Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-06-11
THE POWER OF THE
OVER THE FRANCHISE.

following as to what the Supreme
Court at Brownsville decided:
"All seem to agree upon one point
that the act of the Legislature author
izing the Governor to set aside the regis
tratlon OF county is unconstitutional.
We took that position a year ago; and
many were the curses we received there
for. We were willing to bide our time.
Until We see to the contrary, we shall
not believe that they decided the County
Court Clerks certificates good; such
holding would be in part direct reYers-
al of former opinion"
The Patriot has probably learn
ed ere this that the Supreme Court
did decide the County Court Clerk s
certificates good. The late decision
is, as the Patriot intimates, a re-
versal. of the position assumed in
the former decision. The decision in
the case of Ridley VS.. Sherbrook
affirmed that the Legislature did
not in the passage of the first fran
chise act exhaust the power claim
ed to have been delegated TO it by
the convention in the ninth section
Of the schedule, which provides that
'ehe qualifications of voters and
the limitations of the elective
franchise, may be determined
by the General Assembly
which shall first assemble I'M
der the amended constitution"
The court affirmed the constitution
atty Of the second franchise law.
That act provided in the eighth
section "that all certificates hereto
fero issued under the provisions of
the act to which this amendatory,
are hereby annulled, and shall not
be used at any future election in
this State, from and after the pas
sage of this act" In affirm
ing the constitutionality of this
act, the court recognized the
binding force of the section an
nulling the certificates issued by
the clerks of the County Courts.
But now the Judges decide unanim-
ously that the Legislature had no
authority to deprive a man of the
right to vote who had acquired that
right that it was as much beyond
the control of the Legislature
as his chattels and lands; and
that this right can only be
taken away by educ 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
il his defense. By q parity of
reasoning the Legislature did not
possess this power when it passed
the first franchise law. If it was
pOwerless on the Sd of May, 1866,
to disfranchise citizen of State,
where did it derive that authority
on the 9Th Of June, 1865? and
how did it lose its authority be-
tween the periods just mentioned?
In the passage of the second
franchise law the Legislature
acted by the authority under
which it enacted the first. I'll
the right 20 vote when so ad-
judged in favor of an applicant
by the officer appointed to decide
it, is as much beyond the control
Of the Legislature as his chattels or
his lands, how could the Legislature
by the act of June 5, 1865, deprive
a portion of the citizens of the State |
Of this right which was guaranteed
to every citizen of the State by the
? The ballot-box was
thrown open TO every citizen of the
State who desired TO exercise his |
right to vote in November, 1864,
and February, 1865. In these cleo
tons every citizen of the State was
recognised as possessing the right to |
vote and not one would have been
debarred that right had all pre-
sented themselves at the ballot~box.
1t must be borne in mind that one
of these elections was held after the
convention had delegated to the
Legislature the authority under
which it is claimed it acted in
DISTINGUISHING so large 4 por-
ton of the citizens of the
State. The Legislature in fixing
'the qualifications of voters and the
limitation Of the elective franchise"
recognized the right of every man
40 vote yUbo had voted i'm either of |