Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-08-25

large delegations will come from every
state At the request Of the committees,
Gov. Stevenson win make the welcome
address. d
CONSIDERING the constant agitation
of " the franchise acts" of Tennessee,
passed by a body assuming to be the
General Assembly of the State since
the conclusion of the war, there seems
TO be considerable ignorance as to the
precise status of this odious sO-called
legislation. If the question of negro
suffrage is to be discussed or affected
by these supposed laws, it is proper
that they should be understood. a
correspondent of the Ardianche mac
curately says:
1.-THE Supreme Court, in the case OF
Ridley vs.. SherbroOk, reported in I'd
| Caldwell. held that the franchise law
was a part of the Constitution"
On this assumption it is attempted
to give the vantage ground in the dis
cussion to the advocates of negro suf-
frage by placing their antagonists in
the attitude of disturbing a relation
already constitutiOnally fixed. The
APPEAL has presented negro suffrage
a. q question yet to be acted on by the
people, as entirely open. We assert
that the question Is 6R6 Of admission
10 the baIIot-HOt exclusion IRAN a
rigit eEer legally 6estOlced. The cor
respondent OF the Aralaache is in er-
ror when he speaks Of the case cited
by him as reported in ID Caldwell.
The case of Ridley vs.. SheTbrO0k Is
rpported in Sd Caldwell. Nor is it an
nosnesd in the opinion of the Court,
as reported, that The franchise law
was a part of the Constitution" Such
a decision at that time would have
been inconvenient TO the faction then
| dominating the State. In that case
| there were two franchise acts under
eOnsideEsti0H-one purporting to have
been passed June 8, 1865; the other,
passed May 3, 1856. Neither ri these
acts pretended TO confer the elective
franchise on the negro, Both were
| limited by express terms to white
msIav inhabitants, or to white"
men. Tie 6rst act was inadequate
for the preservation Of power in the
hands Of the meB then controlling the
State. The second act was passeq &c
! still farther exclude the people Of the
SrsEa from the polls. If the Court
had decided in the Ridley-Sherbrook
ease, that when the Legislature passed
an act limiting the elective franchise
under the power pretended to be
granted by the General Assembly
which shall first assemble under dll
amended Constitution" the act 81
passed became a part of the CORstitn'
dSu. then the act of May 3, 1866 could
not have been held valid. The act o.
June ,, 1865, would have exhausted
the power of Constitutional amend
ment, supposed to be vested ii he
| special Legislature body designated. Il
could not have again amended the
! Constitution without a grant Of BeB
power to that effect. Therefore, tha
Court, in ~subserviency 10 the policy
| of the hour, did not hold, in language,
any such proposition as that stated by
the correspondent of the Aral@lche.
Moreover, the Court pronounced the
act of June ), 1866, and that of May
3, 1866, valid, which, Rs we have
! shown, is inconsistent with tie doc
trine attributed to the Court by this
correspondent. 1t was not until Feb
ruary p, 1867, that the act was passed
which is supposed to have conferred
ON the negro the elective franchise.
Whether that act was competent to
incorporate the negro into the electo
raj body of the State, is a question
properly determinable in a judicial
forum. The best lawyers Of the State
hold that it was not, and that the vOt-
ling of the negro since the passage Of
that act has been altogether illegal.
We are confident that this act Of Feb
ruary >, 1867, will be held invalid
when brought to the judicial atten-
ton of an intelligent and independent
Court. Hence we regard the question
of negro suffrage, 50 far as State action
is concerned, as now to be dealt with
TOR the first time by the people, and
that Il is not a question Of exclusion
from, but Of admission to, the electric
Franchise. The people of this State in
determining the matter, have the
practical experience of negro capacity
for the proper exercise of this duty.
They are enabled TO say " with knowl-
edge whereof they speak," whether
he has developed such intelligence
and integrity as fits him for this priv
ilege in a free government.
....