Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-07-13

The "Nichol" or County Court
Clerk certificates, upon being de-
posted with him, will be duplicated
with his own certificates; and
though it is not SO stated, we pre-
sumo the affidavit of the applicant
and proof of the issuing officer, will
suffice to renew those which have
been lost. sb ra. s1
This is "the conclusion of the
whole matter" '.' ...
Is THE FRANCHISE LAW PART OF
THE CONSTITUTIONS .-Eg
John W. Ramsey, Esq, makes
an argument in the Knoxville Wing
to show that the franchise law is
not part of the constitution ofthe
State. We give his communica-
ton entire, as he directs attention
to very important question. He
says: t'n. ' 20
In the present canvass for Governor,
both Stokes and Senter argue that the
constitution must be amended to repeal
or modify the franchise act--tacitly as
Stunning that the act is part of the cons:i>
tuition. None of the newspapers seem
to have questioned this position. But is
4 L. h. aoN a. 4 II
tive franchise" of June 5, 1865, or the
act adopting its long preamble, but re
pealing the rest oft, May 3, 1866, cover
ing seven pages, part and parcel Of the
constitution of Tennessee? An act nearly
half as long as the constitution Of the
State, and more than half that of the
constitution Of the United States? If
is not part of the constitution, there is
no need of convention to repeal it,
which will cost the people the labor and
excitement of two general elections, and
perhaps hundred thousand dollars, IN :
der the revolutionary fright to alter, re-
form or abolish their form of govern
ment." Nor of amendments in the only
manner pointed out in our constitus
tion-section 8, article IL, providing that
the amendments be proposed by a ma
jority of our Legislature, published six
months prior to the next election for le-
gislators, then be approved by two thirds
of that Legislature, and then ratified by
a majority Of the people voting for mema
bers Of the Legislature, which amend,
ments will cost the people four years of
excitement, two general elections, and
perhaps fifty thousand dollars. Fa.
By section l, article 4, of our consti~
tuition, every free white male of the age
Of twenty-one years being citizen Of
the United States, and of the county
wherein he may offer his vote, ETC., shall
be entitled to vote, etc. By section
second of said article, persons convicted
of infamous crimes might by law be ex.
cluded from the right Of suffrage. Thus
every white man Of the proper age and
residence, not convicted Of an infamous
crime, was beyond the power of the
Legislature to disfranchise him. When
the convention met at Nashville, early in
1865, and proposed amendments to tbs
constitution, consisting Of clause abOl.
ishing slavery, and a schedule Of nine
sections declaring the Rebel laws, ordin,
ances, resolutions, etc., null and void, by
the ninth and last clause "The qualifica.
tons Of voters and the limitations of the
elective franchise may be determined
by the General Assembly which shall
first assemble under the amended
constitution" These amendments were
ratified by the vote of the people on the
22d of February, 1865. The Legisla>
ture elected at this time passed the two
franchise acts. These acts of June 5,
1865, and May 3, 1866, without the au-
thOrity Of the ninth clause above quoted,
would have been directly repugnant to
the first section of the fourth article OF
the constitution, and consequently null
and void. But the ninth clause of the
schedule, which for the purpose ordained,
is as much part of our constitution as
the first section Of the fourth article,
which it so far repeats that it and the
franchise act can stand together. The
ratification Of this ninth clause by the
people on the 22d Of February, 1865,
delegating power or authority to the first
Assembly that met under the amended
constitution to limit the elective fran
chise, only designed making the act
when it should be passed constitutional
law and not part Of the constitution
itself. To become a part of the
constitution, the franchise act must have
been proposed as an amendment to the
constitution, by the convention of 1865,
and voted upon and ratified by the peo-
pie, or it must have been so proposed by
the first Assembly, approved by two
thirds Of both Houses of the next and
then be ratified by the people. None of
these things have been done. The cons
vention of 1865, might, in the language
of the Supreme Court in Ridley VS..
Sherbrooke, 3 Coldwell, 500, have left
the right of suffrage open to all future
legislation, but they limited it to the AS
sembly first to mest, and this Assembly,
having passed the act in pursuance of the
power delegated in the 9Th section Of the
schedule, 1T is binding and valid, AMI the
law of the land" No future legislation
can limit the elective franchise, because
there is no more authority in the consti>
tuition to warrant it, but the act being
only law further legislation may repeal
it in whole or in part.
JOHN W. RAMSEY.
There is a good deal to support
the theory of Mr.. Ramsey. The
franchise law has been accepted as
a part of the constitution, because
Of a prevalent understanding that
the Supreme Court had so declared
it in the Ridley-Sherbrooke case,
but the court did no such thing, nor
did it do so in the case IF Staten.
In the former case, the court, after
recapitulating the facts of the case
then before it, says "these facts in
volve the consideration of the con-
validity of the acts of
the General Assembly, respectively
passed on the 9th of June, 1865,
and the Sd of March, 1866" The
court declares, after reciting the
ninth section of the schedule, that
"by this provision of the schedule,
the sovereign people conferred
upon the General Assembly de-
signated, the same absolute, I'M
limited and sovereign power to
determine the qualification of