Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1868-11-29
THE FRANCHISE.
THE FFEUEIONALITY Of THE
sLECrIyE FRANCHISE law"
nr " IL HUMPHREYS
BY W. H. HUMPHREYS.

have been SanCllOHSu- Dy ln0 consul
tuted authorities and should be obeyed
The case of Ridley VS. Sherbrook, in
which their validity has been affirmed by
the Supreme Court of the State, has
been taken to the Supreme Court Of the
United States on the ground that they
violated the provisions of the Oonstitu-
ton of the United States. The ques-
ton is therefore an open, pending ques-
ton, and the subject of legitimate dis
cusSion.
In substance and effect these ordi-
nances declare that no citizen of the
State who has borne arms against the
United States voluntarily g in the late
rebellion" or given encouragement,
aid, comfort, or counsel to the same, or
who has accepted or sought office under
the late Confederate States or under any
insurrectionary State with intent to aid
said rebellion, or who has voluntarily
supported any government hostile to the
United States by money, property, in
fluence, persuasion, or in any manner
whatever, shall have the right to vote
in any election of public officers. These
ordinances provide for a registration Of
all the voters of the State they author
ize the Governor to appoint Registrar
for each county empowered to give a
certificate to each applicant, declaring
the right, of the person therein named to
vote they declare that no person shall
be entitled to vote who does not obtain
such certificate, and that the Registrar
shall not issue such certificate to any
person who does not file an affidavit with
the Registrar denying that he has ever
committed the political offenseS or done
the acts specified in the ordinances, and
who does not also obtain and file with
the Registrar the affidaVits of two IN
conditional Union men," that they verify
believe the applicant has not been guilty
Of the disqualification " set forth in these
ordinances they also provide that the
Registrar shall hear testimony against
the right of the applicant and award a
certificate or reject the application ac-
cording to the weight of the testimony.
These acts further provide that when
it shall be made to.appear that fraud or
irregularity has interviewed in the regis
tration of voters in any county, the Gov
ernor may set aside the registration.
These ordinances, though by their
terms they may be construed to en-
brace the whole past life of the appli
cant, yet specifically they embrace Of
lenses committed or acts done in 1861,
1862, 1868 and 1864 in 1.-THE late rebel
hon." As they involve the rights Of
perhaps more than one hundred thousand
citizens Of the State, and the very exist
ence Of elective government, they de-
serve the earnest and dispassionate con-
sideration of every person who values
chartered rights and elective govern
ment.
The Constitution and laws of the State
Of Tennessee, prior to the late war, had
declared the causes for which the citi-
zens Of the State could be deprived Of the
right of suffrage, and had established the
mode Of proceeding by which it could be
done. The Constitution declares that no
freeman should be taken or imprisoned
or disseized of his freehold, liberties OF
privileges, or eXiled or outlawed, or in
any manner destroyed or deprived Of
life, liberty or property, but by the judg-
Rent Of his peers or the law Of the land.
This provision, extracted from the great
English charter, is declared by an able
commentator on the Constitution of tho
United States, to be no more than an
application OF the provision Of the Con-
stitution of the United States, which de-
clares that no man shall be deprived Of
life, liberty or property but by the due
process of law, that IS, by the judgment
of court of competent jurisdiction act
ing under pre-existing law and according
to the established forms of the Constitu-
ton. The Constitution provides, also,
that the Legislature may pass laws to
deprive persons convicted Of infamous
crimes of the right of suffrage. Under
this provision of the Constitution the Lee
gislature did enact that persons guilty of
murder, larceny, perjury, arson, burglary,
forgery, and of certain other specified
felonieS, should, on due conviction there
Of be deprived Of the right to vote or to
give evidence. 1t has been long estab-
lished in England and in the United
States that no other evidence can be in
troduced to exclude person from giving
evidence on the ground Of the commits
sion of a specific crime, than the record
of his conviction Of such crime. The
court cannot arrest the progress Of the
trial on hand for the purpose of trying
the witness of crime which excluded
him, and which was committed perhaps
in another county. The court cannot ar
rest trial for larceny to try the witness
on charge of perjury, without giving
the witness the benefit of any constitu-
tionsl forms and safeguards. 1t is upon
the same ground that no voter can be ex-
cluded on the ground that he has been
guilty of one of the felonies enumerated
in the Code, without the production Of
the record of his conviction. If he could
be excluded without the production Of
the record Of his conviction, the register
Of voters, or the ministerial officer who
holds the election, might be required to
try the citizen claiming the right to vote,
on the charge ofmurder, perjury, larceny,
or other felonies specified in the statute,
without the constitutional safeguards pro.
vided in criminal proceedings. The re-
cord Of the conviction of the voter of any
of the enumerated felonies, is conclusive
that he has been lawfully deprived of the
right to vote. There can be no other
lawful evidence OF the deprivation of the
right to vote on the ground Of commission
of crime, than the sentence of q court Of
competent jurisdiction, organized under
the Constitution, and any exclusion
founded on crime without tho pro,
duction OF tho record Of conviction j:
without the authority Of law, and entities
the rejected voter to damages against the
officer who excludes him.
A citizen who is deprived Of the right
to vote by the conviction and sentence o
q constitutional court acting under pre-
existing law, is deprived of his right "by
due process of law" 'by the law Of tn
land" in the constitutional sense of thu
terms, and can never vote unless he b.
lawfully restored.
This forfeiture of constitutional rights
this disability, this disqualification, thi
punishment, is inflicted on persons duly
convicted as before stated of certain
enumerated felOnies, but the statute doe
not embrace all felonies or any INSIDE
meanor. 1t does not embrace treason @
seditious libels, or seditious speeches.
does not embrace any of the pOlitica
offeuses- or acts required to be denied
and disproved by these elective fran
chiSe acts" There was no statute Of tn
State of Tennessee in force in the year
1861, 1862, 1868, 1864, which inflicted
forfeiture of the right to vote as punish
meut for any Of the ofenses set forth i
the acts of 1861, or as a punishmeu