The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-06-21
ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO FOOI. THE
PEOPLE.

"nen tn8s Wise lawyer Iegtsla-
ture OF 1899 submitted the amend
ment, all other lawyers who hoped
for pie, said it was constitutional
and that the fifth and fourth sec.
lions must stand or fall together.
The Democratic convention, In all
its wisdom. endorsed the amend
ment as it was, and made 1T the
only issue. They nominated q state
ticket and the candidates each
endorsed the amendment as the
only issue and declared 1t was per-
feet. These candidates proceeded
at once and canvassed the State
and taught the people that 1t was
constitutional and that If the fifth
section Is declared unconstitutional
the whole will fall. These candi-
dates and the Democratic speakers
and papers reported every day that
the people were endorsing it, and
that at least $4,000 majority OF the
people-white people-had endors-
ed it and had decided to vote for it,
and that 1t was gaining recruits
every day. Notwithstanding all
this, yet when the "Iump" legisla-
ture met last week it changed that
perfect % legal document. They
made several changes. They put
put the 4th and 5th sections togeth-
er, SO that if one falls, both will be
sure to fall as they claim. And for
fear the court would not
know how to construe it.,
they added the following section,
Instructing the Supreme Court how
to render it's decision.
(Sectlon 81 That this Amendment
to the Constitution is presented and
adopted as one indivisible plan for the
regulation OF the suffrage, with the in
tent and purpO to so connect the diff
terent parts, and to make them 81 de-
pendent upon each 9th r. hat the
whole shall stand or fall together.
Now as regards to the Legislature
lnstructing the court, We will say that
ls usurDatiOn of it's powers, and is al
so violation of the State constitution.
For by reference to section IL, Article
4, of the State constitution, we find the
following:
"The General Assembly shall have
no power to deprive the judiciary De-
par tment of any power or jurisdiction
which rightly belongs to it as q co or
dinate department of the government,
If the Legislature can do as they
have said, then we can't see why tn.
Legislature could not interpret and
pass upon all its laws and do as a gem
tlelnan said they came to do on the
l2th. VIZ: "To ABOLISH THE SUPREME
COURT"
In Bank vs.. Dudley q Peters. 1927,
decision rendered in 1899. Chief Jus
tice Marshall rendered the decision of
the court in that case, in which be
said:
"1f any parts of au act be unc )nsti
tutional, the provisions of that part
may be disregarded, while full effect
will be given to such as are not repug-
nant to the Constitution of the United
States or to the ordinance of 1887"
Judge Cooley on constitutional con
struction says:
1.-The constitutional and the upcon-
stltutional provisions may even be con-
tanned in the same section and vet b.
perfectly distinct and separable. so
hat the first may stand though the
last fall,
"The point is not whether thew are
contained In the same section-for the
into sections is purely ar
whether they are essential
and inseparably connected in sub
stance. If, when the unconstitutional
portion is stricken out, that which re-
mains is complete in itself and capable
Of being executed, wholly independent
OF that which was rejected, it must be
sustained. The difficulty is in deter
whet her the good and bad parts
OF the statute arc capable of beng sep.
arated within the meaning of this |
ule- LII statute attempts to accom-
pilsh two or more objects, and is void |
40 w 'oOs ~ "oy otl1k NC Ill every re. |
spect complete and valid as to the 9th
ar"
POmeroy's Constitutional Construc-
ion, page 554, in which the author, in
discussing this very question, says:
1T is we'll settled that an act may be
'oid in part by reason of it's violation
II constitutional provision, and good
10 to tie remainder. "If any part of
he act be UNCONSTITUTIONAL" said the
supreme Court of the United states,
the provisions of that part may b.
isregarded, while full effect will be
'1veD to such as are not repugnant to
he Constitution of the United States.
= OF the State, or to the ordinance of
1877"
No court has ever yet permitted any
legislative body in North Carolina or
nywhere else in this country to thus
instruct them as to how they should ,
onstrue statute. The court never
'oks at the declaration that legisla-
are makes, but it looks at the sub
lance of what it does and renders it's 8
1dgment accordingly. The Supreme {
curt Of North Carolina, in the case of
johnson Va. Barfleld q Murphy, 1.-
ored such declaration on the part of {
ne legislature and in the decision said {
rat the court would allow such decla.
Itions attempting to instruct the ia.
lclary to remain las dead letters On
le statute books" Further on in the
'fnion, Judge Daniels, one of the
best judges Of the State, in delivering s
le opinion, said:
THE court can neither nlbble at the
gislative power nor can the leaisla il
re stride over the judicial" hi
In the case of United States vs.. o
aflin (s7 U. 8. Reports) the court @
Us: q
A recital in statute that a former e
atute was repealed or superseded by n
bsequent acts is not conc usive as to it