The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-01-14

nor Mr.. McIver, or amy other white Re
publican, will ever make the people of
North Carolina believe they are opposed
to the amendment because it does not con-
tain a provision against the negro hold
ing office. Men Of Buffers class are op-
posed to the amendment because, and
solely because it depriVes them, as office
seekers, of the negro vote. For the sake
Of office and political power these men
are willing that the horrible conditions
that existed under negro government in
North Carolina between 1897 and 1898
should be continued. They care nothing
about the State. Patriotism is a senti-
ment unknown to them. They consider
only their own selfish interests and those
of their party.
MIR. BUTLER AND THE FIFTH
SECTION.
Mr.. Butler discusses what would be
the result if the grandfather clause"
should be declared unconstitutional, and
the rest of the amendment he held valid
and operative. But why should that
clause be thought unconstituti onal?
Surely it does not in itself deprive any
one of any right. Mr.. Butler says it
contravenes the Fifteenth Amendment Of
the Constitution of the United States.
That amendment simply says that the
right of q citizen to vote shall not be
denied or abridged on account of race,
color or previous condition of servitude.
The grandfather cause" fifth section)
does not deny or abridge anyb0dy's right
to vote. On the contrary, quite the re-
verse. 1t says that the right of certain
persons to vote shall not be denied.
Standing by itself and considered sep
arately, this clause cannot possibly be
unconstitutional; and it is hardly possible
that any court would listen to an argu-
ment attempting to show that this Sec
ton by itself either denies or abridgeS
anybody's right to vote, for it does eX-
actly the reverse of that. Neither is
section i considered by itself open to the
argument of uncOnstitutionality. 1t
simply prescribes. an educational quail
ficaton that everybody admits the State
has q right to impose. Therefore neither
of these sections, taken by itself and
considered the one apart from the other,
can possibly be unconstitutional. The
real question is this: Will sections and
5, (both being constitutional if considered
separately, when taken together and
construed Jointly as parts of one single
scheme, constitute am unconstitutional
enactment: Will the effect of the two
considered together be to deny the right
of the negro to vote on ACCENT of race.
c0lrr, or previous condition Of seryitude
Now if the court should hold that thev
we're unconstitutional V hen considered
together, but that ca L considered sepa-
'atey was valid and otcrative, the I'm
constitutional element WCuld be in the
combination of the two see { 'ons; and the
infirmlty would he in 10th and not dis
tinctly either in the one or the other; and
Of course both would have to fall. See
ton neither cOnfers amy right or takes
away any right. 1t certainly does not
deny or abridge anybody's right for any
cause; it is an enabling act not a deny
ing or abridging act. 1t simply maintains
existing rights. So all that Mr.. Butler
has to say about what might happen III
case section should be held unconstitu-
tional is wind and fury-without there
being any basis for the suggestion.
ILLUSTRATION.
To illustrate what we mean let us take
the case of a negro who cannot read and
write and is DISTINGUISHED under section
4: he raises the question in court and
says section directs that only those who
can read and write shall vote; cannot
read and white; and l am DISTINGUISHED
by section f. But some other man who
would like myself be disfranchised by Sec
tion 4 is admitted to suffrage under sec
tion ). Now is it not unconstitutional TO
admit any one to suffrage; plainly the
court cannot for that reason hold section
) to be unconstitutional taken by itself.
If it should hold that section and .
taken together constitute an unconSt-tu-
tional scheme Of suffrage the whole
amendment would have to be declared
unconstitutional upon the ground that
the two sections taken together as
whole discriminate against some voter
not embraced in section 3; and so there
is absolutely no danger of section beng
amuulled, leaving section 4 in operation;
and no such danger as Mr.. Butler ina
gines or pretends to imagine exists.
Another reason why the courts cannot
hold section unconstitutional and leave
section in operation is that they togeth-
or clearly make one scheme for leglsla-
ton. They will be voted for not sepa-
rateIy. but Jointly. The fourth section
knows it would not be voted fOr-Wlth-
out the fifth section. The one is plainly
conditioned upon the other. 1t is a rule
of universal application in constituting a
statue or constitution, where the court
finds this connection between different
sections. and where it is evident that the
one would not have been adopt
ed without the other; it
will hold them both good or hold
them both bad This is the only way the
court can secure to the voter what he has
voted for To strike out the fifth section
and leave the fourth would be amending
the constitution in a particular not voted
for by the people, and 1t would be th'
courts making for the people AN amend
ment which the people themselves never
would have made. The people alone have
the right to amend their constitution. NJ
court cam do that for them.
But we maintain that neither sectlon o
the amendment is unconstitutional, eth
er when they are taken separately o.
when taken together. We VIII not stop lt
make an argument upon that line now
Mr.. Butler says only Democratic lawyers
maintain vhe constitutionality OF the