The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-05-16
THE DoRToH BILL.
An East Tennessee Lawyer Says It 10
Not Constitutional.


An East Tennessee Lawyer Says 1t Is
Not Constitutional
From the Knoxville Journal.
sis the Dorich election bill unconstitu'
tional?" y.d
This query was addressed by a Journal
reporter to prominent East Tennessee legal
light Yesterday. 1t was called forth by
comment made upon this bill by the same
gentleman to Whom ii was addressed, in
which he exposed his serious doubts as
to the constitutionality Of the bill in ques-
ton. az
"Yes, | thing 1t Is" he replied. ain
fact" lac corlmued, with emphasis, clam
reasonably sure Il is. / have gone into
the matter pretty thoroughly, and this is
the result OF my Investigations; and, turn
ing to the Code Of Tennessee, lac opened It
and said:
"Artclo II. section s, Of the Constitu-
ton reads as follows
"'Thc Legislature shall have no power 10
suspend any general law for the benefit Of
individuals inconsistent with the general
laws Of the land; not 10 pass any law
granting to any individual or individuals,
rights, privileges, immunities or exemp-
tons, other than such rs may be, by the
same law, extended TO any member Of the
community who may be ablc TO bring
himself within tho provisions Of such
laws No corporations shall be created, OF
lis powers increased or diminished by
special laws; but tho General Assembly
shall provide by general laws. for the or.
ganiLtion OF all corporations hereafter
? created, which laws may, at any time, be
altered OF repealed; and no such alteration
or repeal shall Interfere with. or divest,
rights which have become vested
According ~ the decisions OF the SUI
preme Court II appears that the Dorich
election bill II In conflict with the forcgo-
Ing section OF tho Constitution. because II
IL in n sense legislation for individuals.
In 1875 the Legislature passed an act au-
lhOrizing municipal corporations with S.
900 inhabitants, or more, 10 institute suits
and prosecute appeals, etc. without giving
security for costs, This was held 10 be for
the benefit Of Individuals and 'inconsist-
: cnt with the general law Of the land, and,
! therefore, void; see City Of Memphis w
Fisher, o Baxter go.
This act Is easily distinguished from
the Dortch hill because corporations be-
Z ing individuals In law aud tho act being
, for the benefit. OF certain corporations 10
tho exclusion OF oil other individuals was
u mnnilcstly class legislation. Tho Dortch
2 bill on the other hand does not apply 10
! individuals separately, but to communities
= or 10 individuals collectively. On the
: 10Th day Of March the legislature passed
9 an act entitled, An act TO reg.
ulate the lien acquired by judg-
monts, DEGREES, etc Tho fifth OF
$ last section Of which reads n,
: follows he II enacted, that tho pro-
= visions OF this net shall only apply "a
counties that had, by the census OF 1870
y A population Of not less than 10000 This
= act VAS reyiexed aud declared unc0nsti.
. tutional by tlJc rupfumc Court la the case
Il of Woodard "a Hfiun, 10 Lea, b2O; the
n court saws thai fhc law Of the land Is q
u rule embracing ymd alice ing all porsonl
i In general. and al persons who exist VI
n NAV como into al like state and cfcum
l. stance. while partial law embraces only
a norton OF th.gc persons who exist In the
n same state ansli arr surrounded by Tx,
\ circumstanccS' aud Il appears 10 rest II,
q decision upon tho ground that Il was i'm
70 possible for ann other county, except
N Davidson andshelby % ever bring itself
l. within the prQylsons OF the act, bccaus,
y they were thc3iply counties having 1000
! inhabitants by dc census ui 1870, an,
however popnlops other counties nigh
IN become tho act could never apply TO them
because the census oi 1870 did not give
10 them the REQUISITE number of In
III habitnnia
"Now compare iho quoted section Of IN,
y. nc, OF 1871 with the Douch bill whicl
d. reads ~ follows
y. "'Be Il further enacted, That the pro
~ visions 81 this act shall be- applicable /,
. counties having n population OF 10000 an,
- over. and cities OF over 1900, computed b,
Ia the census Of 1850
y "lt il easily observed that the decision
~ of Woodard vs. Bncn N Just ~ applicahl
ia 10 the act Of 80 ~ 10 that OF ~, bccaus
y MULFORD'S