Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-09-26
TIE MUNICIPAL ELECTION.
Are the Doris Certificates Legal
An Opinion from the City Attorney.

answer, that beyond all question All lhose
citizens registered under the Doris regis
tration are entitled to vote, not only in
municipal elections, but in all elections
held under the laws of the State, if they
have the other qualifications required by
law in either case, as residence six months
in the city or county, and such like. The
Sth section of the franchise law of Febru-
airy IS, 1867, provides expressly, :" That all
certificates Of registration legally issued by
Commissioners of Registration, by virtue
Of the provisions of the act passed May 8,
1866, shall be deemed good and valid, TO
entitle each person so legally registered to
the privilege of the elective franchise"
The registration here ratified as good and
valid is what we call in this county I" the
Doris registration"
But an act was passed on the 9Th OF
March, 1867, commonly called "the Null
Inns act, (Which, so far as it relates to David
son county, is in the following words: "Be
il further enacted, That the registration in
the county of Davidson, heretofore had,
under the franchise act of Nav Sd, 1866,
be and is hereby declared null and void +;
and no person shall be entitled TO vote by
virtue of any certificate issued under said
registration If this last quoted act were
a valid law, it would no doubt operate to
deprive those citizens registered by Com
missioner Doris of the privilege of voters.
But the section of the act of March 9Th,
above given is clearly unconstitutional and
void, for the following reasons:
lst. 1t was not passed in constitutional
manner. A Senate bill relating to the ex-
emption of certain leasehold estates from
execution, and relating to no other subject,
was, on the Eth of March, taken up in the
House on its third reading. 1t contained
but two sections. 1t had been passed three
times in the Senate and twice in the House.
On lis third reading in the House an
amendment was added, consisting of the
section above quoted and two Others, being
the third, fourth and fifth sections of the
bill! as il finally passed. The third section
is given above; the fourth section assumes
to delegate to the Governor the authority
to extend the provisions of the third sec
ton TO any other county in the State; and
the 9TH section prescribes penalties for the
violation of the two preceding sections
This was equivalent TO an entire new bill
and should have been read once on three
different DAYS in each house. otherwise il
cannot become law. every bill shall be
read once on three different days, and
passed each time in the house where il
originated before transmission to the other
No bill shall become idlg until Il shall b.
read and passed on three different days IN each
house, and be signed by the respective
Speakers" Constitution, art 2, sec. IS
"Bills may originate in either House
but may be amended, altered or rejected
by the other" Constitution, art. 2, sec. H.
Legislative practice under the 18th sec.
ton above quoted may have been subver.
sive, as it certainly has been evasive, Of
the rule laid down in the 18th. But nc
amount of violation or disregard of law
in practice can serve to annul it, or in the
least degree to impair its authority. The
trainers of the constitution, no doubt, I'M
derstood by bill, the same definition
which occurs to the mind of intelli-
gent individuals in general. A bill
should relate and is generally understood
to relate, to one subject; or if it relate tc
more subjects than one, there should be
some connecting circumstance to give tc
all unity of object. But if a bill from its
origin should embrace several subjects and
relate to several subjects, yet if, after its first
reading, no new subject should be intro.
duced, looking to an object not intended in
the original bill, however Objectionable
such legislation may otherwise be, there
would perhaps be no infringement of the
constitutional rule. But the constitutional
provision evidently intends that the sub
ject or subjects embraced in each bill, and
the object or objects to which it looks
should be three times, on three separate
days, placed distinctly before each house, tC
be fully understood and considered and
otherwise that no bill shall become a law
On this subject our Supreme Court says
The intention of this requirement is tc
secure full consideration and mature re-
Election upon every measure before them
and that no bill shall be hastily and in.
considerably passed i
the new matter is not german to that Of
the original bill, At u0uid seem to BE- q ne,l
bill, although it may be called an amend
ment; and if so, should be read three times
instead of once in each house Ferguson
as. Miners and NJ. Bank. 3 Sneed, 609.
The matter Of this amendment, relative
to the elective franchise and the registra.
ton in Davidson and other counties, is
clearly equivalent TO a new bill, and was
so intended. Indeed, if laws of such impor-
lance as the one in question, may thus be
Struggled through the Legislature by a
single reading in each house, it is clear the
constitutional restriction ia rendered wholly
nugstory.
Secondly The third section quoted above
is clearly in the nature, and intended to
operate with the force, of judicial decision.
The members OF the Legislature had been,
we may suppose, informed that frauds and
Irregularities had INTERVIEWED" in the
registration of the county Of Davidson
and without notice to the people whose in
terests were to be affected, who were to
be deprived of privilege heretofore guar
anteed TO them by law, the Legislature
proceeds to solemnly declare" the regis
tration void, destroying at one blow the
rights Of the guilty (if any and the limo
cent. Such would be a void decision il
made by competent judicial authority. But
the Legislature can perform no judicial
function, except in regard to its own mem
bers, and in matters of impeachment and
contempts. The constitution and authorities
are too clear on this subject 10 require cita-
ton. Every lawyer Is familiar with them.
Thirdly, and chiefly, the act in question
is unconstitutional and void, because it is
partial in its nature, and not the law of the
land. The eighth section of the bill OF
rights declares that "No free man shall be
taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his
freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed,
or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or
deprived of his life, liberty, or property,
but by the 5udqment Of he peers on The
lasg Of The land. The proyiso OF
the franchise act in its eighth section
above quoted, calls the elective fran
chise a privilege, and provides that all re-
gistered under the registration OF 1866 shall
be entitled to that privilege. The first
section of the act calls it a priUIegs. The
Supreme Court in its decision at the last
winter term says it is a priUitege-"d politi-
cal privilege" The article of the constitu-
ton, above quoted, declares that no free
man shall be disseized "of his Liberties or
privileges but by the judgment of his peers
or the Law of the land If the law had
been constitutionally enacted, and had
provided that no citizen of the entire State
should be entitled to vote BY virtue of re-
gistration under the act Of MAY Sd, 1866,
it might be said that the citizens so de-
prived of a privilege heretofore held and
I f. -.