The Chattanooga news. [volume] (Chattanooga, Tenn.) 1891-1939, 1919-06-03
John J. vertrees Leading
Counsel for Complainant
to Measure.
DEMURRER BY DEFENSE
Denying. Validity of Grounds
on Which Claim of Uncon-
stitutionalitY Is Based. n

reading of the bill of the complainantsS
the defendants FLED demurrer, MAXI
ing cnJtain constitutional questionss
IN order that the whole matter maNg
he settled at one time and be im-i
medately appealed to the supreme
court Of Tennessee for final action.
The compiainants are represented
by John j. Nertress, w. o. Vertress,
John Allison, w. Z. Norvell Jr.; Nor
man Farrell, Ed j. Smith and W.
L. Talley, while the defendants are
represented by Atty Gen. Frank Nj.
Thompson, John Bell Keeble, ED r..
Seay. Gus T. F'itzhugh. e. N. Haston
and Charles T. Gates, Jr. a
1t is claimed by complainants that
the election laws require only one
ballot koX ana one form of ballot Tho
defendants answer to this Is that
even if this is proved, it would not.
render the act unconstitutional but
would only suspend the operation un-
Til the election laws were amended
and two forms of ballots are provided.l
1t is further contended that there is
no provision in the election law re-
quiring one ballot box or one form of
ballot, because in cities which lie
within d civil district, the district is
only entitled to two justices of the
peace, while the city Is entitled to
three Justices of the peace. 4f
In such cases it has always been
the custom to have two ballot boxes
and. two sets of ballots because the
citizen living in the district and OUT
side the city can only vote for two
while the citizen in the city and in
the district can vote for three,
Eight Ladies Present.
There were only eight ladies in
the court room when the case was
called. The bill was read by w. O.,
Nertrees, counsel for complainants.
The bill sets out the act of the past
general assembly and the various
contentious of the complainants that
the act is unconstitutional. Among
the contentious is that the act deals
with two subjects, and that there lis
no constitutional provision for levy
ing poll tax upon women while
male voters are required to pay such
poll tax. In reference to municipal
elections the charter of Nashville is
cited and the provision therein where
the general election laws shall gov
ern city elections: That there Is no
reference in the act of the require
ment of six LIaQNt hss residence, and
that this '8gsti&&iBfi Sfidefs tha.@biEl
Unconstitutional.
Objects to Separate Ballot Boxes.
The contention is also made that,
while resolution passed by the leg
islature seeks to provide for separate
ballot boxes and ballot forms, there is
nothing in the act with reference to
this and no provisions is made in the
election laws for such separate boxes
and ballots. The bill asks that upon
hearing the injunction be made
permanent.
Gen. Thompson Read Demurrer.
Following the reading of the com
plainants' bill, Gen. Thompson read
the demurrer of the defendants. The
demurrer claims that the omission of
the provision for separate ballot
boxes does not render the bill un-
constitutional and that the act does
not discriminate in favor of women
in reference to poll tax on the ground
that no constitutional provision is
made for assessing poll tax upon
women, while the constitution of the
state does assess poll tx upon male
voters and the act cannot be attacked
on this ground.
The demurrer. sets forth that the
act does not conflict with the charter
of the city of Nashville and its con-
stitutionality may not be attacked on
this ground. 1t is also denied that
the act contains two objects and
that the resolution with reference ia
ballot boxes does not conflict with
election laws of the state.
Constitutionality Important.
Argument in the case was begun
at 1925 o'clock by Ed j. Smith for
Complainants. He said the most inn
portant question was with reference
to the constitutionality of the act
He argued along these lines, saying
that the supreme court had fore
| closed the contentious in this case
| by defining the suffrage clause in
the constitution in the case of Led
gerwood VS.. Pitts, and that the only
question to be decided Is whether OF
not the definitions in the cast re-
! ferred to are applicable to municipal
offices and presidential electors. Mr.
| Smith contended that presidential
| electors are not federal officers but
Stdlt OlllCtISs created DN Iub ItSlS-
| lature, and that their mode OF cleo
tion in this state is fixed by Tennes-
| see statutes.
| Mr.. Smith concluded his argument
at 1880 o'clock, and Judge Newman
adjourned court to 9 am. Wednes-
! day. Arguments VIII not be limited
Mr. Smith contended that presi-
Dental electors and municipal Offices
q hX fhn ic1o ~
that the legislature has no right tc
confer the privilege of suffrage upon
| any person or persons not designated
in the constitution as having the
right to vote in such actions and
such elections. these suffrage quail
! fications being limited to males.
He argued that under the consti-
tuition of the state a poll tax was MOI
mandatorily imposed upon anybody
| as a qualification for voting, but thaI
provision with reference to the pay
| ment of poll tax as requisite foi
voting was imposed by the legisla-
ture. He said that the poll tax pro.
vision of the constitution was fol
! taxing purposes solely He said that
no penalties are provided for womer
who vote without paying poll tax
while service penalty is provided for
male voters lin such case and that
such omissions would constitute class
| legislation.
Mr.. Smith said the advocates of the
act had noticed the defect in the act
with reference to the lack of provi.
! sion for two ballot boxes and sepa
rate ballot forms and had sought &c
amend a statute of the state by a
| joint resolution. "Th9 futility o
such procedure is apparent he said
| In support of his argument he cited
the veto message of Gov. Roberts &c
! the Joint resolution seeking to change
the method of electing the secretary
of the state pension board. in which
| the governor held that a statute
could not be repeated or amended by