for sanction but, that the most
important feature Of amendment was left
by it, and delegated to a body |
whose determination would be final, and
whose action could not he submitted
% them, as other amendments to the con
ititutiOn were, for ratification and rejec-
ion. Ii is for these reasons that we hold
hat the trainers Of the schedule did not
the cOnferment Of the vast
,ower being welded by the Legislature
yer this subject Nor is it a sufficient
nswer to these objections, to say that the
eople ratified the ninth section, and
hereby sanctioned this mode Of proceed
o. The assent OF the people to that
lause is rather an argument that it was {
ct construed at the time, to be the intent
the section to confer this unlimited con {
-ol over the suffrage question. 1t is
eyond all belief that the people would !
ave parted with their sovereign right to !
ass upon the great question of the fran
hise privilege
If this view be rejected, then the peo- t
Ie Of Tennessee were cozened in 1865 {
Ito surrendering a right they have i,
Itherto held sacred, and one that they
lnnot permit themselves to be dives ted a
+, without endangering all their rights. n
| a
HE STATUS OF RECONSTRUCTION :
IN CONGRESS.
The present status the question OF 4
,uthern restoration in Congress, may be 4
.iedy stated thus a
The bin presented by Mr.. Stevens, soon 4
ter the holidays, to establish military D
=