The commonwealth. (Scotland Neck, N.C.) 1896-1929, 1899-07-27
extracts From the Discussion OF the
Constitut ton allty Of the Amend
ment by mai. fsm. A. Guthrie.

The next question Is, if the proposed
amendment should be adopted and the
courts should declare that section :
Of the proposed amendment conflicts
with the Constitution of the United
States, would section 4, which provides
for educational and poll tax qualiica-
tons Of q voter, still stand good! Ny
own opinion is they would not. My
reasons are given below.
After explaining the facts in the case
Of Rigsbee VS.. Durham, 81 n. c.. SEQ
he says:
The Superior Court Judge Nelow,
who tried the case of Rigsbee VS.. Dur
ham, held that while moneys raised
by taxation for school purposes under
that act could not be used in the man
ner pointed out and commanded in the
statute, they could nevertheless be col
lected, acting upon the proposition,
that while some provisions of an en-
actment might be void, others might
remain and be enforced. But the Su-
preme Court, in reversing the judge be-
low, says:
1.-The proposition is correct to a linn
tied extent, as is decided in numerous
cases: Berry VS.. Haines. 2 Carolina
Law Rep. 42S; McCubbin VS.. Barrin-
ger, Phillips Law, 554; johnson VS..
Winslow, G3 n. c., 552. But it is 9TH
erwise when the parts of the statute
are SO interlaced and dependent one
on the other. as uniting and CONSTITUTE
ing the whole, necessarily conclusive
to one and the same object, so that
the dislocation of the illegal part
would so affect its operation as that
the act would fail Of its essential OBJ
ject, and could not be supposed, in its
nlutilated form, to effect the end In.
tended by the enacting power.
My opinion, therefore, is, that if
aopted by the peopl at the pools, the
proposed. amendment must either
stand or fall as a whole, and the courts
should so decide.
Judge Cooley states the proposition
to be, that the the unconstitutional do
not affect the constitutional parts of
the statute, "unless all the provisions
are connected in the subject matter
depending on each other, operating
together for the same purpose, or 9TH
erwise SO connected together in mean
Ing that it can not be presumed that
the Legislature would have passed the
one without the other" Cooley on
Constitutional Limitations, IFS. 215.
d.
]. 1t is proposed as a whole as a
substitute for the whole of Article vi
of our present State constitution, emit
tied Suffrage and Eligibility to Of
fee"
2. 1t is not only proposed as one
amendment to supersede one entire ar
ticle Of our present constitution, but
the people who vote for or against it
must vote upon it as a whole, and not
as several parts or distinct PROPOSE
tions. A voter in voting upon it can
not divide his choice and vote for one
particular section or clause of the
amendment and vote against Others.
AM the provisions are connected in
the subject matter (suffrage and eliei-
bility to Office; the parts depend On
each other, operating together for the
same purpose, or otherwise SO connect
ed together in meaning that It cannot
be presumed that the Legislature
would have passed the one without
the other" Nor would the people 9TH
erwise have voted for it at the uolis.