Clarksville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1865-1867, 1867-03-29

ed for their peace, safety and happiness for
the advancement Of these ends they have at
all times an unutterable and indefeasibe
right to alter, reform or abolish the gov
ernment in such MANNER as they may think
proper. These principles in this coun-
try are well recognized political truths,
independent of any written constitutions or
laws.
The convention then assembled, proposed,
to the people for their ratification or rejec-
tion certain amendments to the constitution
of the State, with aschedule thereto annexed,
all Of which was ratified by the people at the
ballot box, whereby, upon the proclamation
of Andrew johnson, the Military Governor
of the State under the authority of the Pres
idcnt of the United States, the said amend
ments and schedule were declared to have
been adopted by the people of the State, and
said amendment became part of the con-
stitution and the provisions of said sched-
ule; for all the purposes for which they were
assigned had all the force Of constitutional
provisions.
By the 9th section of the schedule 1t Is
provided that the qualifications of voters and
the limitation Of the elective franchise may
be determined by the General Assembly
which shall hrst assemble under the amended
constitution.
BY this provision Of the schedule the SOW
ereign people conferred upon the General
Assembly designated the same absolute, un-
limited and sovereign power to determine the
qualification Of voters, the right to limit the
elective franchise, which the members pos
sessed in their sovereign capacity. Under
this provision OF the schedule the acts OF
June D, 1865, and May 3, 1866, determining
the qualification OF voters and limiting the
elective franchise were passed.
Both these acts imposed great restrictions
and limitations on the right OF voting which
did not exist under the constitution OF 1884,
art a, sec, i, and we are at this advanced
period OF the term, amidst the varied and
complicated duties that have been imposed
upon Us during the session, unable 70 do
more at present than to announce the result
of our decision.
The elective franchise is not an inaliena-
BILE right or privilege but a political right
conferred, limited or withheld, at the pleas
ure OF the people acting in their sovereign
capacity. Each State may define in its own
constitution, or empower its Legislature to
do so.
The right once granted, was not 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.power is violated or bill OF
attainder passed, or act of pains and penlaties
in the sense OF the constitution of the United
States. 1t follows If the convention of 1865
could under the ratification of the people de-
clare the qualification Of voters and limit the
elective franchise, it could delegate the pow
er to the Legislature. 1t might have left
the elective franchise upon the action of all
future legislation, but it chose to limit it 70
the General Assembly which should first as.
semble under the amended constitution
The power over the subject was delegated To
a special General Assembly, and its exercise
| limited to the time that body had under the
constitution its legal existence, and it>could
therefore be exercised at any time within
that period. The passage of the act OF 1866
did not, therefore, exhaust the power delegat.
ed, but the Legislature could perfect, alter
modify or repeal it st any time within tn,
period tor which that body, as General As
sembly, was elected. Upon the passage o
the act Of 1865 there was an express powe
reserved to change, alter or amend the law
1t follows from these propositions the &C
of the Legislature, passed May Sd, 1866, wa
warranted by the 9th section OF the sched
ule to the amended constitution, and i
therefore binding upon the people OF the
State.
The relator was pardoned by the Presi
dent OF the United States-the effect o
which was to restore him to the rights ant
privileges OF citizen OF the. United States
but it did not have the effect, without thu
assent Of the State where the sovereign pow
er had excluded him from political rights to
restore him to the exercise of those rights.
To be citizen of State 1t does not fol
low he is entitled to the exercise of politica
rights. Women and minors are citizens, yet
by the constitution, they are prohibited frou
the exercise OF political rights-4th Dew. 20
No one has ever doubted the proposition tina
according to the institutions Of this countr.
sovereignty Of a State exists with the peo
pie of the State, and that they may change
alter or abolish, or reform their governmen
at pleasure. Luther VS.. Borden-T. How
ard, q. This being 80, it follows that the.
had right to determine who should exercis
the rights Of suffrage.
| We have examined the late csses decides
by the Supreme Court Of the United State
In which the validity of a section of the con
stitution of the State Of Missouri require
every attorney, minister of the gospel. school
master, trustees of charitable institutions
etc., etc., to take an oath, restrictive in il
character, before he could exercise the priv
ilege of his calling The court held as vel
as we can understand from the newspape
report Of the ease, that where citizen ha
an Office, employment or calling, State Gu
not directly or indirectly declare forfeitur