Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-01-22

Sec. Is. All grants and commission
shall be in the name and by the authorit
of the State of Tennessee, be sealed wit
the State Seal, and signed by the Cover
nor.
The foregoing were adopted without
division.
Sec. II. A Secretary of State shall be
appointed by joint vote of the Genera
Assembly, and commissioned during the
term of four years; he shall keep fair
register of all the official acts and pro-
ceedings of the Governor and shall,
when required, lay the same, and all pa
| pers, minutes and vouchers relative there
to, before the General Assembly; and
shall perform such other duties as shall
be enjoined by law.
Mr.. Porter, of Haywood, proposed to
amend section II by prescribing that the
Secretary of State shall be appointed by
the Governor and confirmed by the
Senate, and be commissioned for the term
of four years.
On motion of Mr.. Cypert it was laid
on the table-yeas, 43 !; nays, 90.
Mr.. Porter, of Henry, still thinking
that the office of Secretary of State
ought to be held by direct appoint
ment of the Governor, because of the
intimate relations which exists between
these two officers proposed to strike out
the words 'joint vote of General Assem-
bly,, and insert these words in lieu: ''the
Governor of the State"
After discussion by Messrs. Bate, Jones,
of Lincoln, in favor, and Baxter against the
amendment, it was laid on.the table.
Mr.. Heisken now proposed to take up
the resolution of the gentleman from Knox,
In regard to the impeachment of Tbos. N.
Frazier, and refer it to the Special Com
mittee. The motion was adopted and the
resolution referred accordingly
On motion of Mr.. Jones, of Lincoln,
the resolutions of Mr.. Warner and others,
in regard to the same matter were taken
up and referred to the same committee.
The Convention then adjourned.
CORRECTIONS
OF the these reports of Wednesdays pro-
20th section of the Bill of Rights.
Sec. 20. THAT no retrospective law, or
laws impairing the obligations of contracts,
shall be made
Mr.. Davenport proposed TO insert the
word 'Other" after the word cor" The
Supreme Court has decided that RETROSPECT
tive laws can be made as well as other laws,
provided they do not invade contracts. The
word ''other" makes it more explicit.
Mr.. HeiskeIl-The statement of the gen.
tleman from -, Is correct; there are
such decisions, and more than one, but
have had occasion recently to review the
decisions on the subject the gentleman
speaks OF, and find that some hold the
doctrine as stated, and others are
against it. 1t seems to me that it
is a very delicate question. and that we are
not in a condition to settle it accurately
and Understandings, and had better let it
60 over. | am satisfied that upon exami-
nation it will prove one of the most vexed
questions in the laws of Tennessee.
Whether upon a proper construction of
this clause, Retrospective laws" is a mere
equivalent of the phrase 'or law impairing
the obligation Of contracts, there are two
decisions for the doctrine intimated by the
gentleman, but very numerous decisions
which, though not expressly everything
these cases, are entirely inconsistent with
them. There are numerous decisions in
Tennessee in connection with vested rights
that can be based upon no other clause but !
the prohibition of retrospective laws. If
we pass this amendment we leave no basis
for these decisions, unless we hold the iu-
dietary authorized to declare void laws in
consistent with natural law, doctrine re-
p1diated by an overwhelming prepOnde-
rance of judicial opinions.
Mr.. Brown, of Davidson-Suppose it
should read NO law impairing the obhga-
ton of contracts" then we would get nd
of the difficulty of placing the words in the
shape of definition.
Mr. Heiskell-The amendment of the
gentleman from Davidson does not obviate
my objection. 1t is not fully settled. The
words, ''Or law impairing the obligations
of contracts, are merely explanatory. 1 re-
peat that there is a large class of decisions
In this State which are supported by no
other clause in the Constitution but that
forbidding retrospective laws. | think we
had better leave this for the cougts to set
tie hereafter rather than to leave an impOr-
tant class of decisions without any founda-
ton whatever If I had but a very short
time could refer the House to these deci-
sions, and they would see that it is impOr-
tant that they should not be left entirely
unsupported by anything in the Constitu-
ton of the State. For that reason 1t Is bet
ter not to interfere with these words as they
now stand in the Constitution.
The amendment was rejected and the
section adopted as reported.