Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-06-08
faTHE 'FlRANCmIsE.
Synopsis or the Decision OF the
1 Supreme Court.
ALI Persons who Held Oertlli.
Gates Under the Franchise
Act OF 1865 and 5Subse-
quent Acts, Rnti-
40, He'd to Vote.aN-

" From the Jackson lWhig, June s

II - r. -
toknow exactly the purp0rt of the lat
decision Of the Supreme Court Of tn
State at Brownsville, and the difficult,
experienced in getting what we, or Gu
readers regarded as reliable statemen
of its substantial features, induced on
of the editors Of the Whig, TO sVisi
brownsville in person, on Thursday, AM
:. make personal inspection Of the opin
ion itself. In company therefore, will
our friend, Hon. Milton Brown, by the
kind permission Of Judge Smith, WI
carefully read the opinion, GOVERNS
some sixty pages of manuscript, and
the synopsis which We, herewith present
gives the main points decided. This
synopsis was read by Judge Smith, at.
ter it was written, and received bis
approval, as containing the material
points, plainly stated.
STATE OF TENNESSEE VS.. WIN. STATION.
On the 10th day of December, 1867,
the Commissioner Of registration of Glib
son county issued a certificate to William
Station, as qualified voter. On the 25th
Of February, 1868, Gov. Brownlow issued
his proclamation setting aside the regis
tration of that county, and declaring it
null and void. On the 7th of March,
1865, an election for Sheriff was held at
which said Station voted on his certificate,
which, in common with others, had been
set aside and declared void. 4 .i4FHtf.
For voting under this certificate, he
was indicted by the Grand Jury-the
voting without proper registration and
authority having been declared an offense
against the law. fIt'"i ''
On this state of the case the several
questions came up, involving the power
of the Legislature, either by direct leg
islation, or by comforting the power on
the Governor, to take from the voter
the elective franchise, after it had been
granted by the officer appointed and
authorized to decide his right to it.
The Court refers to the several acts
under which the several officers were
authorized to decide upon the qualificaN
tions of voters, and give certificates.
They refer to and recite the 9th section
OF. the act of 1865, which enacts "that
the Clerk of the County Court of each
county shall open and keep registra-
ton OF voters, and ascertain by proof,
uader oath, the persons entitled to vote
under the provisions of the act; and shall
issue to such persons, certificates OF
registration; and that no person shall be
permitted to vote unless registered"
The court also refers to the act OF May |
1866, by which commissioners OF regis, |
traitor were directed to be appointed in
each couRty to decide the qualification |
of voters. The act of February &c,
1867, Ie-enacts the provision Of the act
of 1866, only striking out the word |
"tOhite' as a qualification for voting.
The court in speaking of the duties
imposed on an officer designated and APP
pointed TO decided on the qualification OF
voters, says that his duties are of Judi
cial nature, and his office is an Office of /
judicial nature, and his decisions are of n
judicial nature, and his decision in favor
Of an applicant is an adjudication Of a
right, and the certificate issued to the |
applicant is in the nature of a Judicial /
award, declaring, evidencing and estab-
fishing the right.
The court declares that the right TO |
the elective franchise, when SO adjudged |
il favor OF an applicant, by the officer
to decide it, is as much be-
yond the control of the legislature and |
Governor as his chattels or lands. His
right can only be taken away by "due |
process Of law" and by "the judgment |
OF his peers" and the claw of the land
ON some regular proceedings in which he |
has a right to be heard in his defence. |
The court says "the proceeding of the |
Governor is not due process of law 1t
condemns without hearing; it renders
Judgment without trial; it proceeds with |
out these rules and forms which have |
been established for the protection of |
private rights"
The court further says: The statute
which authorizes the Governor in his
discretion, practically to abrogate the
elective franchise, or right to vote, of any
and all the qualified electors or voters Of
the State, and at any and all times, and
in relation to any and all elections, is re-
pEsnant to that portion of the constitution
which bestows upon and aims to secure
to the people the right of electing their
public officers. The statute which prac
tically invests the Governor with the
power to determine who shall vote, and
who shall not vote, and who shall elect
and who shall not elect public officers,
including himself, as well as any
other officer, Is repugnsnt to those por
tons of the organic law, which were or
daned to establish and secure republi,
can form of government. The statute
which empowers the Governor, at his
discretion, practically to divest out of any
and every qualifedE voter, this right of
privilege of the elective franchise, and
this not only once, but from time to time,
as in his discretion, without end, is repug-
nant to those provisions Of the cOnstituN
ton which prohibit theexecutive depart
ment from the exercise Of the power ap-
pointed and confded to the judicial de-
partment Of the government" The
court declares the act comforting these
extraordinary powers on the Governor
Unconstitutional and void, and decides
that Station, the defendant, had right
to vote on his certificate, and atfirms the
Judgment of the Circuit Court, sustaining
the demurrer to the Indictment for illegal
voting. i~- w ''' Us
- an . .DNU U,.A rRE NnK " -