Senate Bill No. 22, on Report No. 29, was taken up on its second reading, and passed over informally. Senate Bill No. 41, on Report No. 28, was taken up on its second reading, and passed. Mr. Nelson moved an adjournment until 9 o'clock, A. M., to morrow. Lost. Senate Bill No. 46, was taken up on its second reading. Mr. Rodgers offered the following amendment, to-wit: SEC. -. Provided, The provisions of this Act shall not extend to hounds kept for the purpose of protection against wild animals. Lost. On motion of Mr. Aldridge, the Bill was laid on the table. Lost. Mr. Cary moved an adjournment until 9 o'clock, A. M., morrow. Lost. Senate Bill No. 47, was taken up, on its second reading. to Mr. Henderson had leave to withdraw the Bill for amendment, which was returned immediately. The amendment was adopted, and the Bill passed. Report No. 33, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, to-wit: Mr. Speaker:-The Committee have examined Senate Bills Nos. 23 and 34, and Senate Joint Resolution No. 23, and find them correctly enrolled. J. R. MCCALL, Chairman, pro tem. On motion of Mr. Aldridge, The Senate adjourned to meet at 9 o'clock, A. M., to-morrow. WEDNESDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 6, 1867. Senate met pursuant to adjournment. Mr. Speaker Senter in the Chair. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Huntington. Roll called under the rules. Present.. 22 3 Senators present, were: Messrs. Aldridge, Cary, Eckel, Eaton, Elliott, Frierson, Fuson, Garner, Henderson, Keith, Lyle, Matthews, McCall, Nelson, Norman, Parker, Rodgers, Smith, Wisener, Wyatt, Wilson, and Mr. Speaker Senter-22. Senators absent, were: Messrs. Cate, Patterson, and Underwood. The Speaker announced a quorum present, and the minutes of the last meeting were read and approved. House Message No. 14, to-wit: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, November 5, 1867. Mr. Speaker: I am directed by the House of Representatives to transmit herewith, House Bills Nos. 14, 24, 31, 40, 3, 51, 55, 57, 64, 68, 76, 86, 88, 102 and 105, passed; also, House Joint Resolution No. 23, adopted; also, House Bills Nos. 34, and 18, and House Joint Resolutions Nos. 61 and 66, for the signature of the Speaker of the Senate. GEO. EDGAR GRISHAM, P. C. of the H. of R. Report No. 34, from the Commmittee on Internal Improvements, to-wit: Mr. Speaker:-The Committee to whom Senate Bill No. 29, was referred, having had the Bill under consideration, have instructed me to recommend its passage. JNO. B. RODGERS, Chairman. Report No. 35, from the Judiciary Committee, to-wit: Mr. Speaker:-The Committee have had under consideration the following Bills and Resolutions, to-wit: Senate Bill No. 20, passed over informally by the Committee. Senate Bill No. 28, and recommend the adoption of the accompanying amendment, and that the Bill pass. Senate Bill No. 38, and ask that it be laid on the table, and that it be taken up hereafter. Senate Bill No. 43, and recommend the adoption of the accompanying amendments, and that the Bill pass. Senate Bill No. 44, and recommend its rejection. House Joint Resolution No. 22, and recommend its rejection. WM. WISENER, SR., Chairman. Report No. 36, of the Judiciary and Joint Select Committee, on amendments to the Constitution, as proposed by Senate Bill No. 3, to-wit: The Judiciary and Joint Select Committee have had under consideration, Senate Bill No. 3, entitled "A Bill to repeal all laws disqualifying persons of color for office and Jurors," and other kindred questions, and have instructed me to report a Bill in lieu of all, and recommend its passage. The Bills in their various bearings, are probably inferior in importance to few questions that have been, or will be, before the Senate. The questions involved, are, whether the colored man, to whom many members of the Legislature are indebted for their seats, shall sit on Juries, when otherwise qualified, and be eligible to office, when possessed of the other qualifications required by the Constitution and laws of this State? It is conceded, that the proposition is not in accordance with what was public sentiment, in Tennessee, before the late terrible war, and that it has had to overcome the prejudices of early education and social training, which were not only against the principles of the Bills, but against the freedom and enfranchisement of the colored race. These, however, have, by the incidents of the war, been, to some extent, overcome, and the colored man is now free, and few say, he ought ought again to be enslaved. Non only is he free, but the last Legislature, in virtue of the power conferred on them by the people, in the amendments to the Constitution, conferred on him the Elective Franchise, and imposed on him the "duty" of aiding in selecting persons to fill places of official trust and confidence. Few would, now, withhold from him the performance of this duty. But, whilst few would withhold this franchise from him, some there are, who say, he shall not hold office, or sit on Juries. During the late war, many of them were deemed competent to wear the uniform of the Federal forces, and to meet those in deadly conflict, who were seeking the overthrow of the Government. Many of them gave up their lives, for the safety of the Union. And, as a race, they gallantly fought, side by side, with the loyal white man, exhibiting a firmness and bravery seldom equalled and rarely excelled. Many of the colored race then filled offices. If the colored man could be risked in defending the country in its hour of peril and danger, why can he not now be trusted to fill places of trust and confidence in time of peace? If, with arms in his hands, he could not be seduced into the ranks of the country's enemies; when, if he had chosen so to do, he might have swelled the ranks of the enemies of the Government, to formidable numbers