The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-05-07

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 The
Supreme Court of North Carolina, Chief
Justice Smith delivering the opinion. de-
clared this whole school act unc0nstitu-
tional and void, though some of its pro-
visions were not obnoxious to the obJec-
ton of race discrimination, the court
holding that while some provisions III a
statute may be unconstitutional and VOID
others may remain and be enforced, out
the rule does not apply, when the CON
stitutional and unconstitutional parts of
the statute are conducive to the same OBJ
iect. and the dislocation of the unconsti-
tntional part would SO affect its opera
ton that the act would fail in an essen
tial part. | quote from Rigsbee VS..
Durham, 81 y. c., mt page 800 from the
opinion written by Chief Justice Smith,
which is supported by reference to
Judge Cooley's Constitutional Limita-
tionS. which is book of recognized au-
thority in all the courts Of this county.
The Superior Court Judge below, who
tried the ease of Rigsbee vs.. Durham,
held that while moneys raised by taNa-
ton for school purposes under thai act
could not be used in the manner pointed
out and commanded in the statute 'hey
could nevertheless be collected, acting
upon the propositions that while some
provisions of an enactment might be
void, others might remain and he en-
forced But the Supreme Court in re-
yersing the Judge below, says:
The proposition is correct TO a limited
extent, as il decided in numerous cases:
Berry VS.. IIaines. Carolina Law Rep.
42S: McCubbin VS.. Barringer, Phillips
Law JJ4; Johnson VS.. Winslow. G3 y. &.
80 But it is otherwise when the parts
of the Statute are so interlaced and de-
pendent one on the other, as uniting and
constituting the whole, necessarily con
ducive 10 one and the same object, 50
that the dislocation Of the illegal part
would so affect its operation rs that the
act would fail of it's essential object, ana
could not be supposed. in its mutiated
form, to effect the end intended by the
enacting power. When such relations
exist among the parts, as that they make
one consistent whole, and each material
to the efficacy of the statute in subSery-
ing It's general object, it must stand as
a unity, or fail altogether"
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
| 17S. 21j, with cases cited in notes ,
and 3.
Assuming the principle laid down in
Rigsbee vs.. Durham to be good law i'll
constituting the Constitutionality of
statute. the same rule must govern Ill
deciding whether or not a State C0nstitu
ton us a 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 a sub
stitute for the whole of Article VI of
our present State Constitution. entitled
Suffrage and Eligibility to Office
2d. 1t is not only proposed rs one
amendment to supersede one entire arti-
Gle of our present Constitution. but the,
people who vote for or against il, must
vote upon it as Il whole, and not as sew
era parts or distinct propositions.
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 office: 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-
pie otherwise have voted for it at the
polls.
My opinion, therefore is, that if adopt
ed by the people mt the polls. the pro-
posed amendment must either stand or
fall as a whole, and the courts should SO
decide.
1t is interesting to note, as hearing
somewhat on the subject under discus
sion, that the United States, rs well Is
the several States of the Union, are pro-
hibited by the 18th Amendment from de-
nying or abridging the right to vote
son account of race. or color or previous
condition of seryitude." vet the Congress
of the United States, in the year 1857,
absolutely shut the door against the CHI
nese race ever having the right ~ vote
conferred on them. For Congress in 1882
added to the provisions of the United
States Naturalization laws this section
Sec. IS. That hereafter no State or
court of the United States shall admit
Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in
conflict with this act are hereby re-
pealed.'
Now we have seen that all citizens are
not. by virtue of their citizenship alone,
entitled to vote, yet none but those who
are citizens Of the United States by birth
or naturalization can have the right to
vote conferred on them. For it is the
universal rule, prescribed by all elec-
ton laws in all the States, that every vO
ter must take an oath to support the
Constitution of the United States, etc.;
and no alien can remain an alien. after
taking the oath of allegiance to the
United States. He thereupon becomes Il
citizen. But the United States, by the
act of Congress above quoted, absolutely
denies to the Chinese race admission TO