The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-08-24

anu Id you VIII read tue udlul 49,
laws passed by Congress, you Wll Sc
in the naturalization of foreigners anu
making citizens out of them, the
principle of heredity of Naturalization
rights Of citizenship is expressly recog
nized and enforced by the Congress Oh
the United States in our naturalization
laws. Here is a Section of the umtea
States Naturalization Laws:
Sec. 8. The children of persons VINO
have been duly maturalized under any
law of the United States, or who, pre-
vions to the passing OF any law ON tlat
subject, by the Government OF tle
United States, may have become cltl-
zens of any one of the States, under tne
laws thereof, being under the age OF q
years at the time of the Naturalization
of their parents, shall, If dwelling IN tue
United States, be considered as cltizeilS
thereof; and the children of persons
who now are. or who have been citizens
of the United States, shall, though porn
out of the limits and jurisdiction OF the
United States, be considered as citizens
thereof: but mo person heretofore pro
scribed by any State, or who has beell
legally convicted of having joined the ar
my of Great Britain during the Revoiu-
tionary War. shall be admitted to become
citizen without the consent of the Leg
islature of the State in which such per-
son was prescribed.
And Congress. i'm our naturalization
laws, has gone even to the extent OF con-
ferring rights upon the widow and emil
dren of AN alien who dies pending ms
application to become a citizen OF the
United States, as follows:
''When any alien, who has complied
with the first condition specified in Sec
ton 2,165, dies before he is actually nat
uraized, the widow and the children
Of such alien shall be considered as citi-
zens Of the United States, and shall be
entitled to all rights and privileges, as
SUCH, upon taking the Oaths prescribed
by law
2. The next question is, il 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 ed
ucational and poll tax qualifications Of
n voter. still stand good? My own opin-
ion is they would not My reasons are
given below. 1t was decided as far
back as 1929 by the Supreme Court of
the United States i'm Bank OF Hamilton
VS.. Dedley, 2 Peters 429, Chick Justice
Marshall delivering the opinion of the
court, that il part of a statute be un-
constitutional, the provisions of that
part may be disregarded, while full eff
feet will be given to such as are not re-
pugnant to the Constitution OF the Uni
red States, or of the State. And il has
been decided by our own State Supreme
Court in Gamble VS.. MoCrady. 70 n. &.
800 that. while the general provisions Of
a statute may be unconstitutional, one or
more clauses may be good: provided.
they can be separated from the rest. so
as not to depend upon the existence of
the others for their own. Bnt the later
judicial authorities seem to uphold the
doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court
of North Carolina in 1886, in the case OF
Rigsbee VS.. Town Of Durham. "a y. q.
500. That was case in which the act
of 1891. relating to the Graded Schools
of Durham, was declared unconstitu-
tional and void, because Of race discrimi-
nation, in that on its face the act pro-
vided for the appropriation TO white
graded schools of the taxes paid by white
taxpayers: and to colored graded schools
the taxes paid by colored taxpayers. TIE
Supreme Court Of North Carolina. Chief
Justice Smith delivering the opinion. de-
clared this whole school act urconstitu-
tional and void. though some of its pro-
visions were not obnoxious to the rejec-
ton Of race discrimination. the court
holding that while some provisions in Il
statute may he unconstitutional and void
others may remain aggl be enforced. Int
the rule does not apply. when the con-
stitutonal and unconstitutional parts ~
the statute are conducive TO the same OBJ
iect and the dislocation Of thu unconsti-
tutional part would so affect its opera
ton that the act would fail liz an essen
TIA. part.
Judge Cooley STATES the proposition to
be, that the unconstitutional do not af-
feet the constitutional parts Of the stat
ute. unless all the provisions are con
nected in the subject matter depending
on each other. operating together for the
same purpose. or otherwise so connected
together in meaning that it cannot be
presumed that the Legislature would
have passed the one without the other. .
Cooley ON constitutional Limitations
lis. 30, with cases cited in notes .
and g.
Assuming the principle laid down in
Rigsbee VS. Durham to be good law in
constituting the Constitutionality of a
statute, the same rule must govern in
deciding whether or not State Constitu-
ton as fundamental law conflicts with
the United States Constitution as the
Supreme law, in its legitimate sphere, on
the subject under discussion The pro-
posed amendment:
1st. Is proposed as a whole as sub
stitute for the whole of Article VI OF
our present State Constitution. entitled
Suffrage and ELIGIBILITY to Office"
ID. 1t is not only proposed as one
amendment to sllpersede one entire arti-
Gle of our present Constitution, but the
people who vote for or against it, must
vote upon it as a whole. and not as sew
eral parts or distinct propositions. A
voter in voting upon it cannot divide his
choice and vote FOR one particular sec
ton or clause of the Amendment and
vote against others ''All the provisions
are connected in the subject matter
suffrage and eligibility to offce) the
parts depend on each other, operating
together for the same purpose. or other
wise so connected together in meaning
that it cannot he presumed that the
Legislature would have passed the one
without the other" Nor would the peo-