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


MENT WILL STAND.
Mr.. President. | come now to consid-
er the second question, which is: Sec
tion being unconstitutional, Will the
court in declaring it so hold that all
the amendment must fall, or that only
section (the unconstitutional parD
must fall, leaving the remainder of the
amendment, which is clearly constitu-
tional, to stand? In my opinion the
court would follow the many prece-
dents alre ady laid down in similar
cases, and hold that, inasmuch as sec
tion has one object and the remain
der OF the amendment has a very diff
erent object and are therefore severa-
BILE, and inasmuch as the amendment
with section (the unconstitutional
part) left out would still be operative
and Ineligible and would make a
complete and constitutional scheme
for limiting suffrage, it would stand,
while section would be eliminated.
/ make the statement as my opinion
because the decisions Of the Supreme
Court sustain that opinion, which
will presently show. But before pro-
ceeding to quote these authorities and
make an argument upon them, | wish
TO note briefly the two cases cited by
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Money! which he claims establish a
different doctrine. He read first from
Sprague VS.. Thompson (118 U. s., page
90), as follows:
The insuperable difficulty with the
application of a principle Of construc-
tion to the present instance is that by
rejection the exception intended by
the legislature of Georgia the statute is
made to enact what confeSsedly the
Legislature never meant. 1t corfers
upon the statute positive operation
beyond the Legislative intent, and be-
yond what anyone could say it would
have enacted, in view of the illegality
of the exception.
Next he cites Warren VS.. Mayor and
Aldermen of Charleston (6S Mass.
and quotes the following from that de-
cision:
parts Of statute are so mutu-
ally connected and dependent as con-
ditions, considerations, or compensa-
tions for each other as to warrant q
belief that the legislature intended
them as q whole, and that if all could
not be carried into effect the legisla-
" hre would not pass the residue indie
. pendently-if such parts are unoonsti-
Cutianal and void, all the provisions
y .nich are thus dependent. conditional
or connected must fall with them.
:. The Senator from Mississippi, after
n reading these two decisions, one a de.
'scision of the Supreme Court and the
, other a decision of the State court o.
Massachusetts. proceeded to say thai
|. Nthese cases were not only exactly ir
point but that they settled the ques
ION. The Senate will remember thai
4 \tIat point in his speech. l asket
pc mission to interrupt the Senator
that l had on my desk nine or ter
volumes OF the Supreme Court Reports
and held in my hand a statement of the
cases in those reports which / stated
showed that Ith. Senator was wrong a!
TO the weight of authority on his side
1 asked permission of the Senator tt
'-uNd from these cases, which he de
clfned l then asked permission for
simple statement of the names of tn,
cases to go into the Record with hi!
speech, so that those who read hi.
speech might also, IL they desired, reac
these cases and know what the cour
had held. The Senator declined t.
permit even the title of these cases Il
go Into the Record along with hi
speech. He declared that he did no
mean to be dlscounteous, but he sal,
that he would rather not have thos
cases cited in his speech
Now, let us for a moment examin
the two cases cited by the Senator.
have just read from the Record th,
two extracts which he read from thes
cases and upon which he relied. The
are both TO the effect that the cour
must consider, among other things, tn
legislative intene in deciding whethe
an unconstitutional part of a statut
shall fall alone or drag the remainde
OF the statute with ut. This Is true.
adp to certain extent and in a Ger
tain. sense; but it is not the only con
eideration with the court, and is not h
any means, as a rule, the controIIjn
consideration, even where the inten
OF the legislature is clear To saw tina
the Supreme Court will Never deelar
any one section of statute void an
lea, the remainder to stand, where
as ctea. that the legislature would nc
have passed one part without passin
the Others, is practically to say tha
the court will never declare one SO,
tion OF any statute void without decfal
ing the whole statute vofdo- g-C .hore
\ constituLS sal. >
4, II Is to ~ 2resur 4 tlDt every leei.
i iature and every Congress when
passes an act intends 1t all to stand {
dt would not have passed II. I MAX
that statement to show that the quot
tton OF the Senator, without qualific,