The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1868-01-25
THE FaAHeHIsa Law OF 1857
Judge Trigg's Opinion.

Re Declares Hct IL soas not Authorized Jy
the " amended Constitution Of '65.
In the Knoxville Press and Herald Of
Tuesday, we find a detailed report of the
case of i" Damo-on vs. the Mayor and Alder
men of Knoxville and others" Judge Trigg' S
decision embraces the following views of the
Franchise question, which carry a general
interest:
The amended Constitution of 1865 had
been adopted in Tennessee before the close
Of the late civil war. 1t had been recog-
nized by Congress and the President, who
were the political department Of The Govern
ment; and assuming that this recognition
was binding under the circumstances, upon
the Judicial department, the Judge said it
was his opinion that, as the LEGISLATURE
which should first assemble had been au-
thorized by the amended Constitution to
limit the elective Fraeehise, the first Fran
chise Actwhich was passed under this psBeT.
was incorporated into and became a part of
the Constitution; that. when the power was
thus executed, al legislative control over it
ceased, and that the reservation of the power
in the Act Of 1865, to legislate further upon
the subject was utterly null and voiI; ard
tIe Franchise Law he.--:::s1sg; become part of
f@N SOubblGubLOu3 Coulu only DC CuduE6U Dy
the people IN their sovereign capacity and
through new amended Constitutions. 1t
was, therefore, his personal opinion that the
second Franchise Act was unauthorized but
this question had been judicially termed by
the Supreme Court of Tennessee, as to the
two first Franchise Laws, which they had
declared to be constitutional, and he felt
himself bound, as one Of the Judges Of the
United States, by their opinion. But no
power to repeal had been reserved in the
second Franchise Act, passed In 1866, which
repealed the Act of 1865, and if the power
conferred by the amended Constitution of
1865 had not been exhausted by the Act of
1866 almost n power remained In the Leg
islature to legislate upon the subject IN 1867.
As there was not, to his knowledge. anv
judicial determinatie:.ss "a IA tennessee, or else
mere, ss1si The Act of 1867, extending the
right of suffrage to eUeTy male jRbGbitG1t of
the age Of twenty-one years, thus including
the emancipated slaves, he had no hesitation
In declaring it his opinion that the Act of
1867 was not authorized by the amended
Constitution that it was utterly null and
void, eEd was not worth the paper upon
which It was printed. If the principles an
nounced by the Supreme Court Of the United
States in Garland's case and the case of
Cummings VS.. the State of Missouri, were
fully extended and applied, grave doubts
might well be entertained as to the constl-
tutionality of all the recent Franchise Laws
of Tennessee but as the question had not
been expressly decided, and in such terms aa
to embrace our amended Constitution he
had, as already stated, deferred to the Opin-
ion of the Supreme Court of the State upon
the Acts Of 1865 and 1866. In regard to
the Act of 1867, which sought to limit the
elective franchise, upon the one hand, and
to enlarge it upon the other and to impose
test oaths unknown to our constitution and
form of government, he was guided by the
opinion Of the Supreme Court Of the United
States and his own convictions, matured and
expressed before that opinion was delivered