Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1868-09-02
The Suffrage Law.

The Missouri rebels like their brothers in Tenues-
see aud Ike an other criminals who have ever felt
The halter draw, have very catering opinion Of
laws which exclude disoyal persons from the ballot
box. They regard treason a ven,d odense mere
pecoadillo, for the commission Of which to exclude
man from TIE ballot box is unhesrd Of tyranny
They think that citizens Of the United States should
be allowed TO rebel al pleasure 60 destroy tie prop
erty Of the government, butcher their fellow citi-
zens, cripple the national commerce, plunge the
country into debt, and then, after getting whipped
10 como back aud vote without one word of ques-
ton And these fellows who are SO eager TO vote
great champions Of constitutional law, yet they
have reverence for the decisions Of the courts
By constitutional law they mean their olo,s private
UieUs Of tie constitution. Rebel lawyers in Missouri
and Tennessee have neither the good sense nor the
loyalty 90 submit to authoritative settlement Of
question Of constitutional law The lEsssnri
Democrat 10 an able discussion If this qrsastion,
says
Democrats deny 1t on the ground thEt such exclu-
sion is punishment, and if a punishment, is &c post
acto and therefore void But tins s the opinion Of
individual other individuals, who think different
", have Just AS much right as Democrats TO their
opinion. Neither Radical nor Democrat has the
right 10 set up his opinion against the law RS long
as it stands unrepealed. Both are bound TO obey
and enforce tho law according to IFS Interpretation
by judicial tribunals The Supreme Court Of the
United States has not yet touched the question
whether exclusion from suffrage is in this case a
punishment and has therefore given no decision
which affects tho validity of the exclusion. Mean
while, the Missouri Supreme Court, in decision
blair vs. Ridgey) already quoted 10 full, has de-
clared that the exclusion from suffrage is not pun
ishment but qualification. This doctrine is not
without support in the action of other courts the
Supreme Courts Of Maryland and Tennessee have
decided cases upon the very same principle Thus,
in Anderson vs.. Baker, % Maryland Reports, 5Sl,
it is held @E
An exclusion of participants in the rebellion
from the right 10 vote by amendment of the State
Constitution, is not post fgcto law within the
meaning of the Constitution Of the United States,
It's object IS not pitaisheS bat regulation of the
suffrage The latter power was intended 20 be left
to the States, as is shown by Art and Cl l Of
Tho Constitution. AS against The sovereign the cit
izen has no iaalienable right 10 privilege confer
red on him by that power for State purposes"
So much for the Maryland decision, and it will
be perceived that II covers every point raised against
the Missouri exclusion But the Tennessee case is
still more emphatic In the case of Ridley vs..
Sherbro0k, Caldwells Tennessee Reports, il is
decided that the test oath cases Wallace are cases
of civil rights, while
1.-THE right TO vote is a political right, and may
DC taken away Dy tne peOpl6 o. pbabe ~ bHoli oOf
ereign capacity without any violation Of the Con-
stitution Of the United States When one who has
committed certain oienses against the United States
is forbidden to vote by the State Constitution, his
pardon 6y the President Of the United States 0lt not
restore hin 90 the franchise"
Thus the highest judicial tribunals Of three States
Missouri, Maryland and Tennessee, have decided
that the exclusion from suffrage is not uneonstitu-
tional that it is not &c post facto punishment be-
cause it is n5t punishment al all and that there
fore pardon by the President which can only relieve
from punishment but cannot affect the power OF q
State 10 regulate the suffrage, does not have any
bearing upon the qualification or Disqualification OF
any man These three decisions all the same way
and all covering the same principles in the absence
of any decision by the United States Supreme
/ Court, must be regarded as conclusive upon the
/ question.
But, whether sustained by any other judicial au-
tboritv or not the decision of the Supreme Court Of
this State, until reversed by formal action O The
United States Court Is binding upon every citia9 o
Missouri Ii is the tribunal to which we are bound
II q submit an our differences Of opinion tc the
law of this State and It's decisions the law hieh
/ we are sll sworn 10 obey and uphold. Therep ore
every awabidinE citizen must accept the evolution
/ Of rebels and rebel syinpathizerB As constitutional
and binding.
/ Our Tennessee rebels, our Ewings aud Colyar'
90 about the State telling unlettered, ignorant PEG
pie that The decision Of Che Supreme Court on th'
Franchise question Is not binding, and advising
them 70 trample upon the law. Such foresworE
traitors ought 20 be hung sent 70 the PenitsntaEy