The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-04-05
CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS ON THE,
PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
! These Men say the grandfather CIauss''
is Unconstitutional.

United States Senator, William V,
Allen-Tbere is to my mind DO ques-
tlOn as to what the decision OF tbs
court would be. If section o of the
proposed amendment in your state is
not In violation OF the fifteenth amend
menet OF the United States cOnstitu-
tOn, then 1T would seem that it would
| he lmpOss bic to violate that amend
ment. The effect of section is lust
| the same as IT the proposed amend
| ment in your state had read: EVERY
citizen shall be entitled to vote with
out being required to submit to any
educational test, except those who are
| slaves or who are the descendants of
slaves, and no person who was slave
or who is the descendant of a slave
shall be allowed to vote unless he can
read and write" Will any one contend
tlatksuCh provision is constitutions
a? Yet how would such an amend
ment differ from the proposed amend
menG III your state? In form only; GER
tainly not in effect.
That the cOnstirutionalty of law is
to be determi ned, not by the form, but
by the effect of its operation, is a priu-
ciple so well established that it may be
SAID to be an axiom Of constitutional
law. Hence the legal maxim: Moth
ing can be dOneindireCtly which can
not be done directly" Inasmuch as
there IS nos a case in the United States
reports that is not an authority in sup
port of the above, do not deem it nee
essary so burden this letter with Cita-
tIOns of authority,
In reply to your second question, |
will state that 1t seems to me equally
as clear that The court would declare
unconstitutional only section 5, leav-
ing the other sections of the amend
meut, which are clearly constitutional,
to stand.
Ex-senator George X. Edmunds, of
Vermont:
lam of the opinion, if am right in
suppOsing the motive and purpose of
| the section is to disfrauchise a mass of
| c0lUred citizens of North Carolina who,
| under the present equal aud repu oil
can constitution Of that state, are now
entitled to suffrage, that it violates the
10Th amendmt ut of the constitution of
the L 1ited States. The matter of mo-
tive and purpose is one of fact; aud if
snch motive and purpose exist, then
the right of this class of citizens ie
denied or abridged on account
OF race, color or previous condition of
serVitude"; and Uhis section nf the pro-
| posed amendment cannot be saved by
Any device OF date or phrase. See Will
iiams VS. Mississippi, 10 u. s., and ca
ses there cited, where the principles
| applicable to cases under the four
| teen'h amendment are stated. | am
for these reasons of opinion that the
| fifth section referred to will be held
void when brought to judicial decis-
| ION.
Applying the tests established by
he Supreme Court OF the United States
| IN regard TO such question, it would
seem that section 4 may stand perfect
ly we'll without he d fth section I6 is
complete in itself as a distinct section
and distinct and complete PROPOSE
zion. | think the fourth section
ca stand, although the fifth section is
held invalid.
United States Senator +. F. Petit.
grew:
| am Of the opinion that if the con
StltutiOnal amendment we're adopted
the Supreme Court Will hold that sec
JiOn 3 is unconstitutional, and that the
emainder Of the provisions are con
! stitutional and will stand.
Senator ). ID. McEnery, of louisa
ma:
In answer | say that section i
grossly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. | have sub
mirted the same to some of the ables
Democrats of the Senate who are abl
constitutional lawyers. They all con
cur i q my opinion that if adopted tn
effect will be 10 lose in cur represen
, tstiOn in Congress and in the electora
woe of tire State.