Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-07-04
THE POWER OF THE GOVERNOR TO
REMOVE REGISTRARS.

A correspondent OF the Memphis
Ledger, calls attention to a fact
worthy Of note. Just now The
correspondent says:
shortly before the election Of county
officers in March, '6S, the y Legislature :
took from the sheriff and gave to the Il
the right TO hold elections,
by virtue OF which Sears held the cleo
tions in the county in March, '6S. Some
Of these elections were contested, and IN
the argument Of the cases before that
lofty and immaculate tribunal, n.the IL
County Commissioners Court, the qpes-
ton was raised whether the, Governor
had the power to remove commissioner
of registration, and the negative of the
question, was pressed upon the court with
great earnestness by the counsel for the
contestants The learned court solemnly
decided In favor Of the power, overruled
the objection, and placed the negroin
Office. But the force of the question was
such in the estimation of the intelligent
portionof the party that in very short
time after the argument of the case the
Legislature passed an act giving the |
Governor the power Of removal 1t
seems now that Radical Judge has at
last justified the objection taken before
the Commissioners Court, and, before
Judge Pierce of the Law Court. more
than year since, even In the face of |
plain act of The Legislature passed ex>
pressly to meet the difficulty" '-' i'i
1t is remarkable how Radical |
Judges have twisted the laws to |
suit the exigencies Of the Radical
party. when the interest of the
Radical party demanded that the
power of the Governor to re-
move registrar should be sus-
tanned, the Judges were found who
Sustained it. When Gov. Brown
low was removing registrars and
setting aside and declaring null
and void their registration because
they had registered too many De
mocrats, there was not q Radical in
all the State of Tennessee to inter
pose the objection that he pos
sessed no power to do SO. 1t was
all right and proper then that he
should not only remove registrars
and set aside registrars, but throw
out enough votes upon any pretext
whatever to g elect" Radicals over
Democrats who received a majority
Of the votes cast. But, as the
correspondent of the Ledger intim-
ates, when the Democrats made the
point that the Governor had no
power to remove registrars, to leave
no doubt in regard to the matter,
the Radical Legislature passed an
act ito legalise the acts Of the Cow
ernor," providing Nthat all acts of
the Governor declaring regstrss
tons in the different counties of this
State, by proclamation, null and
void, and removing the registrars
of said counties and appointing
others, are hereby lsgalsed, and
full power given the Governor
to remove county commissioners
of registration for dereiction of
duty, flauds or irregularities, and
the appointment of other commits
sioners of registration is hereby
confirmed" The authority Of the
Governor under this act was never
questioned until the split in the
Radical party and Gov. Senter COM
menced removing registrars who
were notoriously guilty of malfeas-
ance in Office 1t was then for the
first time discovered by Radicals
that the Governor had no power to
secure a faithful execution of the
registration feature of the franchise
law, by removing such registrars as
wero obstacles in the way of q fair
and impartial execution of the law.
The Memphis Ledger gives the fol-
lowing as the three main points in
the decision of Chancellor Smith:
Il. Under our constitution and laws
the Governor has no power TO remove
civil officers, but that power is vested in
the courts OIL.
-. The act of February, 1868, aus
thOrizing the Governor TO remove COM
missioner Of registration, cOnfers on the
Executive authority to perform a judi
cial act which is inconsistent and void.
"3 The registration system being a
part of the franchise system, could only
be regulated by the first General Assem-
bly, after the amended constitution of
1860. and the acts of the second General
Assembly on the subject were null and
void, being legislative acts only r
Is it not singular that the courts
have been three years making the
discovery that the Governor was a
usurper and a tyrant? And is it
at all probable, Judging by the
history of the past four years, that
this discovery would have been
made even now had It not been
that a fair and impartial regis !
tration was regarded as inimical to
the pretensions of Stokes? But
this decision will defeat the purpose
of its author The Memphis APP
peal Of the ID inst. states that the
counsel of Boughner, the sppointee
of Gov. Senter, have determined
upon immediate application to the
Supreme Court, where the point in !
dispute, it is hoped, will be settled
to the satisfaction Of the people. 1T
the court does not decide that the
Governor has power to remove an
officer whose appointment is vested
in him, it will decide that the orig |
inaI appointee is the only legal
registrar. In that case what be- |