Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-05-02
MINORS IN "REBELLION.'
An Important Question Under
the Tennessee Franchise
Law.
A Minor who was In the Con-
federate Army Refused
Registration.

ns frf--s ss"f-
An interesting and important qusstio
arising under the franchise law wa
brought before the Commissioner
Registration for Shelby county.
| The petitioner W. K. Poston, filed hi
petition, alleging in substance that h
enlisted in the Confederate army il
May, 1861, at about the age of fifteel
years, and was minor during his entir
period of service; that he arrived at th,
age Of twenty-one years in October, 1866
that since his surrender in May, 1866
when he received his parole up to tn,
present time, he has been a true and
loyal citizen of the United States, and
State OF Tennessee.
The positions assumed by the counsel
for the petitioner were briefly as follows
l. That the service of petitioner as q
soldier in the Confederate States army
was in law and civil contract, an agree
ment made with him, as a minor, to do
service in the Confederate States army,
for certain length Of time, for stipus
lated consideration.
3. That every act, agreement or con:
tract OF minor, made while minor, nor
for his interest (crime only excepted }
has from time immemorial, by the courts
of this country and England, been de-
clared absolutely void.
y 3. That the enlistment of the petit
toner as soldier in the Confederate
States army could not be considered as
crime by the court in this application,
because there was no pretenss that he
had ever been tried by any court and
found guilty, which fact would be con.
dition precedent to the court considering
any such question, and the only comper
tent proof of such fact, if it existed
would be production Of the record of
his conviction, and further, that no court
in the United States since the close of
the war, in the thousands of indictments
for treason against persons engaged in
the rebellion, had ever adjadged such par
ticipatlon crime, not even against the
leaders and instigators Of the rebellion.
1t has only been so adjudged by par
ttSdn newspapers and politicians for
pOttttcdt eUect.
4. That the franchise law of May 8,
1865, both in its letter and spirit, con-
templates only the voluntary acts Of the
individuals embraced in the exceptions.
No act of minor Except crimes or mis-
demeanors) done against his interest, is
in contemplation Of law voluntary and
binding upon him, and cannot he enforc-
ed against him, by any court, where his
rights Of person, property of privileges
are involved.
D. The right to vote is privilege con-
ferred upon all who bring themselves
within the provisions of the law, and
minor during his minority can no more
exclude himself from that right or priyi-
lege by his acts, or contracts, while
minor, than he can dispose of his right
In property, real or personal, during his
minority and be bound thereby on his
arriving at his majority.
g. The Commissioner Of Registration,
under the revised law of May 3, 1866,
is quasi court, vested with the
power of a court, to decide as to the
right of applicants for certificates of regis-
tration, and is to be governed in his de-
clslOnS by the same rules Of law and
evidence applicable to all other courts
as to questions within his jurisdiction as
such commissioner.
The Registrar refused to register Mr..
POston for the following reasons
Admitting the rule of law to be corr
rectly stated by petitioners counsel,
giving it every force that can be claimed
for it, am at loss to understand how
the principle argued by him affects this
case, and for the reason that while he
may not have been bound by his con>
tract, that obligation was simply one due
to the Confederate army, and does not
affect the question of his having violated
the laws of the United States, or of the
State of Tennessee, by taking up arms.
In point of fact the voluntary enlistment
set up by petitioner may have been
crime against his government, and if so,
that his infancy is in law no justification.
Placing the mildest construction upon
petitioners act, he was guilty Of a
a sorong, a tort; and this being true,
all the law of non>responsibility by rea-
son of infancy, as argued by his counsel,
falls to the ground, as infants are liable
for torts committed during their mi
nority.
The elective franchise is not an in,
alienable right or privilege, but politi.
cal right conferred, limited or withheld,
at the pleasure of the people acting in
their sovereign capacity.-Riley vs..
Sherbrook, &c ColdwelI, 569. The acts
of June 5, 1865, and May 3, 1866, and
subsequent acts amendatory thereof pro-
hibit, with certain exceptions, all persons
from voting who have given voluntary
aid, comfort, countenance, counsel, or en-
couragement to any rebellion against the
authority of the United States govern
ment. Petitioner does not deny that his
enlistment was of his own free will, vol>
untary in fact. No exception in the vari.
GUS franchise acts is made as to persons
who were minors at the time of entering
the army or at the close of the war.
Therefore, | am necessarily compelled
to Oyerrule the petitioners application in
this instance, and deny him his certifi-
cate of registration. Under the decision
in Sd Coldwell before referred to, the
people ofthe State of Tennessee, acting
in their sovereign capacity, would have
the right to exclude any class of persons
from the privilege of voting, without
reference to their having violated any
civil law or committed a crime, and
plain construction Of the acts referred to
exclude petitioner in this case.
SAVED nv mac