The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-01-28

duties. We give all educated the same
rights, but we refuse to place on the
steady, intelligent, unlettered patriot re-
sponsbiity for the defects of the shift
less prejudiced and uniformed. We
draw a line of separation and appeal to
enl ghtentd Judgment and conscience for
Justification f
The entire amendment will stand or fail
as a whole. 1t is thus submitted to The
popular vote. No one can vote for one
section and reject another. All sections
pertain to suffrage. Each section !, is
material to the whole amendment. Its
opponents can cite 10 authority in which
an amendment or statute Of similar ma
ture AMI integrity has been sustained at
all when declared unconstitutional in
material part. In support of he propO
sition | have stated there are numerous
authorities. cnly one of which / will cite,
us Il is Of universal fame. 1t is the case
which shocked the American public and
limited the governments taxing power,
compelling it to resort to stamp taxes in
time OF need 1t was strong enough to
invalidate all sections of the income tax
schedule Of the Wilson bill. on the ground
that some of the taxes levied were I'M
constitutional, though many Of them,
standing alone, were admittedly consti-
tutional.
The last para graph Of the courts opn-
ion. after referring to those held uncon-
StitutiCnal concludes that "all those sec
tons constituting one entire scheme of
taxation are necessarily invalid" Re
pubiicans usually approve that decision.
No man who approves it can consistently
say that one section Of our proposed
amendment can be declared unconStitu-
tional ard the others stand intact. l
quote the following bearing on this prop
os:tiOn from the opinion of the court in
that (the income tax case (15S y. s.,
$3.50:
QUOTES FROM INCOME TAX DE
CISION.
1--WE think the rule laid down by Chief
Justice Shaw in Warren vs.. Charleston
q Gray, Sd is applicable, that if the
different parts "are so intimately con-
nected with and dependent upon each
other as conditions considerations, or
compensations for each other as to war
rant a belief that the legislature intend
ed them as whole, and that if all could
not be carried into effect the legislature
would not pass the residue independently,
and some parts are unconstitutional, all
the provisions which are thus dependent,
conditional or connected must fall with
them Or, as the point is put by Mr..
Justice Matthews in PoindeXter VS..
Greenhow Ola L. S., 304) st is UNI
doubtedly true that there may be cases
where one part of a statute may be en-
forced as constitutional and another be
declared imperative and void, because
unconstitutional; but these are cases
where the parts are so distinctly sep
arabic that each can stand alone, and
where the court is able to see and to
declare that the intention of the legis-
lature was that the part pronounced
valid should be enforceable even though
the other parts should fail. To hold other
wise would be to substitute for the law
intended by the leg .slature one they may
never have been willing by itself to en-
act"
The court then cites Spraigue VS..
Thompson dis Z. S 90 90 to the same
effect. \ constitutional amendment will
be treated. if possible, with greater con-
sideration in order TO ascertain the peo-
pies intentions. than an ordinary legis-
lative act. | predict that 10 honorable
man will ever assert that either the
legislature or the people would have ap-
proved our amendment with the fifth
section omitted.
| have referred to the above authority