Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-23
SUFEB AGE.
Can 81 be Taken Away Grem
Eh-se who have slmce EZ-
. cissd Et7
e hat Wendell FhisiIRs Has so
say About Il.

say ABOUT Els
From the Chicago Republican,
A very novel, Interesting and iErDor.
tauJ question has been bToDght before
the courts If New York, involving thG
rights Of outrage, aud IL is intended tC
carry the case up to the highestAppells-
tive jurisdiction in tb- United States i0l
decision. The issue is whether s Staie
can, usder the Federal Constitution, i'm
pose restrictions CT Limitations on the ex-
erclss Of the elective franchise by one
class OF its citizens different from the re-
stficioDs or Limitations imposed on 9TH
eTs, and. whether the ballot, once granted,
can bs Withdrawn. A brief resHBIs OF
the points made pro and con, with 3
statement Cf the origin of the suit, is
given by tia New York Tribune thus:
James II. DsTDeA, coloTed man,
applied to the IDspeetors OF Registry Of
the Second District Of the Eighteenth
WsrU, on the G.h OF November, for regis
try with visW to voting, AID was re-
fused. He, TO test the csse, procured an
alternative nnndsnus directed 20 the
Inspectors. By their return 70 the Cert
it appeared that they had asked OF ifis
under oath whether, during the II
yeET, he hsd held freehold Of $3.50, saIf
thst ne had answered ne not, and
was thus excluded by the Constitution.
The Tslator in the first instance trsvsTsed
the return, and the case went on 70 the
Circuit Calendar, but ultimately the
counsel Withdrew the traverse and de.
INJURED, thus bringing Up ths slmple IS
sue af law whether man OF cOicr "
could vote, Notwithstanding his want Of
the reqEisitss prescribed in second para
graph Of SectiOa l OF Article II OF the
Constitution OF 1915. mr. Gilbert, his
counsel, has Ia part presented 8 very
elaborate opinion DsiOrs JG3ge IngTa-
ham at Special Term. The gist Of his
argument, as so far given, is that Uuder
the original Constitution Of l777, the
negro, equally with the white, was vested
with the right Of suffrage. tFst this
right OF suffrage Is q valuable personal
frsucbise; that Is wss decided IN the
Dzrtm nth College Cass that such fran
chise UCCa granted pRrto0E of the nstUrs
Of contracts, and we're under ihs prntec
zion of lhs Constitution Of the United
5tstss; and that q law OF any State,
whether in form Of a statu q or cOrEti-
IA ion, in pairing such rights, vas void.
That The sections ui the Constitutions o.
1873 and 1916, which sought 20 deprive
men Of color Of the right Of suErsge be-
fGTe possessed by them, Wss void. Judge
lugrabam reminded counsel that the
statute Of 1888, changing eDtsiied estates
to estates ia Zee, had been hald not uu-
constitutional, and the provisions Of the
OF 1873 and 1876, GepTivinE
persons Of, and even excluding classes Of
persons from oldce, had teal beid con-
BE suggested that Nj. Gil
q - 49, a a. -H.1
msut, should submit bis brie7. Mr.. Cad (
Eailsder, VINO spPeaTsd for the respond 4
sBts, said as they understood the Case /
vas to be- tskea up as 8 test case 10 the I
court Of last resort, they should submit
10 brief, but he wss willing 10 submit it 4
simply On The papers. After some little
uCther discussion, the csss was sd-
OuTned 10 Mondsy next"
The principles involved in the f0rego- 4
rg case lie at the very foundation Of 4
We have not 81 hand the 1
iscislon- re sterreJ 30, but Dsniel Webster, 4
7hO sp0ke on the winning side, being 4
me OF the counsel for Dartmouth Col (
eye, seems to support the position taken. /
He said
"It c1pnot be necessary to say much 1
2 rsfut&tiou OF the idea t1at there can
lct be- g legal Interest OF ownership in I
.nything which does not yield E pecuni- /
~ profit; Ss IL the law regarded no /
lights but tha rights q m0Gey sud OF /
'isihia, tangible properly o. what IA.
