Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-07-12
TIE FRANCHISE ACTs AND THE
o. essa SUPREME COURT tE
From the BrovngviIIe Bee, july 10

construed and carried out in the name
1 and spirit Contemplated by lis scurfilOr
authors-nohe bat those utterly devoid {
respectahiliiy, or conscience, or of both
1 could have obtained certificate of regi,
frstion, unless the same was done unde
the exceptional clauses contained ia sal
act. Bat strange and wonderful to say, M
der the sHpulatiOns Of lhis act, gentle
man, although he might be unable to vote
nevertheless was eligible to office, til
necessary oath being. prospective Iathe
than retroactive in its fnaturt
This palpable oversight, in not incor
porating prohibitory clause in thi
respect, together With other paragraphs
sections, etc, needing .emendation, enIarg
ment, or retrenchment, we're remedied ant
reconstructed By the passage OF what i
generally knoRn as The second franchise
act, of dale May Sd, 1866. The provision
of this acl were deemed and held Ia lieu o
the first act, which utterly. debars ali bu
scailaWags aud carpet baggers, or those whc
have the fear Of God but little before their
eyes, forever from holding any office, either
Of trust, honor or emolumsnt. This ac
was passed at the second session of this so
called General Assembly, heidi in Nashville
on the ID day of October, 1865. and VIC
boldly affirm and assert, without fear Of
successful contradiction, that there is not a
lawyer in the State Of Tenhessee, from the
Judges on the SnpremeE bench down to tie
Feriest tEros in tbesla law, who have not al
ready, or who W0nld not upon the slightest
Investigation of the subject unhesitatiRgly
declare the whole Of this atrOcious and
Billainous ukase, from beginning to end, to
be unconstitutional, imperative, null and
void. hSuCh was the universal opinion Of
all the lawyers attending on the Supreme
Cont, at this place, during the term inst
e There have been several adiudieafions
at Bisi priaES upon points involved in It's
operation, and brought mp by appeal to the
Supreme Court. The case of Staten u.s. the
State, tried before Judge Rodgers, involved
hequessi0n whether the Governor of Ten
nessee has the power 20 set aside registfa-
tons duly made under the various regis
tratioh acts, and whether the Legislature
had the power, under the Constitution, to
confer such authority upon the Governor
which is assumed 10 have been done BY act
of February 18th, 1868. His Honor, the
Circuit Judge, held that said act was M
constitutional, aud proclamaiions. setting
aside registrations we're void. -.
In the case of Summers Vs, Crawford ft
al, from Weakly eountys the plaintiff,
Summers, had obtained a certifiesie of
qualification to vote under the. fret fran
chise act Of June 5th, 1865. Atan election
held subsequent TO the passage of the
second franchise act. he offered to vote,
his certificate Of registration,
bat WasdisalloWed by the judges, " heFenpon
he institnted suit against them for so ruling.
He proved that he had lived in the county for
twenty years, had never been convicted of
any crime or misdemeanor, aud had always
been an unconditional Union man.. The
questions presented in this case we're,
whether the fest franchise act did not be-
come a part Of the Constitution of the
Stale when it was promulgated, and il No,
whether the Legislature eonld alter or
amend the Constitution; and whether III
did not become a Law 10 the Legislature,
and above their control as soon as they had
executed The trust delegated TO them by the.
by the PRONUNCIATION of the
same, and their immediate adiournment.
There was also case from Memphis, iu-
golying similar questions, with additional
Dnes, and to save time and labor, il was
agreed by counsel, with the permission of q.
he court that all of them should be- con-
lolidated and heard together. When first
reached on the docket they were continued
i the instance of the court, because of the
ibsence of Judge Harrison. The counsel
Engaged entered no objection. b -4usrs1g I
Judge Harrison finally assumed his seat
IN the bench. Counsel waited patiently, /
1ut no intimaiion came that the court were
.eady to take up these cases, whereupon
hey inquired of the court when it would
lest suit their convenience to hear these
iauses, and receiving no satisfactory an
IweT, began to suspect that something was
grong, and, with due Difference, urged upon
be court that, owing to the magnitude of |
be questions involved, aud the great iu-
erest5 of the people which, at this conjunc- |
ere, were at stake, that much depended |
pom action being had at this term of the
eurt--that these causes should, by all |
aeans, be heard, and the vexed questions |
{ franchise and registration be finally set
led IN the proper and legitimate way. But /
be court vas unreleniing, and following |
be track marked out for them By their /
Iigher and more illustrious associates in
be administration of justice-the Supreme |
>ourt of the United States-in their dis
'ossl of the McCardle case-knowingly |
I'D WilIfully shirked the responsibility of |
Howing a hearing 10 be had on these
ases, contrary to the wish and earn
s. entreaties of the whole bar. None
ave a greater respect for the judiciary /
han ourselves, and we utterly abhor
he idea of making any attack there
a; hut this wonderful lack of nerve aud
lanly hrmness, which, when coupled with
proper sense Of justice and right, have
yer made the Judiciary the strong bulwark
protection and defense to the subject
gainst the eucroachmeuts and usurPatlOns
I wicked and ambitious tyranls the only,
le last hope left a people, for the preset
alton Of their rights Of person and pro-
eriy when emerging from the wreck and
Iin OF revolutions similar TO that through
hich We have inst passed, Such indifier-
nee manifested by the court, to the great
lterest and demands OF the people. which
lust necessarily tWork such irretueayable
ljarT and wrong 70 the bona fds. citizens
the State, should not, an oar Judgment,
2 allowed TO pass BY ia silence, unnaticed
ID without remark. We are aciuated By
0 other motive than from The high sense
duty, as a journaiiss, We owe the public, n
! ultering Whatever may savour Of censnre
I'd condemnation Of this--to say The least
l-repreheusible coudnoi.-- 4. - Il 4
The question is whether the people vote
J virtue Of the Constitution, or al the silt
q despot, who on the HAoTningl OF al
echon, can Annul the whole pOwer. GA
Is own motion. The Law says Governor
all hold over until his successor Is aP-
Oiuled. Under present las, BrOwnloE
In Perpetuate his dynasty al in6Ritlim.
at this is a small matter 10 comparison
Others involved In these 1uestions, which
lould have been adjadiealed before By The
lliterstion of this infamoas franchise set
May Sd, 1856, aud those aaxiIiary there
J, from the statutes Of the State, 80
The efiect Of this fsiInre 10 Inele out even
andsd Jnstice 10 The eilizens OF The StsAs
N only be be 'comprehended By. calm
ID serious Investigation OF The whole HAt,
z. Had The court done bat ils simple
ny there could have been guide q change
! Inc political aspecf OF The Stale, fFom
lie time on, even under The frsl Franchise
& O( June 5tl, 1865, which has been de,
AIRED 20 be the Las OF The Land BY ths