Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-08-23

ition was always made as to what au-
hority existed in law for any pro-
,Osed change in the Constitution of
he State; and if a change had been
ffected by violence, the question con-
family required as to what sanction
.ould be found for it in law. Indeed
t may be said with truth that the
English people conducted their revo-
utions according to law. To that
which was in its nature lawless they
prescribed law. This trait belongs to
very people addicted to constitution
methods or capable of main
constitutional liberty. We
have inherited this element
Of national character. When
It fails our people-no longer
nanifesting its presence with us-we
will then be ready for a despotism.
But we are assured that this %conserva-
force still hath vigori in the Ameri-
an heart and mind. 1t will appear
that the despotism of a faction, though
supported apparently by a legal ma
iority, will find a Runnymede as GER
tainIy as JOHN found it. This con-
sentative force is being called into the
field north of the Ohio and Susque-
hannah. 1t has been successfully
mustered and has accomplished much,
though not all its work in Tennessee.
To finish its labors in accordance with
the spirit of American liberty will re-
quire time, patience and calm wisdom.
Much has been violently done since
1860 in utter repugnance to American
law and precedent. Not a 1.-THE
of this can be undone; for
neither the necessity nor de-
desire ofreversaI exists In by far the
larger number of instances these
wrongs could not be corrected with
out committing still greater wrongs
and inflieting on the State i~rreparable
injury. This well recognized prinei-
pie of law and craftsmanship secures
to the fanaticism that bred the wal
the main result for which it labOred-
the perpetual overthrow of African
slavery 1t likewise gives to the sin
cere Unionist immunity from seces-
sion 50 long as no cause for revolution
is afforded. Beyond this there are,
however, two questions that demand
a settlement at the earliest practicable
moment. They have grown out Of
the war. One Of them Is lchether the
franchise lars Of Tennessee, imposing
exclusion from the ballot Dor for par
hcipation or completely IN the tate cirl
lcq and the admission Of q neIC class Of
Uoters 10 the eJector0t body cihi-
out the consent Of the preUiOus
electors, had any, foundation IN Tar, or
uere mere uSUpatiOHs. The other
equally fundamental and pregnant
question is whether the American
system authorizes the civil govern
ment of a State to be superseded in
time of profound peace by the military
authority of the Federal Government.
The latter question will be determined
ultimately in the arena of Federal
politics, and perhaps by the Federal
Supreme Court-the former must be
in the domestic forum of our State.
1t is true that by the political action
of the State the odio& laws known as
the Franchise Acts" viii be de-
stroved. But that is not sufficient.
1t would be dan1srous to the liberties
of all to place that on a mere revolu-
ton in parties which should be Inn
bedded in the fundamental law and
have the sanction of Constitutions
permanency. The passions of party
must not control the right of suffrage,
These laws must receive condemna-
ton as RsqrpatiQps, must forever be
held and recognized Is utterly
illegal They have been SO groaoHne:
ed by the ablest lawyers of the land.
We are informed that certain mem
bers of our own bar (of which we are
iustly proud for its eminence) have
presented arguments against the val
idity Of these franchise laws which ar
thought by the profession TO be ~
ansewerable. These arguments SHOW
that these odious acts came within th'
inhibitions of the Federal C0nstitR
ton, and therefore, on that grouni
were illegal and void. Another lint
of argument, quite as conclusive, /
to the effect that the Convention Q
1865 acted alone under authority de
rived from the President ofthe Unite,
States, and that authority confelredn
power in the Convention to depriv
any one of the elective franchise, no
to change In any respect the eleetQra
body; that while this COnVenti0
may be recognized as legal for til
purpose of organizing a State Govern
; ment, "loyal" to Federal author
ity, vet, when it transcende
} this purpose, its acts were void, an
that it had no power to delegate
the Legislature authority to interfer
} with the elective franchise. Tn
APPEAL desires, (and in this the pee
pie of Tennessee concurs with it) tina
these questions may be judieially do
termiped, not only for our benefit, bU
{ for that of all other States of th
Union. If these laws were usurpation
of power, it is due to American libert
and freedom that they be so decided
Let us know whether the right Of su
: frage hangs on the inconstant fortune
of party, or belongs to the great bod
2 of American liberties. We know tn;
some Courts have been heretofore pa
E titan in their rulings on these que
lions, and others have been Feluetal
to speak, we know, however, that IL
bar regards them as not yet settle,
: and have pressed them on judici
; attention with unwearied assiduit,
We ask that the lawyers engaged {
not abandon the cases involvir
, these issues, because the ConventiC
: will relieve us of their polite
: condemnation Of these outrage
Such judicial condemnation Will e
v r IL CA.4o - q H.,