The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-03-08

proposed amendment and sec il its
natural and reasonable effect would be
TO destroy the guaranty against dis
elimination in the fifteenth amend
ment. ] take it that no lawyer familiar
with the decisions OF our Supreme
Court will question that this is a fair
and correct statement of the rule OF
construction and Interpretation by
which the court has in the past been
guided and would, of course, be guided
in this and all similar cases.
AUTHORITIES CITED.
cite the opinion of the court, rem
dered by Chief Justice Marshall in the
case of Brown VS.. Maryland C2 Whea-
, tom, in support Of my statement as 10
the rules OF construction that the court
adopts in such cases.
Also the opinion of the court in the
/ Dred Scott case, rendered by Chief Jus
! tice Taney, and in addition, every con-
/ curing and dissenting opinion in tina,
I case bear out this rule of construction.
I In discussing the conetitutionality
7 of Article ", section 3, subsection 2,
/ Of the Constitution, the court in the
latter case said:
/ brief summary OF the history Of
:
measured terms in which the arsitle
is framed, well shows the correctness
of the proposition.
In Bank VS.. Fenno IS WaNace) Ch ef
Justice Chase, in discussing the mean
ing of the term direct tax, said:
We are obliged, therefore, TO resort
to historical evidence and to seek the
meaning OF the words in the use and
in the opinion OF those whose relation
to the government and means OF
knowledge warranted them in speak
ing with authority.
/ cite, in addition, the opinion Of lie
court, rendered by Chief Justice Full
ler, in the recent income tax case. as
we'll as the dissenting opinions, all o.
which went into long historical dis
sertations.
In the case Of HahnS VS.. Louisiana
Judge Bradley reviews fully the his
tory that surrounds the enactment OF
the eleventh amendment to the Con-
stitution.
Chief Justice Cooley, the author OF
Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, in
People VS.. Harding t53 Michiganl
says:
In seeking for the real meaning OF
the Constitution we must take into
consideration the times and the cir
cumstances under which it was fran
ed, the general spirit OF the times, and
the prevailing sentiment among the
people Every constitution has his
tory of it's own, which is likely TO- De
more or less peculiar, and unless in
terpreted in the light of this history IS
liable to express purposes which we're
never in the minds Of the people when
agreeing to it. This the court mus!
keep in mind when called upon to in
terpret.
Many more decisions to the same ef-
feet can be cited, and none to the con-
trary, as far as | have been able to lind
to support the rule Of construction and
Interpretation to the effect that the
court would consider the political his
tory Of the times, ETC., in determining
, the object of section Of the amend
ment.
AS 10 the SEcUnu TuIe Oh CUlistI uC tion
that the court will look to the effeci
Of section when passing upon its con-
: stitutionality, the authorities arf
' equally as abundant and conclusive.
In Parke VS.. Press Company Judge
Campbell, one of Michigan's Creates
judges, rendering the opinion OF the
l court, said:
g, But we do not think the State con.
!: trolls the action or is within the power
: Of constitutional legislation. This will
in our judgment, appear from state
ment of it's effect if carried out.
: Again, in Soon Hing VS.. Crowley III;
= L. S. Reports, page 703), the cour
n says:
o And the rule is general with refer
: ence to the enactments OF all leglsla
e tive bodies, that the courts can not IN
d quire into the motives CT the legisla
II tors in passing them, except as the
S may be disclosed on the face Of tn
y acts, Or inferrible from their operation
{ considered with reference TO the con
d dition Of the country and existin
n LEGISLATION. The motives of the legis
'. la.ors considered as the purposes the
/, had in view will always be presume
o to be to accomplish that which follow
d as the natural and reasonable effect {
II their enactments.
is Is it possible for anything to b
clearer or more to the point and cor
Is elusive than this opinion Of the court
.e Again, in Minnesota vs.. Barber Il:
AZ Z. S. Reports, page 313). the cou1
ID says:
10 In whatever language a statute ma
n, be framed its purpose must be dete1
er mined by it's natural and reasonab
te effect
Il The United States Supreme Cou
I'd has universally followed the same ru
d, of construction. I will stop to quo
ce from but one more case.
to In Henderson VS.. The Mayor (92
S. Reports) the court, using almost tt
lie same language l have quoted abov
rs said:
Or In whatever language a statu
IN might be framed, its purpose must
er determined by its natural and reason
lie able effect.
er So take it that everyone will adm
IL, that should section . OF this propose
III amendment come before the ccul
that the court would, of course, CO..
c. slider the history that surrounds al
er is so mingled with the fifteenth amen
es ment and section 5, and would al
e. consider 1.-The natural and reasonab
rs effect of that section.
to I repeat, Mr.. President that I do n
o think there is a lawyer in this body
to in the country that will question tn
ni statement. Now, if that is true, al
he II is true beyond question, then VIII
RS. follows?
We SECTION 5 CLEARLY UNCONST
ny TUTIONAL.
,es The court, following these weil-e
,st tablished rules of construction, won
is necessarily discover that section 8 W
plainly obnoxious to the fifteen
NJ amendment. The court would first
quire, Why was the arbitrary date
1867 adopted? Why not 1875 or is
'ed or 1899? The court would necessar
is have to inquire what class OF citize
ks could vote in 1867 or prior thereto a
IL what class could not; whose gran
i'm fathers could vote then and wht
lr- grandfathers could not. The answer
lat this question would bring sharply
teS lha ot,tont ION of the court the fact I'll