The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-04-15
JUDGE COOLEY
SETTLES QUESTION
Continued From First page.)


But if its purpose is to accomplish a
single object only and some CT it's pro-
visions are tcid, the whole must fall un~
less sufficient remains to effect the OBJ
jet without the aid OF the invalid portion.
Ard if they are so mutually connected
with and dependent on each other. as
conditions, considerations or compensa-
items for each other, as to warrant the
belief that the legislature intended them
as whole and, If all could not be car
ried into effect, the Legislature would
not pass the residue independently; then
if some parts are unconstitutional, all the
provisions which are thus dependent. con-
ditiohal, or connected must fall with
them"
The sum and substance of this argu-
ment, as the reader will readily see, is
this: 4 section of statute cannot be
declared unconstitutional without annull-
ing the Remaining sections, unless that
section is Independent Of, or not connect
ed in subject matter with, other sections.
As. Judge Cooley, as conclusion of the
whole matter after stating it as a gener
al rule that an unconstitutional section
may fall leaving constitutional sections
standing, gives these notable eXcep
tons: cases where it is evident
that, from contemplation of the statute
and the purpose to be accomplished by
it, that it would not have been passed at
all except as an entirety, and that the
general purpose of the Legislature will
be defeated if it shall be held valid as
TO some cases and void as to others"
man with half an eye, it occurs to
us, can see that this exception amply COW
ers the case of the proposed amendment.
If it be passed by the popular vote, it
will be passed as an entirety, and with
it as a matter Of common knowledge that
it could not have been passed without
a provision exempting illiterate whites
now of age and that to hold it void
and Section valid would defeat the
general purpose" Of the people
So that were Section unconstitutional
all the sections being, to quote Judge
Cooley. connected in subject matter, de-
pendent on each other, operating togeth-
err for the same purpose" all would stand
or fall together.
The arguments TO the contrary by Sen
ators Edmunds, Allen and Pettigrew are
based upon the mistaken assumption that
the sole purpose of the people, should
they adopt the amendment, would be the
establishment of an educational quail
fication, whereas, their purpose would
he to restrict the right OF suffrage to the
educated and to such illiterates as they
consider by long training. etc, qualified
to vote intelligently. TO make the amend
ment require simple educational quail
fcaticn and exclude these illiterates
would defeat their general purpose"
The view of the case which we have
maintained in this article finds confirma-
ton in numerous court reports and legal
arguments From the mass Of testimony
that might be cited to sustain our con-
tention. we select but one that of very
recent case parallel with that we are
considering Only about two months ago
Ion January 18th, 1900 to be exact,
Judge Kohlsaat CT the United States Cir
cult Court. in considering the Illinois an
ti-trust law the ninth section of which
exempted a certain class from the pro-
visions of the remaining sections Gust
as Section 3 of the amendment eXempts
a class of voters, whites, from the pro-
visions of Section A. handed down this
opinion:
1T is urged that. granting the uncon-
stitutionality CT said ninth clause yet it
may be declared void without affecting
the validity of the remaining clauses of
said act. If this were so, then by de-
caring said clause void, the courts would
make the act binding upon those classes
OF persons within the State which the
Legislature had specially exempted from
its provisions. This would be judicial
legislation Of the most fragrant char
acter. In my opinion the said clause 9
taints the whole act and renders it all
void"
This case, as anyone can see, involves
the same Identical principle as that the
court would have before it in considering
the interdependency of sections of the
opposed amendment. And the courts
would be compelled to declare as in
the case just cited that by declaring
the grandfather clause void, 1.-The courts
would make the act binding upon those
classes OF persons within the State which
the Legislature has specially exempted
from it's provisions And this, in the
language of the court itself, would be
judicial legislation of the most fragrant
character!" In view of this strong and
unmistakable language of the courts and
the views Of Judge Cooley, we cannot
doubt that if the grandfather clause of
the proposed amendment is unconstitu-
tional, the whole amendment will be de-
cllred void and of not effect.