The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-01-18

utbJO1IC8l evl0SuCOs 8HN w 0oSA tOS
neaning Of the words in the use and |
n the opinion Of those whose relation |
o the government, and means Of
In0wlege, warranted them in speak |
ng with authority"
Fuller, Chief Justice, in deliver
ng the prevailing opinion In the
Income Tax Cases and White, J.,
Who wrote the principal dissenting
opinion, both in discussing the
of the term ''direct tax"
enter into long historical disserta-
lions.
Miller J., who, as a constitution
ii lawyer, is considered by some as
second only to Marshall, said in
Ex Parte Balm of 8. c., Rep ,, in dis
cussing the functions OF grand
jury:
ut il never to be forgotten that in
the construction of the language of the
here relied on, as indeed
in all other instances where construc-
ton becomes necessary, We are to
place ourselves as nearly as possible
in the condition of the men Who franz
ed that instrument"
Bradley, j., in Hans VS.. Louisia-
ma, decided in March 1890, reviews
fully the history that surrounds
the enactment of the Eleventh
to the Federal Consti-
tuition.
Cooley, Chief Justice, (the author
of Constitutional Limitations) in
people VS.. Harding, So Michigan,
said:
"In seeking for the real meaning of
the Constitution, we must take INTO
consider alton the times and the cir
under which it was framed
the general spirit of the times and the
prevailing sentiments among the peo-
pie. Every constitution has a history
of it's own, which is likely to be more
or less peculiar, and unless interpreted
in the light of this history, is liable to
express purposes which were never IN
the minds of the people when agree
ing to it. This the court must keep IT
mind when called upon to interpret
It," etc. etc.
I call the roll of all these great
names, Marshall, fancy, Daniel,
Catron, Mclean, Curtis, Chase, Full
Ter, Miller, Bradley, White and
Cooley-is this a novel method of
interpreting written Constitutions,
then?
End. The effect of Section if
adopted. The cases which illustrate
this cannon come thronging upon
my memory DIS l write. There are
bushels of them. 1 repeat what l
wrote before: "There is not a case
which defines the control of the
State over private right, or limits
the police power of the State by the
Interstate Commerce provision OF
the Federal Constitution, in the
determination of which the courts
have not gone back of the face OF
the act, to the results which may
ensue from it's practical operation.
In defining the limit Of the police
power over the private right, al
the courts say that the act Of the
Legislature which destroys pri
vate right, must, to be constitution
al, be reasonably adapted to the enc
desired, i. 9. the public health, thu
public morals or the public safety
How can they determine the acts
reasonable adaptation without con
sidering it's effects? I cite, howev
! or, the following cases:
Judge Campbell, who was SECOND
probably, only to Judge Coole,
among Michigan judges, says, il
Park VS.. Press Co. Nov. 1888:
"But we do not think the State con
trolls the action, or is within the powe
of constitutional legislation. This viii
In our judgment, appear from state
ment of it's effects, if carried out"
In Henderson vs.. the Mayor, ETC., g.
u. S., the United States Supreme Cour
says: "In whatever language statut
might be framed, it's purpose must b.
determined by its natural and reason
able effect"
So it may be considered certain
that the same court will conside
the effect of section 5. Now consid
ering the history that surround
and so is mingled with tn
fifteenth amendment and sec
tion 5, and the natural and rea
sonable effect of said section, w,
, find that there is not a single ex
slave or descendent of a slave or Q
an eX-slave, who has not the edu
cational qualification imposed UP
on him, while no white man, prac
tically, has it imposed upon him
"The right of citizens of the Unite
States to vote shall not be denied O
abridged by the United States, or b
any State, on account of race, color Q
previous condition of servitude."
There is not a word in this 15t
amendment that has not bee
forged in the fire of public opinion
and by it's authors welded int
continuity and strength. No, NJ
Mr.. Editor, there is no surplusag
in it. Can there be any doubt abou
the unconstitutionality of section 5
| But l promised, in the secon
place to examine more minutel
the recent arguments for the cor
stitutionality of said Section an
show their fallacy in each instance
The editor, OF course, shall be first
''The amendment does not dis
eliminate against the negro on &C
count of his race, but because of hi
disqualifications," says he on Ma
18th. But, If those disqualif1cs
lions are inherent in his race, th
Fifteenth Amendment says that
cannot be disqualified on that a,
count. If he could, why thi
trouble? Disfranchise the Negro
not because he is is negro, but b,
cause he is not fit to vote. That
the logic of his editorial of May 14tl
And the Fifteenth Amendment wa
incorporated in our "supreme law
just to meet such an argument a
that.
! Again, in his issue Of May 2Otl
he says:
j, Gall who possess certain quxlific,
tions, age, residence, educational, wi
be be allowed to vote. This will III
questionably include q number of n,
groes, who, if they were not slav,
themselves, are immediate descenden,