Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-02-09

might fix for the transaction of ordinary
business, from passing an ordinance TO re
! move elected officers. The statute 10 the
context, 18th section) shows the general
provision that no bill shall pass without a
majority vote Of both Houses. This is
the only provision made In the act, with
the exception Of the clause in the 18th
section, operating as a restriction upon
the legislative power of the City Council
The fact that after the Legislature. in the
18th section, had prescribed rule which
I should govern the CITY Council in the
| passage of bills generally, prescribed also
a rule which shonld govern the City
! Council in the special case of dismissinl,
/ elected officers, and the facts that the
latter was the only case in which
rute, differing from the general rule in the
| passage of bills was made, constitutes
a weighty reason for the superstition that
| tile Legislature intended that two-thirds OF
the members Of both branches of the CITY
Council should concur in the passage OF
the ordinance. 1t is true these branches of
the City Council must be regarded as boards
or houses, the two in their separate organ
lzations making the City Council the MT
nicipal legislature, and as collective, as
nouns of multitude But the statute ex-
pressly directs how these branches are to
be formed and constituted. They "shall |
consist of a particular number of mem
bers. 1t is noticeable that the City Coun-
Gil, by the first clause of the fifteenth sec
ton. is authorized to provide for the |
appointment or election Of all officers for the !
good government of the city, an such alaaner |
as they Bldy see it, but when the Legislature |
IN The same section, comes to provide for the |
removal of officers elected, the limitation |
upon the power and discretion of the CITY |
Council is fixed. The Legislature must |
have intended in this, to say the least of it, |
delicate and important matter Of dismissing
elected officers, that there should be full |
meeting of each branch, so that there |
could be concurrence of tWo-thirds of the
members of both branches, in the action
looking to the dismissal of officers.
Looking to the whole statute, the occa-
sion and necessity of this limitation upon
the City Council, the mischief sought to be
remedied by this provision in the statute,
and with the impression | have that these
ordinances or acts of the corporation must
be passed strictly in accordance with its
charter or constitution, am prepared to
MAKE the IOilONiuB OTutT Oh the appllca- 1
ton of defendants to dissolve the injunction
heretofore granted by his Honor Judge
Campbell:
P. S. Fall ct ais as. d. D. Dickey ct ais
The defendants, on the Slst day of Janu-
airy, 1868, upon notice duly acknowledged, |
moved the Chancellor at his chambers to
dissolve the injunction heretofore granted
in this cause for the want Of equity in COM
plainants' bill on which motion argu-
ments were heard. In consideration
whereof, the Chancellor is of opinion that
the allegations of complainant bill
which for the purposes of this motion are
10 be taken as true show sufficient equity
10 Justify the retention of the injunction
I'LL the further order of the court, and
doth so order and direct. But it is further
ordered that nothing herein shall prejudice
he defendants in relation to any defenses
hey may make, either upon the coming in
IF their defense, or on the hearing, either
BY motion, demurrer, plea or answer, and 2
he injunction heretofore granted is so mod
fed that the same shall not operate in re-
itraint of the City Council in any action it
nay legally take in the premises.
HORACE H. HARRISON,
February 8, 1868. Chancellor.