The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-02-11

whole and that if all could not be carri-
ed into effect the legislature would not
pass the residue independently, if some
parts are unconstitutional and void. all
the provisions which are thus dependent.
conditional or connected. must fall with
them.
That exactly meets the case in point
Now, it is evident that the legislature
of the State OF North Carolina intended
10 present a scheme of suffrage TO the
sovereign people of that State for their
adoption. IT was a whole scheme; it was
something IN entirety. 1t had its several
sections, ii is true, but. as the court has
frequently said, sections are simply arti-
hclal and carry no meaning. Two differ
Ont things may be in the same section.
and one thing may be scattered through
a dozen sections. Here is the legislature
OF North Carolina presenting to that poo
pie constitutional amendment upon
what! Upon the subject of the elective
franchise. And they make their declara-
ton first as to illiteracy.
One must read and write the Constitu-
ton. One must pay poll taxes. Then, as
modification of its restrictions as to IL
hteracy a liberal condition appended TO it.
certain class of people, to wit those
who voted on or prior to the LIST of Janu-
airy, 1867, and their descendants in North
Carolina and in other States, are permit
ted to exercise the franchise.
Now, here is scheme presented as a
whole; and with some regard for the
white people of his State / ask the Sena-
tor if he believes that the legislature
would have presented the scheme minus
that section--section 5, / think it is? No.
Mr.. President; they presented this scheme
Of suffrage as a whole, one part cOrnIyen-
SatiDg for another. that called the fifth
section moderating the rigor Of the fourth
section, I believe it is.
PRITCHARD'S GARBLING.
| desired, Mr.. President, to quote some
decisions which / thought were referred
to in the speech of the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Pritchard.) do NJ:
at this moment find them. / will get ( ,
what said a while ago, when said the
Senator from North Carolina had inter-
polated word in the decision, Which
will now read, and upon that h. does
base an argument. 1t is the case of Yick
Wo VS.. Hopkins sheriff
Though the law itself is fair on its face
and impartial in appearance, yet if it is
applied and administered with an evil
eye and unequal hand, so as to practical
~ make unjust and illegal discrimination
between persons in similar circumstances
material 10 their rights. the denial of
equal justice is still within the prohibi-
ton of the Constitution.
Now, here is what my friend says:
Here is an explicit statement by JUS
tice Matthews, which declares that al
though law may be fair on it's face and
impartial in appearance. yet if it is capable
of being administered with an evil eye
or an unequal hand" so as to disclimin.
ate between persons similarly situated
that the denial of guaranteed rights is
violative of the spirit and letter of the
Constitution. WEI any one deny that the
proposed amendment is capable of being
administered with an evil eye and ure-
quail hand:'
The word capable" is not i'll the de-
cision.
Mr.. Pritchard do not understand
the Senator to contend that | was quot
ing the language of the decision when i
used the word capable"
Mr.. Money. 1t says IAN explicit state
ment by Justice Matthew'S
Mr.. Pritchard. Will the Senator per.
nit me? | will read the section to which
he refers, if it will not be an interrupt
ton
Mr.. Money. Have not just read that
one?
Mr.. Pritchartl Yes. sir. | based my
argument on that decision. and | gave
the Senate exactly what the decision
said in regard to the matter
Mr.. Money. l can not read this; hut
what it says is that there is nothing that
appears in the constitution of Mississippi
which is unfair or partial. but it has not
been shown that the administration of
the law has been with an evil eye. SO
it is not whether or not the law can be
capable" Of being administered with IN
evil eye, but whether it has been so ad-
ministered.
Mr.. Pritchard. May ask the Senator
a question?
Mr.. Money. Certainly.
Mr.. Pritcharh. Is it not natural IN
ference that if it was administered with
an unequal hand and an evil eye it would
be subject TO the objection therein
stated?
Mr.. Money. If it had been administer
ed with an unequal hand and an evil
eye then certainly the court itself would
have found it was unconstitutional.
THE EVIL EYE" BUSINESS.
Mr. Pritchard That is my contention
Mr. Money. But there is not a statute
on THE books that is not capable of adj
mnistration with an unequal hand and
an evil eye. 1t depends upon the integri-
ty of the judge who expounds the law
and the officers who administer the law
1t has been the custom in every legisla-
ture and in every branch of the Govern
ment to infer that a public servant will
his duties conScientiouSly. and |
no man can say in advance that IL law
is to be administered with an evil eye
and partial hand. Yet my friend puts /
this remark here rs being in the decision |
itself-that if it is capable of being so
and his statement if llndis- |
puted will certainly have its effect upon
the votes Of the people Of North Carolina. |
Mr.. TNritchard. | certainly did not in
tend to do any such thing.
Mr.. Money. Then ! hope that the
Mr. Pritchard. | wish to state in this
if the Senator will permit me.
hat | quoted this decision i'll reply to a
statement which had been mao" by the
senator from Alabama Mr.. Morgan) the