The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-03-22

the understanding" clause, which in |
Mississippi has operated to secure the
uninterrupted exercises of the cleo
tive franchise to thse waite voters
who are not learned in the books.
1t was the information to be gather
ed by that delegation In Washington
that was to guide the legislature in
adopting suffrage amendment. The
information they get showed that the
probabilities, to say the least, were
mat section would fall. Then the
edltor OF this Democratic daily advises
mat both the Mississippi plan and Sec
ton OF the Louisiana plan be put into
tne same amendment, so that if section
should fail in the courts the Missis-
sippi plan would still remain. Yet,
after all this, and in the face of it, the
legislature adopted this Louisiana plan
SO if he court hould look for intent
outside OF the substance of the act it.
self 1t could find abundant reasons fer
believing that the legislature adopted
this provision knowing or at least Sc
rlously doubling the constitut;onality
OF section ), and knowing or having
reasonable grounds to believe that the
court would eliminate that section,
leaving the remainder to stand.
SECTIONS 4 AND 5 ARE DISTINCT
AND SEVERABLE.
Bat the tendency of the decisions of
our court has been to look to the ef-
feet of a statute rather than to the in,
tenion of the legislature when the
question is, Shall all of the statute fall
or only part? And this is always
true where the unconstitutional Sec
tiCn has one object and the constiIu-
tional section has another object The
leading test applied by the court in all
such cases has been, Will the remain
der of the statute be ineligible and
operative after the unconstitutional
| parts are stricken out? AS l have
already said, this is exactly what the
court did in the income-tax case.
In Penniman's case 003 L. S. Re-
ports, page 113), Judge Wood, deliver
| ing the opinion of the court, says:
Statutes that are constitutional in
part only will be upheld so far as they
are not in conflict with the Constitu-
tion, provided the allowed and prohib-
tied parts are Severable. 50 that if so
much of the section under cOnsidera-
tiOn as relieves the deb or from i'm
prisonment for debt in constitutional
and cam be severed from the other
parts parts of the enactment, the judg-
ment of the supreme court of Rhode
Island should be affirlntd. That part
of the section which relates to the i'm
prisonment of the debtor and that
which relates to the seizure of his prop
erty are entirely distinct and indepen-
dent, and either one can stand and be
| oh of1 c-1 i,n
declared void
Now, 1T is not "lalr that the other
sections of the proposed amendment
can "stand and be operative, though
the other (section 81 is declared void?''
Clearly so, because when section 5 is
declared void and eliminated, the re-
maIinder of the amendment makes a
complete and constitutional scheme for
limiting suffrage by an educational
qualification applying to all classes
alike.
The decisions of the court to the
same effect as i'm Penniman's case are
numerous and overwhelming. I will
however, cite only few more.
The Supreme Court, in the case OF
Presser VS.. Illinois Q16 U. 81, lays
down the same doctrine. Mr.. Justice
Wood, delivering the opinion of the
court, in which one section of an acd
was declared invalid, while the re-
mainder of the act was sustained, ir
closing the argument of the court an6
giving the reasons for the decision o.
the court, says:
But it is a settled rule that statute:
that are constitutional in part only
will be upheld SO far as they are no
! in conflict with the Constitution, pro
vided the allowed and prohibited part!
are severable.
AS an authority for this position th'
court cites Penniman's case, from
which I have just quoted, and man!
other cases. This has always beer
the rule of the Supreme Court. Man!
early decisions could be cited.
l call attention to Bank VS.. Dude.
G Peters, 1927, decision rendered i,
, 1929. Chief Justice Marshall rendered
, the decision of the court in that case
, in which he said:
, If any parts of an act be unconstitu
tional, the provisions Of that part ma,
. be disregarded. while full effect will b
) given to such as are not repugnant t.
the Constitution of the United State
or to the ordinance Of 1887.
+ In Packet Company VS.. Keokuk 60
: U. S., page S0), Mr.. Justice Strong, de
o livering the opinion of the court, says
t Admitting that parts of the ordi
! nance under consideration may be il
+ conflict with the Constitution and law
: Of the United States, it does not folloy
, that its Objectionable provisions, whel
. capable of being separated and enforc
= ed, will be set aside and it's legislativ
e purposes defeated.
e Continuing, the court says:
: Statutes that are constitutional i
e Part only will be upheld so far as the
i are not in conflict with the constitu
e tion, provided the allowed and prohib
e tied parts are severable. We think
q severance is possible in this case.
0 The facts in this care are: The leg
: islature Of Iowa had given the city c
o Koekuk, in it's charter, the power to es
h tablish and regulate wharfs; and 20 fl
s the rates of landing and wharfage G
# all boats, RATS, and water craft moor
e Ell at or landing at the wharf. Actin
: under this power, the city passed a
o ordinance providing such regulation
The ordnance referred to but one thin
il and had but one purpose, and that wa
n regulating the rates, etc., as fav
stated. Yet the court declared that th
= fourth section of this ordinance wa
: unconstitutional and void, while lea,
ing the other five OR six SECTORS
: stand, for the reason given by tn
S court in the opinion 1 have just reaI
S In the case of Supervisor VS.. Stanle
: 105 U. S., page 303), Mr.. Cfief Justic
it Waite, delivering the opinion of th
a court, said
2, The general proposition must be cor
r. ceded that in a statute which contain
II invalid or unconstitutional provision
S that which is unaffected by these Pre-
visions or which can stand wiuhor
l. them must remain If the valid an
n invalid are capable of separation, onl
If the latter are to be disregarded.
= The cases from which l have rea
e cite many other cases to the same e.
- feet In fact the case which I hay