Clements v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 09 April 1921 |
| Citation | 230 S.W. 30 |
| Parties | CLEMENTS et al. v. ROBERTS, Governor, et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
E. J. Smith, Norman Farrell, Thos. H. Malone, and Thos. G. Watkins, all of Nashville, for complainants.
F. M. Thompson, Atty. Gen., for defendants.
On August 21, 1920, the complainants, C. Runcie Clements, Rufus E. Fort, Edward Buford, Dudley Gale, James A. Yowell, and A. S. Warren, citizens of Davidson and Robertson counties, filed their original bill in the Second chancery court of Davidson county, Tenn., against A. H. Roberts, Governor of the State of Tennessee, Ike B. Stevens, Secretary of State of Tennessee, A. L. Todd, Speaker of the Senate of the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, and Seth M. Walker, Speaker of the House of the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, to enjoin them and each of them from taking steps to certify the adoption or ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States known as the "Suffrage Amendment," by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, and from taking any official action with reference to the alleged illegal action of the Special Session of the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee purporting to ratify said Nineteenth Amendment, and praying further that the action of the said Special Session of said General Assembly, by which it attempted to ratify said amendment, be declared illegal, unconstitutional, and void because in violation of article 2, § 32, of the Constitution of the State.
The bill alleged that complainants were citizens and taxpayers of the state of Tennessee, and were duly qualified voters under the Constitution and the laws of said state, and the Constitution and laws of the United States.
The bill further alleged that the Congress of the United States had submitted to the various states the proposed amendment to the effect that the rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by any state on account of sex, known as the suffrage amendment to the Constitution of the United States; that article 2, § 32, of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee, provides as follows:
"No convention or General Assembly * * * shall act upon any amendment of the Constitution of the United States proposed by Congress to the several states; unless such convention or General Assembly shall have been elected after such amendment is submitted."
That the Legislature of Tennessee then in session was elected by the qualified voters of the state in the year 1918, before said suffrage amendment had been proposed by the Congress or submitted to the Legislatures of the several states; that notwithstanding the imperative direction and command of the Constitution of Tennessee, the defendant A. H. Roberts, as Governor of the State, had theretofore issued a call for the Special Session of the General Assembly of the State to be held at the Capitol of the State in the city of Nashville, beginning August 9, 1920, and in calling said special session he embraced the question of acting upon the proposed suffrage amendment, thereby submitting it to the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, which was elected in the year 1918, as aforesaid, and before the said suffrage amendment had been proposed by the Congress, all of which it was alleged was in violation of the above-quoted article and section of the Constitution of Tennessee; that this was done upon the theory that the above-quoted section of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee conflicts with article 5 of the Constitution of the United States, which theory was wholly unsound, the bill alleging that there was no conflict between said Constitutions on the subject of ratifying amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The bill further alleged that the General Assembly was then in session, pursuant to said call; that the Senate had already voted favorably upon said resolution for ratification, and that the House committee had reported favorably upon said resolution, which report of the House committee came up for action on August 18, 1920, at which time an effort was made to have the House of Representatives adopt the report of said committee and pass said illegal and unconstitutional resolution; that upon a motion to table the same the vote stood 48 for and 48 against the motion, there being 96 members of said House of Representatives present, the motion therefore failing; that a vote was then taken upon the adoption of said illegal and unconstitutional resolution, and 48 members voted for the adoption of the same and 47 members voted against its adoption, one member not voting; that at the close of the roll call said member cast his vote in favor of the resolution, thus making the vote stand 49 for and 47 against said resolution; that before said vote was officially announced one of the members, who had voted against said resolution, changed his vote from no to aye, and gave notice of a motion to reconsider; the final vote therefore stood 50 members voting aye and 47 members voting no; that under the rules of said House a motion to reconsider may be brought up and acted upon within two days. The bill alleged that said motion to reconsider had not then been made, but the bill alleged upon information and belief that it would be made on Friday, August 20, 1920.
It was further alleged by complainants upon information and belief that the said A. H. Roberts, Governor, had actively worked for the passage of said illegal and unconstitutional resolution, and had evidenced his willingness in every way to aid its passage, which complainants were advised was contrary to his duty, which duty was to uphold and sustain the Constitution of the State of Tennessee. And that the said Ike B. Stevens, Secretary of State, occupied a like position with regard to said resolution, and was anxious that the same be passed and adopted, although he had not been so open in his efforts to effect its passage, and that should said motion to reconsider said alleged resolution fail to pass the House, an effort would be made to rush or telegraph a certificate to the Secretary of State at Washington, or even to announce said alleged certificate over the telephone, and that said Secretary of State at Washington had announced his intention of proclaiming the adoption of said Nineteenth Amendment even upon the receipt of a telephone or telegraph message; that such methods were wholly illegal, and would be, if resorted to, an effort to stifle the views of the people of the state of Tennessee, and to oust the lawful authority of its courts and prevent the hearing of said matter in the tribunals of justice; that if such wrongful and illegal methods were pursued it might have the effect of cutting complainants off from a hearing when the ministerial act of certification was accomplished; however wrongful and irreparable injury would thus ensue, not only to complainants in their capacity of qualified voters, which right to vote is a valuable property right, but would likewise result to several hundred thousand other voters of the state, on whose behalf complainants also institute said suit.
In accordance with the prayer of said bill, a fiat for a preliminary injunction was granted by the Honorable E. F. Langford, one of the circuit judges of Davidson county, Tenn., on the 19th day of August 1920, and the defendants were enjoined from making, signing, issuing, or making any proclamation, declaration, resolution, or certificate declaring that the state of Tennessee had constitutionally and legally adopted the proposed Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and from taking any official action with reference to the illegal action of the Special Session of the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee purporting to ratify and adopt the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Thereafter, on August 23, 1920 an amended and supplemental bill was filed by the same parties against the same defendants, both in their official and individual capacities, and also against W. M. Carter, clerk of the Senate of said General Assembly, and John Green, clerk of the House of said General Assembly, both in their official and individual capacities.
In this amended and supplemental bill the allegations in the original bill were set out and reiterated, and in addition certain other allegations were made, among them being that, notwithstanding the defendants to the original bill were specifically enjoined from taking the action therein alleged, the defendants Carter and Green, as clerks of said Senate and House, respectively, had been instructed by parties to the complainants unknown to sign, certify, and proclaim the illegal and unconstitutional action of said Senate and House purporting to adopt said resolution, and that unless restrained by injunctive process the defendants Carter and Green would attempt to proclaim said illegal and unconstitutional action in obedience to the orders of some of said defendants, who had theretofore been enjoined under the original bill, and who would not themselves attempt to make any certificate or proclamation because they had been enjoined from so doing.
The amended and supplemental bill prayed that the defendant Green, as clerk of the House, be enjoined from transmitting, and the defendant Carter, as clerk of the Senate, be enjoined from receiving or communicating to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial