The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1871-05-13
INJUNCTION BELL COUNTY {!
Chancellor Fentress Refuses
to Dissolve the In
junction.


stitutional provision that "no part of
county shall be taken of to form new
county or part thereof without the con
sent Of two thirds of the qualified voters IN
'such part taken off
One of the grounds of equity as set forth
in the Bill is the allegation that in the cleo
ton, held in the proposed new county of
Bell, on February %, 1871, there were not
two thirds OF the qualified voters li;ing
within the limits Of said proposed county Of
Bell who voted fer said new county: In
other words, that though tgo thirds Of the
40 persons who actually die vote in said
election voted in favor of the new county,
yet, as there were 1926 qualified voters in
said new county, and only 6-3 Of them vot-
ed for the new county, the aboveD provisions
Of tbs new constitution has not been COM
piled with; and chat upon a proper con
struotion Of this provision Of the constitu-
tion defendants viii not be entitled to taks
away any part of Layette county as por
ton of said new county,
The defendants, however, with great CON
fdeace, deny the construction placed by
complainants on that clause in our constitu
ton and insist, with great ability, that said
clause must be construed to mean two thirds
Of those who actually voted, and IN support
Of their position refer to numerous decisions
Of other States as to the construction of
Acts Of the Legislatures, in which provision
is made that certain things may be done
provided a majority Of the Uotcrs Of a coun-
ty, city or town, consent thereto, among
which are two cases in Both and 3 18th Mis-
souri, Reports, declaring that said proviso
must be construed to mean a majority of
| those who actually cote
The only case referred to in Tennessee is
the case of L. and \. r. r. vs.. Davidson
county, lst Sneed
The Act Of the Legislature provided that
no stock should be subscribed by the Coun-
ty Court of Davidson until the question had
been submitted to the voters of sa d county,
and a majority Of such voters decide in favor
of it. Upon this clause Of the act the Su-
preme Court say When question or an
election is put to the people, and is made to
depend on a vote of the majority, then there
can be no other test than the ballot box If,
IN fact there be some or many who do not
attend and exercise the privilege of voting,
it must be presumed they concur with the
majority who do attend, if indeed they can
be known at all to have an existence. Ger
tainiy it would be competent for the Legis
lature to prescribe a different rule but
| - =, I,I -
pressed, and some convenient mode pre-
scribed to settle any controversy that may
arise. If this is not done it cannot be pre-
sumed that they intended to invoice the
question submitted to the people in such
embarrassment And as the Legislature
has pointed out no way to settle such con
troversies, VIC take it for granted and so
construe their language that it was only in
tended to look to the ballot box for the
voters of the county.
Even admitting that the reasoning and
point decided above was necessarily in
yolved in the case, and therefore that it is
authority, still we do not see that it is decis-
i've of this case The only satisfactory rea-
son relied upon by the Court in that case is,
that if the Legislature had intended that it
should be majority of all persons entitled
to vote, instead of a majority of those actu-
ally voting, 1t loOuLd hare provided that tile
majority therein mentioned soas to be tested
6y the Number Of cotes at the IQst GoUernoy's
election, or Presidential election, or other
test.
There is great force in this, simply and
only from the fact that 1t is the prope.
province of a Legislature to arrange the de-
tails and prescribe the mode to efectuate
laws; to give a speedy remedy for enforcing
rights and establish infinitely the manner in
which, and the tests by which they may be
set up and enforced, and if they intended
that it should require majority of all the
citizens of Davidson eptitled to VOTE In
stead of those actually voting, they should
and certainly would have prescribed some
convenient way by which the number of
persons in Davidson who were entitled to
vote could be ascertaIneG, for it was moral
! ly certain that all entitled to vote would not
exercise the privilege, and the very object
of the Act would be thwarted in u great
measure by long delay.
But does this case apply to the construc-
ton of this clause in our new constitution
! The reason of the rule unquestionably
fails, and if so the rule based upon it should
also fail 1t is no part of the business Of a
constitutional contention to specific lIy
point out and declare how each or any right
therein established should be effected If it