The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-02-08
JUDGE BROWNS SUGGESTION


stitutionslity OF the amendment.
To say that this is quite breach OF
Judicial propriety is to state it mildly,
for the question of the constitution
atty OF this amendment, il adopted,
may come before Judge Brown for
adjudication. We are surprised to
see that not q Democratic paper in
the State has reprimanded Judge
Brown for such an exhibition Of bad
taste and breach Of judicial ethics.
But we let that pass. We want to
call attention to his suggestion for
an amendment, or rather an addition
al section to the act Of the Legisla.
ture submitting the proposed amend
ment. He advises that when the
legislature meets In June that it add
another section, to be known as Sec
tion 6, as follows:
"SEC. 6. This act shall be constru.
ed and taken as whole, and if any
Of its clauses, sections and provisions
shall for any reason become or be
declared imperative and invalid, the
whole of this amendment and every
part and section thereof shall become
null and void and of no effect"
Now while Judge Brown is known
to be a strong partison, and while he
has, in giving this interview deciar-
ing his opinion rs to the constitution
atty of the amendment, done a
thing very unbecoming Judge, yet,
every one will admit that he is a
good lawyer. Being a good lawyer,
no one knows better than Judge
Brown the utter futility and absurdi-
ty Of this proposed additional section
to the amendment, even il the legis-
lature should adopt it. Neither our
State nor our Federal courts have
ever yet permitted, and never will
permit, the legislative department
of the government to instruct the
Judicial department as to the in
struction of statute. Indeed the
court pays no attention to the decla-
ration made by.a Legislature as to the
meaning and effect of its acts; but
the court looks to the act itself and
decides accordingly. This proposed
new scheme would not be considered
by court at all as part of the amend
ment, because it has nothing to do
with limiting or qualifying or regu-
lating suffrage. They would look
upon 1t simply as legislative
declaration, or rather as an attempt
of the legislature to instruct the
court as to how 1t should pass upon
the constitutionality of the amend
ment. He knew that the courts have
at least ignored if not treated as
impertinent such legislative declara
tions or attempts at instruction. That
there are numerous decisions both of
our State Court and and Federal
Courts to sustain this statemet is
well known to Judge Brown.
Then what is the purpose of his
suggestion, which we notice has been
endorsed by many Democratic pa pers
and by Mr.. Simmons, the chairman
OF the Democratic committee. Judge
Brown is not only q good lawyer, but
he is a good politician. He has dis.
covered that the attempt to fool the
people into believing that Section s
is constitutional and prevents them
from being DISTINGUISHED, has failed.
He has discovered that the illiterate
white voters have more intelligence
than the last legislature gave them
credit for having; and, hence, he res.
Lies that it is necessary to try a new
dodge to fool them; and, hence his
suggestion that the legislature pass
this section which he knows will not
be noticed by the court, but with the
hope that it will fool enough illiterate
voters into supporting this amend
ment to secure its adoption.
The fact is that the last legislature
did not believe that Section was
constitutional when it put it Into the
amendment, but the politicians rea-
lized that it would be Impossible to
get the amendment adopted if it said
on It's face that sixty thousand white
voters would be disfranchised. So
they put into it unconstitutional acc
ton which pretends to protect these
illiterate white votes and which thew
thought would fool these voters into
supporting the amendment. Then
II the court knocked out Section s.
rs they must have known the court
would do, they realized that thew
would still have an amendment very
satisfactory to the politicians if not
to the people. This very statement
Was made by member of the Louis
lana Convention: That if the court
knocked out Section S. they would
still have a good amendment limiting
suffrage.
The intelligence of the sixtv
Thousand illiterate white voters Of
the State saved them from being
fooled by the first trick known az Sec
ton 5; their intelligence will save
them again from being fooled by this
second trick known as Section 6.
How many Democratic papers
hava nm IN data ou-oo.AI A.,