Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-08-21
MEMPHIS APPEAL.
ALBERT PIKE & CO.
Vera Atqs1e Honesta deere.
TEST OATHS, AND THE FRANCHISE
LAW OF TEENESSEE.

No freeman, Magma Chsrts said, shsl
be taken, or imprisoned, or dissiezed c
his freehold, or Of his liberties or fire.
customs, ETC., unless by the lawful judg
ment Of his peers, or by the law of tn
land.
On which Lord Coke says: "of hi
liberties or free customes, that is, of sucl
franchises and freedomes and free Gus
tones as belong to them by his free birth
right by the law Of the land
THAT is, to speak it once for ALL, by tn
due course and prooesse Of law"
BY the 9Th amendment to the Consti
tuition of the United States, no man csI
abe deprived of life, liberty or property,
without due process Of Law.
By the Constitution Of Tennessee, III
free man can be "dissiezed Of his free
hold, liberties or privileges, or outlaweC
or exiled, or in any manner destroyed
or deprived of his life, liberty or proper
ty," but by the judgment Of his peers Oh
the law Of the land.
1t has never been doubted, since the
case Of ASh6y Us. White, decided il the
Court of Queens Bench, in the second
year Of Anne, and afterwards reversed
in the House OF Lords, that an action
lies against 8 Sheriff or other officer
holding an election, by person entitled
to vote, and whose vote is refused.
Three Judges - Gould, Powyss and
PoweIl-decided against the right Of the
plaintiff to his action, chiefly on the
ground that the House Of Commons had
the exclusive right to determine whether
the party whose vote was refused, hsd
the right to vote for Member of Bor-
ough. Lord Holt maintained the plain
tiff's right TO his action; and the House
Of Lords sustained his opinion. He said:
sis this little thing, to have the privi-
legs of giving my vote, in the election
of 8 person in whose power my life, es-
tate and liberty lie, Obstructed? q.
Now it is plain that the want Of this
privilege to vote for Parlisment-man
and sure every one that has that great
rivilege has right in it; and if so, Of
necessary consequence he has an action
10 yindicate and maintain that right"
He styled it $50 trRnscendsnt q right,
and said that the freemen OF England
had too considerable an estate in this
right, to hsye it only lodged in body
polite. Modern Reports, As. The case
is also reported In ! SatEeld, IS, where
We learn that, in the House Of Lords, in
error, Trevor, Oh. J., and Price and six
teen Lords eoncurred with the three
Judges of Queen's Bench; and tine rest
of the Judges and fifty Lords with Chief
J 1stice Holt.
The case in the House OF Lords may
be found in the second volume of " The
History and Proceedings Of the House of
Lords" published in 1912, commencing
at page "A. The report of the Commit
tee, which was adopted, said; "THE
PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE hath privil-
eye AND A FRANCHISE, snd the defend
ants have disturbed him in the enjoy
ment thereof, in the most essential part,
which is the right Of voting" And
again: "There is no other provision
made for the plaintiff, who is highly in
jured in his right, but by bringing his
action in the courts Of law, that have
poloer to determine Of mems lives, liber-
ties and properties. If an elector
be cobbler, be is freeman of England,
and has that great privilege belonging to
him, to be represented in Parliament"
a Every Englishmsn is entitled to repair
alton for the injuries done to his rights
and FRANCHISES, in the ordinary and
methods of justice where the
juries who try, and the witnesses who /
give evidence, are to be upon their oaths.
Magma Chdrtd, cap. 20, is very explicit. |
No freeman shall be dissiezed Of his free
hold, or liberties, or free customs, unless
by the lawful judgment Of his peers, or /
by the law Of the land.
The second resolution Of the Lords, in |
giving judgment, declared that the as
yerting that q person having q right to /
give his vote at an election, and being |
lindered 30 10 DO by the officer, who |
,ught to take the same, is without rem
edy forsuch wrong by the ordinary course
IF law, is destructive of THE PROPERTY
If the subject" etc.
At page 126 Of the came volume will be
ound the Humble Representation " of
he Lords to the Queen, upon occasion Of
he commitment to Newgate of five Bur
yesses of Aylesbury, who had brought
separate actions like that Of Ashby,
against the Sheriff. The House of Com
mons declared their bringing their &C.
ions to be in contempt OF its jurisdic-
ion, and In breach Of its privileges:
md the Lords demonstrated on the
round that "the consequences Of such
would prove fatal to the pro-
'erties and liberties Of the people Of
England" They also said: "The right
4 election is legal interest, incident to
he freehold, or founded upon custom, or
be letters patents Of your Esjesty's
oval ancestors, or upon particular acts
( Parliament, and must be tried aud
determined like other legal interests
The Lords said, on this representation.
The point Of law was settled by the
alignment Of that Court, which is allowed
D be the last resort, and this will con-
Inue to be the law, till it be altered by
be legislative authority. The
oint Of law Is judicially settled and
ct the House OF Commons take upon
hem to punish men by imprisonment,
,r endeavoring to have the benefit Of
that is so established for law"
The highest authority In England thus
sttled, in 1904, one hundred and sixty
,ur years ago, that the right OF a free
ian TO vote for members of Parliament
'Gs franchise and privilege, of trans
sndent value, In which the elector had
q interest and estate, and the denial
hereof gave him right of action, as
case Of other legal interests. And SO
he law has ever since been settled, in
.merica Is well as England.
But Mr.. ]. B. Henderson, now cast out {
ON the Radical church because he had ]
me remnant Of 8 conscience, and could
49, H.