indeed, he chose to stand by the Stars and Stripes, and seal his sincerity with his blood, surely he might now be trusted with office, when the national danger has passed away. But, the principles embraced in the Bills, need no argument from the Committee, to establish their correctness, or to vindicate their expediency. This was done at the late elections in this State. Indeed, both parties were pledged to the colored man, to remove those restrictions imposed by that part of the Franchise Law, which is supposed to exclude him from office and the jury box. Our Conservative friends were eloquent and zealous, and, apparently at least, sincere in endeavoring to convince the colored man that they were his best friends, and if elected, they would do for him what the Republicans had failed to do-render him eligible to office, and competent as a juror. But the colored man did not trust them, and voted, with singular unanimity, for the Republicans, under a pledge from the latter, that he should, by law, share the honors of official station, and be competent to occupy a seat in the jury box. This pledge cannot be violated, without a violation of good faith. The Committee, in making the recommendation, that the measures pass, are only following in the wake of public sentiment, and obeying the fiat of the people, sent forth through the ballot box, in the elections that sent us here. The policy and expediency of the propositions were vindicated and sustained by the late elections in this State, and we are only registering the public will, in passing the pending Bill into a law. But we are met by some, who concede the propriety and expediency of the measure, but say, this Legislature has no power over the question; that the sixteenth section, which excludes from office and the jury box, being a part of the Franchise Law, is a portion of the Constitution, and that it is, therefore, beyond the legislative competency to repeal or alter it. This argument is plausible, but is more specious than solid. The powers of the last Legislature, over the subject of the Elective Franchise, were special. Under the Constitution of Tennessee, as it existed prior to the amendments of 1865, the Legislature had no power over the Elective Franchise, and could not say who should, or who should not vote. The Legislature only had such powers over the subject of voting, as were conferred on it by the amendments to the Constitution. The Schedule to the amendments, provided that "the qualification of voters, and the limitation of the Elective Franchise, may be determed by the General Assembly which shall first assemble under the amended Constitution." Thus, it will be seen, that the powers only extended to determing the qualifications of voters, and limiting the Elective Franchise. No further powers were given. They had only such powers as were conferred on them, over the question. On the sub ject of the Elective Franchise, the Legislature may be said to be acting as a Convention; and what they did on that question, became a part of the Constitution, and is irrepealable by ordinary legislation. And on this question, the powers of the Legislature were unrestricted, as was settled by the Supreme Court, in the case of Ridley vs. Sherbrook. But the powers of that Legislature as a Convention to amend the Constitution, only extended to determining the qualifications of voters, and limiting the Elective Franchise, and no further. It is true, in cases of delegated powers, whatever incidental powers, that may be "necessary and proper" to carry out the principal power, are also conferred. But all delegated powers are to be strictly construed, and only those "necessary and proper" powers go with them. This principle is alike sound in politics as in law, and has been repeatedly so recognized and affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, as well by the illustrious Marshall, as the venerable Taney. The Supreme Court of this State has also, on various occasions, asserted the same doctrine. Now, apply this principle to the question before the Senate. The Legislature of 1865, had unquestioned power over the subject of the Elective Franchise, but it was as a Convention, and in virtue of a special, delegated authority; this they constitutionally exercised, but was it "necessary and proper," in order to enable them to carry out this delegated power, that they should say anything in reference to who should or who should not hold office, or sit on juries. The affirmative of this proposition can, surely, not be sustained by reason or authority. Holding office is one thing, voting is another and very different thing. And, surely sitting on a jury has no connection with voting. The competency of Jurors has always been held to be statutory, and is subject to be regulated at the pleasure of the Legislature. Therefore, as the question, as to who should or who should not hold office or fill the jury box, was not before the Legislature as as Convention, such parts of the law as relates to these measures, and not connected with the Elective Franchise, are only ordinary acts of legislation, and may be repealed at any time, as any other statute may. There is, therefore, no Constitutional difficulty, which can interpose to prevent the repeal of the sixteenth section. But the Bill No. 5, proposes to repeal all laws, or parts of laws disqualifying persons on account of race or color, from holding office or sitting on juries. This was offered, not only to repeal the sixteenth section, but all other laws that disqualify on account of race or color. This is necessary in order to carry out the objects sought to be attained; for the statutes prescribing the qualification of jurors, expressly require them to be "white men." This provision really made the sixteenth section unnecessary, if it were intended to prevent the colored man from sitting on ju |