Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-06-26

Il
1 S66 to be a part Of the constitution oil
she State. That act which was thus en-
dorsed by the highest judicial tribunal oil
the commonwealth, abrogated and an
nulled every certificate given by the
clerks of the County Courts, and those
certificates are now worthless unless
some decision Of the Supreme Court give
them validity by so expressing It, and
in terms or by necessary implication, res
verses its former decision"
Let us see about this. The court
in the recent decision at SBrowns~
vile first defines and declares what
the franchise is. and to q ooFFect
understanding, 1Re p97is ons all
the laws, even those enarssa and
repealed, are recited, and then the
court arrives at this conclusion:
1.-THE elective franchise is right which
the law protects and enforces as jealously |
as it does property in chattels or lands.
It matt ers not by what name it is desigN
mated, the right to vote, the elective
franchise, or the privilege of the elective
franchise. The person who, under the
constitution and laws Of the State, Is en-
titled to it, has property in it, when
| the law maintains and vindicates as Vlgor-
ously as it does any right of any KIND
which men may have and enjoy.
| "Fhe rules Of law which guard against
| Aenriyatiou or injury, the rights of per-
sons in corporal properties are alike and
| equally applicable to the elective iran'
/ elise, and alike and equally guard per-
| sons invested with it against deprivation
| Of, or injury to, it. Persons invested
with it can not be deprived of it other
wise than by due process of law
| so the same extent that persons can
not be deprived of their lands and chat
| tells, or rights and franchises of any
| kind, otherwise than by due process OF
law is it also true, that without due
process of law they cannot be deprived
or Invested of the muniments which eVir
dence and establish their titles and rights,
such as deeds, bills of sale, bonds, prom>
| isory notes and the like; and the GER
tificate of registration and right to vote
| may be properly included in the cat
egory." .atl lsiie@ is.
| Here it is declared that when a
| person is once invested with the
right to vote, he cannot be deprived
| Of it otherwise than by due pro
cess of law" 1t wall not be con
tended that those who were invested
with the right to vote by the clerks
| Of the County Courts, who were the
commissioners of registration under
| the law of June 5, 1865, have been
deprived of that right by educ pro
cess of law" But, says the Patriot
the act of May 3, 1866, which the
Supreme Court declared part OF
tue constitution, "abrogated and an.
nuIIed every certificate given by the
II clerks of the County Courts. Wi
il be contended that any change o
the constitution would divest mai
| ofhis title to his lands2 Certainly
| not. Then, says the Suprem'
Court, ''the rules of law which
| guard against deprivation or lnJu'
: fy, the rights of persons in corpo
| real properties, are alike and equal
ly applicable to the elective fran
ehise, and alike and equally guarC
persons invested with it against de
privation of or injury to it" AM
as if to clinch the argument am
leave no room for doubt or equiVo
cation, the court declares emphatI
eally that persons invested Wit
it cannot be deprived of it other
wise than by due process OF law,
+ Can the people, in their sovereign ca
q pacity, or by power delegated to tn
] Legislature, incorporate INTO th
3 constitution q provision depriVlni
q portion of the citizens OF tn
= State of their title to their lands o
It other corporeal properties other
4 wise than by educ process OF lawF
e There is not a man in Tennessee
1t acquainted with the simplest prln
> ciples of law who will assert tina
= this thing can be done. Here then
an analogous case: Under th
}, | franchise law of June 5, 1865, Ger
8 tain parties acquired right to vott
!, and exercised that right. By the az
n OF May B, 1866, it was sought to de
: prive them of that right "otherwis
: than by due process Of law" TIN
i the Supreme Court very clearl
II declares cannot be done. 1t is clea
e that the court considered thi
a question OF the validity
"a certificates issued by the varlou
II officers authorised to issue then
" before that body, from the fact tia
h the provisions Of the several law
1t under which the registration
.e voters was had are fully recited, an
lg also from this paragraph in IL
~ decision:
4 The proper inquiry to follow IS
of "What effect is to be given to the regis
ia traton Of citizen as a qualified vote
hit and whether and TO what extent the rec
he istratiOn invests the registered persC
in with the elective franchise; and mex
:, whether the setting aside and annulfI
h by the Governor of the registration Of
c county, in the manner authorized by ii
&c act Of March s, 1867, is in respect Of q
o. persons who have obtained registratiC
and certificates, proceeding which fl
e fills the rule of due process of law"
as The court here treats two que:
tions as being before it for its adj
= dication. First, the effect Of regi
~ trati5n and second, the power {
% the Governor TO annul the registr
a. ton of a county. The first it d
'Jr clares as property right, OF whIt
on the person invested "cannot lie d