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


Extracts from the Discussion of the
Constitutionalty Of the Amendment
by Maj. VIM. 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 provided for edu-
cational and poll tax qualifications of Il
voter still stand goodi My own opinion
is they would not. My reasons are given
below.
After explaining the facts in the case
of Rigsbee VS.. Durham, 81 y. g. 500,
he says:
The Superior Court judge below, who
tried the case of Rigsbee VS.. Durham,
held that while moneys raised by tax
alton for school purposes under that act
could not be used in the manner pointed
out and commanded in the statute, they
could nevertheless be collected, acting
upon the proposition that while some
provisions Of an enactment might be
void. others might remain and be enfore-
ed. But the Supreme Court, Ill revers-
ing the judge below, says:
''The proposition is correct to linz
tied extent, as is decided in numerous
eases: Berry VS.. Haines, Carolina Law
Rep, 42S; McCubbin vs.. Barringer. Phll-
Inns Law. 554: johnson VS.. Winslow, %
\. G.. go. But il is otherwise when
the narts of the statute are SO interlaced
and dependent one on the other, as unit
ing and constituting the whole, necessaf-
ily conclusive to one and the same OBJ
iect. SO that the dislocation of the illegal
part would SO affect its operation as that
,1he act would fail of its essential OBJ
iect, and could not be supposed, IN ITS
mntilated form. to affect the end in
tended by the enacting power
Mysopinion. therefore IS. that If adopt
ed by the people at the polls, the pro-
posed amendment must either stand or
fall as Il whole, and the courts should
SO decide.
Judge Cooley states the proposition
to be, that the unconstitutional do NOT
affect the constitutional parts OF the
statute. unless all the. provisions are
connected in the subject matter depend
inc on each other, operating toge(ner
for the SAME purpose, or otherwise so
connected together in meaning that II
cannot be presumed that the Leglsla-
lure would have passed the one without
the other" Cooley on Constitutional
Limitations. 15S, 10, cases cited IN
notes ? and ;.
/. 1t is proposed as a whole as a
substitute for the whole of Article VI
OF our present State constitution, entl-
tied Suffrage and Eligibility to OF
flee
.. 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 1t must
vote upon it as a whole, and not rs
several parts or distinct propositions.
a voter in voting upon it can not DIVIDE
his choice and vote for one particular
section or clause of the amendment ana
vote against others. "All the proyls-
ions 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 be presumed that the
Legislature would have passed the one
without the other" Nor would the peo-
Die otherwise have voted for it at the
polls.