Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 186?-1872, 1869-06-26
COUNTY CouEf CLERns- CERTIF
fffl ICATEs --TsgEDEcisEoN Ar
.is , BHOw ksyILE.E. 4.-

I.I.s ..tI BItOH tkhtbE1E. at..
We notice in the last number OF the
Clarksyille Patriot an articlcin Which
the position Is ASSUMED that those
holding the certificates OF the Clerks
of the County Court are not, by viz
tue of the recent decision OF the SUI
preme Court at Brownsville, entitled
30 vote, and that such certificates are
not worth the paper ON which they
are written. 3.tt
We must be permitted to express
our surprise that any intelligent gen
tleman who has read the opinion of
Judge Smith, recently delivered at
Brownsville, should express any such
opinion. -r6 4f
On the 5th of juno, 1885, the first of
the Franchise Acts was passed by the
Legislature. The 9Th section of said
act provided, chat the Clerk of the
County Court of each county shnll
open and MISREPRESENTATION of voters"
and ascertain by proof under oath the
persons entitled to vote under the pro-
visions of the act, and shall issue to
such persons certificates of reglstra-
ton; and that no person shall be per-
mitted to vote unless 50 registered.
1t will be seen that by this act each
Clerk of the County Court in the
State was made n Commissioners of
Registration. The Clerks of the
several County Courts in the
state went forward by virtue of the
power vested in them and registered
voters. The voters so registered in the
next election exercised the right CON
ferred upon them and voted. 1t will
not be denied that the Clerk had the
right to register voters and that the
voters thus registered up to the pas
sage of the Act of 81 of May, 1866,
had right TO vote. All voters regis
tered by the Clerks of the County
Courts from the 5th of June, 1865, to
81 of May, 1865, when the first of said
Acts was repealed by thelatter, had
right tovote and did vote-about this
there is no dispute from any quarter.
Now how arc, these voters, logaliy
rested with the right of franchise, to
he deprived of that right /? What Is
the right of franchise +? Is it a right
which can become vested and which
the law protects, or is it u mere privi-
lcge in which the party invested with
the right holds no property? Let
Judge Smith who delivered the opin-
ion of the Court at Brownsville speak
on this subject. Hear him: 1.-THE
elective franchise is u right tohich the
ia0 protects and eatorccs as jeaiously
as IL docs property IN chattois or lands.
1t matters not 10y what name il is
designated, the right to vote, the cleo
tive franchise, or the privilege of the
elective franchise. The person who,
under the laws and constitution Of
the State, is entitled TO it, has a prop
cTy IN a, which the law maintains
and vindicates as vigorously as it does
any right Of any kind which men
may have and enjoy" The italics
are our own. Right here we would
ask the question--was not the man
who was registered by the Clerk of
the County Cout entitled "under the
laws and constitution of the Staton
TO vote? This can not be denied. IL
50, Judge Smith says he has II prop
eHy in that right to vote which the
Law guards Us jealousy rs it does any
other right We quote again from
the opinion "The rules of law which
guard against deprivation or injury,
the rights of persons in corporal
properties, are alike and equally APP
plicnble to the elective franchise, and
alike and equally guard persons In
vested with IL against deprivation of
or injury oft. Persons infested NTH
II can not be dcPrip6d Of u othcsloisc
than 6y due process Of iaU." That
persons registered by the County
Court Clerks We're invested with this
right, the Patriot does not, and In
fact can not, deny. Judge Smith in
his opinion does not say that those in
vested with il by the register under
the Act of 1866, and other subsequent
acts, can not be deprived of it; but
all persons invested with it, MS well
those who We're invested by Clerks of
the County Courts, as those thus in
vested by subsequent Commissioners
of Rcglstration-he makes no eNccp-
tion. The learned Judge IN former
part of his opinion had quoted tho
Act of 1868, aud shown that under
that act Clerks of the County Courts
were authorized ia register voters and
the broad principle above laid down
had rs much reference 10 those regis
tered by Clerks of the County Courts
AZ those registered by any other Com.
missioner of Registration. 1t is true
Tho party whose ease was then before
the Court was registered under the
Net OF 1865; but this makos--can
lnake-nO difference SO fNruS the prin q,
ciplo is concerned; for Che man with
the County Clerks certificate has ~
much of vcstsd righb as lac who
.holdsthe certificate of any other reg
ifler No man Of ordinary mtolli-
Wenoo can dcny this position. Wei,
Wthcm man who isrcg!atcrod under the
Ne, Of 1850, can not be deprived OF his