Year: 1868

| PROTEsT-On the 26th of last August
Thornburgs infamous militia bill passed
the lower House Of the Legislature on its
/ third reading, and was then transmitted to
the Senate. On the following day our repre-
sentative, w. NJ johnson, and John Wood
ward, of - county, offered the following
protest against the passage of the bill:


The undersigned respectfully protest
against the action of this House in passing
House bill No. Is, entitled " a bill to be en-
titled An act to enforce the laws of the
State, and known as the Militia bill, and
would give as their reasons therefor the
following among many other which might
be assigned:


First The manner of passing said bill
under the operation of the previous ques
tiOns, thereby cutting off all opportunity for
discussing the merits of the bill or propo-
sing amendments thereto, when it was we'll
| known to the friends Of the bin that there
were various amendments proposed to be
| offered to the bill, and that several members
desired to discuss the measure Why the
friends Of the measure refused to permit its
! discussion; whether 1t was from fear that
more ight" might be thrown on the sub
Ject; whether 1t was d consciousness that
there was not q shadow or necessity for





ent time, or whether they felt that it was an
outrage upon the already overburdened tax
payers Of the State, we are left to coniec-
ture. Suffice 1t to say that whatever their
motive was, they certainly did not treat the
minority very courteOuslv; and, whilst we
do not pretend to impugn the motives of any
gentlemen In thus pressing the measure
| through the House, we do protest against
! this system Of legislation. We think it is
{
! larly Of as much Importance as said military
| bill, through any legislative body without
first giving an opportunity for a full, free
and fair investigation of the merits of such
measure, which was not done in the case
/ under consideration.


| But if there had been no objection to the
manner of passing said bill, there are fea-
lures in it, as we think, amply sufficient to
| cOnsign it to oblivion; and among those
! features we would mention that we consider
1t in direct conflict with the Constitution of
the United States and Of the State of Ten
ncssee.


The Constitution of the United States pro
| vides, article l. section g. That no State
shall, without the consent of Congress, keep
! troops or ships Of war in time of peace, etc.
| And the Constitution of the State OF Ten
| nessee, article /, section "A, provides: As
| standing armies IN time Of peace are dan
! gerOus to freedom, they ought to be avoided
| as far as the circumstances and safety of the
! community viii admit" and that in all
| cases the military shall be kept in strict
subordination to : military authority" etc.
! And yet, IN the face of these constitutional
! powers, IN time Of profound peace, when
| there IS no insurrection or rebellion within
! the limits of the State, the bill provides that
/ the Governor be authorized and empowered
to organize, equip and call into active ser
! vice, at his discrimination, a volunteer force
! to be known as the Tennessee State
| Guards" Also, that he be empowered to
! declare martial law In any county, or coun-
| ties Of this State, and to quarter said troops
| within any county or counties so declared
! under martial law; and making it the duty
! of the Governor to assess and collect a suf6-
| cient amount for the full payment of said
! State Guards so employed, and of said county
| or counties so declared under martial law
! thus enabling him, should he be so disposed,
/ to quarter sufficient force within any
county in this State to bankrupt It, in order
to raise funds to pay said force. This, it
seems to US, is a violation, not only Of the
| Constitution, but of justice, equity and good
| conscience. Is 1t prudent, right or proper
| to give any one man unlimited power to
raise, arm and equip an army quarter 1t
| upon whOmsoever he may SEE. proper, and
| then compel the people on whom 1t is thus
lnpOS6u 30 ueIdy all Gue expenses Gu6E6Dy
incurred2 Is it prudent, right or proper to
unite the sword and public purse in the hand
Of one and the same person In other
words, Is it prudent, right or proper to give
any one man unlimited control over the
military force of State, and also Of the
Treasurer of State We think not These
objections aside, is there any necessity for
the employment Of military force in this
State at the present time? We think not
and if there was, and it was shown to be
necessary, we have no doubt that the general
government would furnish a sufficient mum


Der of troops TO restore law and order in any
Tebellious OF insuTectionary district; and


they would cost the State nothing; whereas


the militia, if called out, viii probably cost


it millions of dollars


Tor these and many other reasons not


necessary to enumerate, we enter our solemn


protest against the passage of said Military
bill, and ask that this protest be entered upon
the journal Of the House.


JNo./ WOODWARD,


w. NJ. JOHNSON.


The protest was ordered to be spread upon
Z I l,o