Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1871-02-22
WAS THE NOVEMBER ELECTION A NuLL1rY .

a "
The Tennessee Tribune in an able article
discusses the validity of the Congressional
election of last November in Tennessee,
and concludes that it was illegal. The
grounds given for this opinion are SUBJ
stantially as follows: Section S25, Article
8 (entitled Elections by the people'') OF
chapter 2, title of the Code, fixed the first
Thursday of August, of every second year
from 1885, as the day for the election OF
Representatives in Congress. The act OF
February %, 1868, changed the date of cleo
ton from the day fixed by the above sec
| ton of the Code, to the first Thursday next
after the first Monday in November, every
second year after 1868. The Legislature
just adjourned, by act approved June Is,
1870, expressly re-cnacted and revived the
provisions of the Code, as follows:
SEC. 2. Be it enacted, that title 6, Chapter 1,
Articles 3, 4 8, 6, and of the Code of 'Cennes-
see relating to elections By the people, be, and
the same are re-enaeted and revived, except as
altered or repealed by this act"
'sSEe. 5. Be it enacted, that all laws in conflict
with this act, are hereby repealed
Section S25 of the Code, fixing the day of
election in August, was not altered or re-
pealed by this act, nor is it in conflict with
this act, and it was, therefore, expressly re-
enacted and revived by it.
The law of February %, 1868, was in con-
fict with this act, and was, hence, express
ly repealed by section five, above quoted,
and would have fallen, without said Sec
ton, by the revival of the provisions of the
Code, for which it had been substituted,
for it is well settled rule of Interpretation
that of two conflicting acts upon the same
subject, the latest, in point of time, shall
control.
1t is sought to repel these conclusion by
provision of the New Constitution,
art, 2, Sec. y which declares that no
bill shall become law which embraces
more than one subject.
1t is claimed that the Act of June 10Th
1870 repeating the Act of Feb. 1868, and
re-enactlng the above provisions of the
Code, as in conflict with the Constitution
as it embraces more that one subject.
The Tribune fully discusses this objec-
ton and concludes that there is nothing
substantial in it, and further says: But
whether the law of June 16, 1870 changing
the date of the election, be valid or void,
the election for Congressman in NOvem-
Der, must be pronounced nullity if con-
tested. If said act is valid, the election
was held at the wrong time if void, then
'he election was held in the wrong man.
ler and by the wrong officers, and is a |
lullity, not only as to members of Con-
,ress elect, but as to all other offieerselected |
It the same time, and in this dilemma,
We leave all who seek to profit by it.
We do not agree with our neighbor in its
construction of these acts. The first prin-
iple governing courts in constituting stat
ties is to carry out the intent and purpose
# the Legislators. 1t was certainly not
heir intention to change the time for
folding the election, or we should have
,nown of it. Courts have gone SO far in
onstruing statutes, in order to carry out
he intention of the legislators, that the
teral and usual meaning of words have
cen entirely ignored. 1t would be an UNI
sual construction of statute to set aside
general State election by following the
teral wording of the acts, especially when
lch construction would defeat the plain
ltention of the Assembly.