The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-04-15

IL.
The facts in these eases are stated
because they serve to show how Tar
tho court has gone in holding an en-
tire law void by reason of the uneon-
stitutionality OF part only. II will
be observed that in these instances
there was absolutely no difficulty in
separating and enforcing vaiId parts
and that the decisions were based
purely upon the principle that the
lawmakers could not have intended
to have assented To the law in it's
eXpurgatcd form. The case of
Spragt vs.. Thompson (supra) is so
clearly analogous TO the question I'M
der consideration THAI to my mind it
puts an end to any controversy upon
the subject. The act of Congress pro
vided that. mo regulations or provi-
sons shall be adopted by any State
which shall make any discrimination
in the rate Of pilotage or half pilot
age between vessels sailing between
the ports of one State and vessels
sailing be.Sveen the ports of different
States. etc" 1t seems that before the
passage of the act there was no COM
pusorv pI.u.age law in Georgia as to
any vessels whatever The legislature
attempted to impose pilotage fees up
on all vessels except those sailing be-
tween the ports above mentioned. 1T
had no intention of imposing these
restrictions upon the vessels WITHIN
the exceptions. but if these discrim-
mating and Illegal exceptions were
simply stricken out or disregarded
the act would then have applied to all
vessels, thus including those the leg
"a -
we have seen, declared the whole
statute void because the statute
.would be made to enact what con-
fessedly the Legislature never meant.
According 10 the present constitu-
ton no educational qualification is re
quired and illiterate persons, white
or black. may vote. The proposed
amendment, section 1, provides Tor an
educational qualification, but IN the
5th section it is proposed to except
from this requirement all male per-
sons who on January list, 1Sb.. or at
any time prior thereto were entitled
to vote under the laws of any State
of the United States wherein they re-
sided and also the lineal descendants
of such persons. 1t is urged that the
exceptions are void because they dis
criminate in favor of the white and
against the negro rate, and that by
reason of such discrimination the
right of Il large number of negro
voters is abridged on account of their
race, color, or previous condition or
servitude" Now it is manifest that if
the exceptions are ever declared void
it must be so declared because of this
alleged discriminating purpose of the
law-makers-th is to say, that their
real intention was that the education
al qualification should not apply to
the present illiterate whites but to
the illiterate blacks. There can, /
feel sure, be no escape from this po-
sition If then such was the inten-
ton Of the Lawmakers, that is to say,
that the whites should not but the
blacks should be subject to the educa-
tional qualification, how is it possible
under the principles above stated, and
especially under the ruling in Sprague
VS.. Thompson. that the courts can
disregard the exceptions and sustain
that part of the amendment requir-
ing educational qualification for the
whites as well as the blacks, which it
must necessarily declare was not real
ly intended to be the law. To so hold
would lin the words of the COURT
be to substitute for the law intended
by the legislature Tor the people, one
they may never have been willing by
itself to enact or adopt. There is,
as the court says, IAN insuperable diff
ficulty' in reaching such a conclusion.
Authorities may be multiplied upon
this point, but as it is a Federal
question and must, if ever tested, be
determined by the supreme Court of
the United State. it is deemed unne-
cessary to cite anything in addition
to its own decisions. which, in my
opinion. seem to put the matter en-
tirely at rest.
There is another view which !
think is equally conclusive. 1t is OF
course apparent that it is not section
) that can be made the point of jul
dicial attack. That section neither
abridges suffrage nor confers it upon
any one, and ii it were stricken out
the educational restriction would still
exist as to both races. The former
slave or his descendant has no stand
ing in court simply for the purpose
of preventing the whites or any other
race from being exempted from an
educational qualification. There is
no question to the competency of
the Lawmakers to impose or dispense
with such a restriction. The only
ground that the former slave can
take is that his right to vote has
been abridged on account of his race.
color. etc. and his attack must and
can only be directed against the very
clause imposing the restriction. In
ha -ftsi/. ~ &c
plain that the restriction itself must
be assaiIed, and it is claimed he can
do by showing in view of the eX-
ceptions contained in section 5, so
much of section a which imposes an
educational qualification is unconsti-
tutional, in that it is but part of