The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1868-07-11
10 the Amnestied.

The Amnesty Proclamation of President
johnson has doubtless caused many persons
TO think that, although disfranehised by the
laws Of the State, they now can claim the
privilege of voting This is an erroneous
idea, as viii be seen by a perusal of the fol-
lowing article, which we clip from the edi-
torial columns Of the AppeaL The author
Of the article is one of the best lawyers in
the South, and gentleman Of great re-
nown:
CAN ONE AsIxEsuED VOTE FOR ELECTORS.
Each State casts its own. separate vote for
President, by the number of Electors TO
which 1t is entitled, these being appointed
in such manner as the legislature may di-
rect 1t IS not even necessary that these
should he elected blythe people. Their
vote is the vote of the State, however they
are Appointed; aud nonethe less so because
the vote of each State is equal to the num-
Der of its Senator's and RepreseL tatives in
Congress.
The Electors being agents-of the State to-
casth vote, those Of the citizens only can
vote for them, who are qualified voters for
other Eases, by the laws Of the State It is
clear that none but citizens of the State can
vote for them. a. citizen of Virginia can
vote My in Virginia. lf be happen to be
in Ollie, he cannot vote at all for President
aud Y cesPresident. A citizen of the
United States who Is not a citizen Of any
State, cannot vote for Electors anywhere
If a State can disfranchise part of her
citizens, BY requiring a test-oath which they
cannot take, they can no more vote fer
Electors than for members Of Congress or
of the Legislature 1t is quite true that
pardon restores the competency of the party,
and makes the ehence to be as ifit bad never
been cofnmi5ted. The St1te has no riqht
afterwards to disfranchise him for that OF
fence, or to continue the Acknowledgement
before existing. But if it chooses to con-
tinue such an outrage, and the courts sus-
tain as valid the law which diSquaihes a
man to vote, when he has not been convicted
of the offence, by putting ham to the rack, as
It were, by demanding Of him an oath, the
refusal to take which is, and Is to operate as,
an admission Of guilt, there is no remedy
Thatis precisely what che Supreme Court
of Tennessee did, IN respect OF the Franz
chise law 1T held that every State had q
right, BY It's Legislature to determine who
among its citizens should exercise the
elective franchise That was true; but the
Court evaded the real question. Nodoubta
man may be disfranehised Tor treason COM
mitted; but he cannot be SO unlesssfls guilt
is legally estaDiished; and that can onlysk
done By trial aud eonyietiOa, Ia due course
of law The question was as to the mode Of
proof necessary and that mode only is law-
ful and sufficient.
The Court also decided that pardon did
not deprive the Legislature Of the power Of
disffanchising fer the offence That was
still grosser error, for the reason, which 10
one can deny, that the pardon obliterates the
offence with all its consequences. 10 wes
committed against the United States. If
hey pardon il, no state can punish it Bnt
still it-c0ntinues to he true that when e 9
highest court Of a State has thus decided,
there IS absolutely no remedy whatever.
We do not see any reason TO doubt thab
no man can vote for electors who eannct
/ vote gt other elections and that ia Eenues
see the acknowledgements is absolute