Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-01-14

his opinion, upon the passage Of the
iirst franchise law, in 1865, the Legisla-
ture had exhausted the power conferred
upon them by the amended schedule, and
although he was constrained to abide by
the decision Of the Supreme Court Of this
State. until IL was reversed by the SUI
preme Court Of the United States, he
was Of the opinion that the second fran
chise law was unconstitutional. The
third law, however, and that under which
the election was held, he declares to be
utterly null and void, and not worth
the paper upon which IL was written, and
he was willing 20 declare so from the
bench. The Judge alluded to the other
Legislation by which the Governor was
invested with the power Of appointing
Commissioners Of Registration and OF
DISTINGUISHING whole counties as most
unconstitutional, and comforting greater
than kiugly power upon Brownlowi for
the Queen oe England has no power to
decide who shall vote in an election.
He declared that, in his view, the
whole election was illegal and void, and
the laws in accordance with which it was
conducted were plainly unconstitutional,
but was of opinion that the fact afforded
no grounds for Court of Equity to take
| jurisdiction of the matter. The true and
practical remedy for such attractions of
The liberties Of citizens was in laws ofthe
country. The only liberty worth having
is liberty restrained by law. Even
suppose the defendants were TO take
forcible possession of the Offices, the rem
edy in the law is clear, and could be en-
forced. There was nothing to warrant
the interposition of a Cosrt of Equity.
The Judge admitted that there was a
great deal of force in the argument ad-
vanced by the counsel for the old corpor-
alton, that when private rights were
vested by the formation of public corpor-
ations the Legislature had no right to
interfere with them, although be admitted
the power Of the Legislature to control
municipal elections, but he held that this
question could not possibly come up in
this case.
There was part of the bill, that which
alleged the pecuniary interest of the
plaintiff in the city, and his fear that an
irreparable injury would be done him by
the seizure, by this illegally elected
Board, of the city government; but
the danger was SO remote that even
the long arm of Court of Equity
could not be interposed in his
defense. A Court of Equity could
net interfere when the danger was so re-
mote. The Judge also was of the opinion
that a corporator Of the city must be an
inhabitant of the city. The remedy for
the evils complained of, and the true
way to test the constitutionality OF these
laws, was to allow this illegally elected
set Of officers to 60 forward and be quail
fed, and upon their first official act,
the old Board being legally tie
corporation, would have the right to
sue them in the name of the corporation
or any properly holder whose property
might be taxed, would have q ground of
action against the tax collector. Ia like
manner, any citizens upjustly deprived
of the right to vote might bring an action.
Bat under the view of the case which he
took, the application for an injunction
must be denied.
The illegally elected Board have thus
gained barren victory. They may go
on and be sworn in and take possession
of the offices, but they will find it difficult
to exercise their functions.
The whole course of Tennessee legis-
lation for the past two years will soon be
brought to test, and we can have no
doubt of the result, in view of previous
decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States. We hope that the re-
demption OF Tennessee is not far distant.