The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-04-15
CANNOT DIVIDE SECTION
Because to Do So Would Defeat the
General Purpose,
FALLACY OF THE REPUBLICANS SHOWN
Edmunds, Allen and Pettgrew Base Their
Argument on Mistaken As
sumption Of the Amend
ment.
(The Progressive Farmer.)

A correspondent asks: "Are you still
of the opinion expressed by you last year
that if the courts should declare Sec
tion 5 Of the grandfather clause of the
proposed Constitutional Amendment un-
constitutional that the whole amendment
would be invalidated-in other words,
that all the sections stand or fall togeth-
err"
In reply, will say that we still hold that
opinion In fact we are more firmly con-
yinced of it's correctness than at the
time our editorial announcing this view
was written AS every one knows If the
grandfather clause of the proposed
amendment is unconstitutional it is so be-
cause Of conflict with the Fifteenth
amendment to the Constitution of the
United States That amendment reads
as follows:
"The right Of citizens of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States, or by
any State, on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude."
The important question is, therefore,
Does Section Of the amendment, which
contains the grandfather clause, deny or
abridge the right of citizens to vote ON
account of race, color, or pervious condl-
ticn Of servitude?' An examination will
show conelusiyely that it does nothing
of the kind. On the contrary, this Sec
tion is for the purpose, not of denying,
but Of granting, to certain class Oh
persons the right of suffrage denied them
by Section 4. Hence, it does not OF ltsel
conflict with the Fifteenth amendment.
Nor is Section 4 of itself unconstitutional.
A moments thought will convince any
right thinking man that it is only by con-
sdering the amendments as whole that
it can possibly be considered in conflict
with the Fifteenth amendment TO our
National Constitution. Let us repeat Tor
the sake. Of emphasis: No one will for
a moment attempt to maintain that Sec
ton or the. grandfather clause of it
self denies or abridges'' the right of any
citizen to vote on account of race, color,
previous condition OF servitude, or for
any other cause. Therefore it. taken
alone, cannot obstruct the operation OF
the Fifteenth amendment This being
so, the court in considering the constitu-
ticnality of the grandfather clause, must
consider it in it's relation to Section f.
III connection with that clause; that is, as
one link of a chain, which, being broken,
all falls. In other words it must con
slider the amendment as a whole, and If
Section ) be unconstitutional, declare it,
as a whole, unconstitutional and void.
'But," asks some one have you read
the arguments of those who hold that the
sections would not fall together? And
haven't Senators Allen, Edmunds, and
Pettigrew declared that the grandfather
clause may fall without invalidating the
other sections? And doesn't the principle
laid down by the renowned jurist, Judge
Cooley, in his Statutes Unconstitutional
in part show that such would be the
case?"
Yes, we have read the speeches re-
ferred to and the views of all the Sena-
tors that have given out opinions regard
ing the amendment We have also care
fully studied Judge Cooley's views on the
subject in hand. Excepting examples
given to illustrate his points, the prin-
cipal part of the opinion Of Judge Coo
ley is given in full herewith:
"It will sometimes be found that an act
of the Legislature is opposed in some
of it's provisions to the Constitution. while
others, standing by themselves, would
be unobjectionable. So the forms OBJ
served in passing it may be sufficient for
some of the purposes sought to be ac-
complished by it, but insufficient for 9TH
ers. In any such case the portion which
conflicts with the Constitution, or in re-
gard to which the necessary conditions
have not been observed must be treated
as nullity. Whether the other parts
Of the statute must also be adjuged void
because of the association must depend
upon a consideration of the object of the
law, and in what manner and to what eX-
tent the unconstitutional portion affects
the remainder.
"A statute, it has been said, is judcally
held to be unconstitutional because il is
not within the scope of legislative au-
thority. 1t may either. propose to accom-
plish something prohibited by the Con-
Stltution or to accomplish some lawful
and even laudable object by means repug
nant TO the Constitution Of the United
States or of the State. statute may
contain some such provisions, and yet Che
same act. having received the same sane
tion of all branches Of the Legislature.
and being in the form Of law, may con-
tain other useful and salutary provisions
not obnoxious TO any just constitutional
exception. 1t would be, inconsistent with
all just principles of constitutional law
to adjudge these enactments ycid because
they are associated in the same act but
{Confinued IN Second Page