ure are all TishtS OF suirs &c? No eiec- /
or has = particular pe5sJGal interest; Z
,ut sScE has = legal right, 10 be exeT-
lssG at MS own discretion, and iC cannot
,s taken away from him, The exercise
4 this right direct Y aaa very materially
fleets the public; musk more 80 than
he exercises % the privileges OF tFus-
ea Of THIS College Cons5 qVenCes OF The
tm0st magnitude may Sometimes de-
end ora the ex r5-ss Uf the right Of suf-
rage by one or 4 few electors. Nobody
7as ever yet heard 10 contend, however,
hst on that account the public might
4se away the right or impsir il. This
lo.ion appears 10 be borrOWsd from no
elseg source than the repuGiated doc
line OF the thrse Judges IN the Ayies.
uFy 6sse ASHLEY IS. White, Lord
.4ymoDd, s35). That was en action
gsinst q returning officer for refusing
ne plaintiffs vote, in the election OF
lember Of Parliament. Three Of tbs
u5ges OF The Kings Beach held that
be action could not be ms!ntained, be-
zu-e, among othsr objections, is Wss
ot any MISTER Of psohE, either IN pre-
NH or in fUtIgo.' II would not enrich
ls plsiutff !is present., nOr would IJ tl
ltlITO 90 e. l. % ueirs or answer 90 psy
is isbts. Bu Lord Holt aud the House
( Lords were Of another opinion. The
OF the three Judges was re
ersed, and the doctrine they held haY-
~ been exploded flr 3 century, seems
aw for the fret time 10 De revived
j. another psrt Of his argument, Dan ,
4 Webster said: as hrs Slresdy been
ecided In this Court that grant is 8
1nlT2c5 within the n sniug Of this pro- ,
ision 10. =. Constitution, art. !, sec. lOl
nd gha. 8 grant ty State IS also q cone
-aet, 81 much As the grant o! an Indi-
idusln TIE question which has been
r0ught before the New York C urts is,
lgref0Te, virtually whsther suffrage Is 8 .
1nlract between the State and It's citi-
sDs, within the necessary import Of tins
-Eanic Law Of the Union. II IL Ia, toe ,
.sC;iVe franchise is vested right, which
snnOt bs iaEen away so long 81 the
0ier adheTes 10 his share OF the con-
act, which may be tsEsr as obedience /
the laws. This view OF the ballot is
,ntrsdici6yy OF that which has gene I
lily prevailed, aua which has been uuf {
srsalIy pFaCticed on il tAss country,
The issue, however, is very csusTent {
ON what IL would have been one y5aT
%. Since then the f0Urteenth amend ,
ent has been adopted. Therein Is Is /
'Ovided that
" When the eright 20 vote at any cleo Z
m fgr The chOics OF Electors foE Presi- !
mt end e-President Of the United
.ates. RepFa utetives in Congress, the I
,ecutive aud Judicial OH sers Of STATE,
the members II the Lsgislsture there J
Is denied 10 any Of the male inhsbit' !
,ts Of such State, bsiTg twenty one '
ears Of age aud citizens Of the U0ited |
!atea, OF IN any way sbri5g &, eXcspt |
7 participation Ia rebellion Cd ClheF |
.ine, the b&sis OF representation therein
isll be reduced IN proportion which the |
uWber OF such mRi9 eilisens shall bear {
, the whole number OF male citizens {
yesTs Of sgs IL such States"
The foregoing amendment empowers = !
tate 70 6isfrauchise any portion OF class
its citizens Ct discretion, but sfnXes 8 /
snsliy for such action. It seema, more {
yer, to speak ia , retroactive manner,
nd 10 recognizes IS valid al existing dis
II 50, the provisions Of
"a New York Constitution were ac-
povIedgeG IS binding when the pisiG-
Il. Dsrnell. applied for registry. Should
ais view be taken by the Supreme Court
/ the United S.ates, Of course the plea :
.issd ia his behalf must fall 10 the I
round.
We have confined ourselves TO simple ,
stement OF he puiuts ia this interest,"
- and important case The arguments
sfore ;he courts Of Inferior resort VIII :
49, -. ....,1 = sfsoh "a ara raFnfsffe IN