The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-02-08
senator A[[EN ON THE AMENDMENT.
lie Declares That Section Five is Unconsti.
tutiOnal.
MS OPINION As A LAWYER. AFTER DELBERAT|Ol.
He Points Out Forcibly That Section Five Will Fal
While Other Sections Will Stand.

In reply to your second question.
will state that il seems to me equally
as clear that the court would declare
unconstitutional only section ), leaving
the other sections OF the amendment.
which are clearly constitutional 20
stand.
The only decisions OF the Supreme
Court that could be quoted as against
this view are these stating that the
Court. in deciding whether all or
part of the statute should fall on ac-
count Of part being unconstitutional.
would, among other things. consider
the Intention OF the Legisllture.-that
is: whether the Legislature would
have passed the constitutional parts II
il had known that the other parts
were unconstitutional and would not
stand. And even these decisions
would ret apply TO the present case
in the least unless the Court should
be convinced that the Legislature
would not have attempted 10 restrict
suffrage at all unless it could do so BY
placing a restriction upon former
slaves and their descendants. while
| leaving all other citizens free to vote
without any restriction. ! would say
! it would be difficult to convince the
| Court that such was the intention Of
| any intelligent Legislature that would
! seriously adopt any educational suf-
| frage amendment. Would not the
! Court rather conclude that Il was
! clearly the intention OF the Legislature
/ to limit suffrage by an educational test
I and that it attempted in Section 10
| except a class from its operation which
they must have known. 10 say the
| least. was OF very doubtful constitu-
tional;ty.
But the tendency of the decisions Of
the Court has been TO look TO the ef-
feet of statute rather than to the
intent of the Legislature. ard the
: important test applied by the Court in
such cases is: Will the remainder o.
the statute be Ineligible and
operative If the unconstitution-
al parts are stricken out? In
The Income Tax case the court
entirely ignored the intention CT Con.
gress. It was clear that the tariff
schedules in the other sections of that
act would have been very different had
net the sections providing for raising
thirty CT forty million dollars by AZ
income tax been part Of the bill. Ye;
the Court declared the income ta>
sections unconstitutional. leaving th'
other sections to stand On the ground
shat the other sections were irtell:
: gible and operative alone.
In Penniman's case. 103 L. s., pag'
III, Justice Wood delivering the opin
ion of the Court says:
Statutes that are constitutional Il
parts only will be upheld SO far a!
they are not in conflice with the Con
stitution, provided the allowed an.
, prohibited parts are severable. So tha
/ If so much of the section under con
, sideration as relieves the debtor from
t Imprisonment for debt is constitution
: al and can be severed from the o:he
parts of the enactment, the judgmen
| of the Supreme Court of Rhode Islam
should 'be affirmed. That part OF tn
section which relates to the imprison
2 ment OF the debtor. and that whic.
relates to the seizure of his property
are entirely distinct and Independent,
D and either one can stand and be opera
| tive though the other should be de
J |, clared void"
' Now cannot the other sections o
q the proposed suffrage amendmen
r stand and be operative. though tn
q o.her (Section 81 should be declare
void?" Clearly so; because when Sec
V ton 5 IS declared void and eliminated
/, the remainder of the amendme1
a makes a complete and constitutions
t scheme for limiting suffrage by an edu
: cational qualification applicable TO a
=: classes alike.
il This position is sustained by n
b overwhelming weight OF authority.
d can cite you numerous decisions an
Y the leading works on constitutions
n construction, If you desire them.
h Yours respectfully,
WILLIAM V. ALLEN.