The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-03-22

ciedTly mlSrepreSent the position of
the court. Was the Supreme Court Of
the United States governed by the in
tent OF Congress in the income-tax
cases? Was it not perfectly clear and
unquestioned that Congress never
would have passed the Wilson German
tariff act with the rates of tariff du-
ties that it contained had not Congress
at the same time and in the same act
put in provision for an income tax
to raise thirty or forty millions of rev.
enue? Probably every schedule in
rEat act would have been changed if
those income-tax provisions had not
been in it. Not only did attorneys call
the attention Of the court to this fact,
but also did Justice Harlan and other
Justices in their dissenting opinions.
Justice Harlan said:
The Judgment just rendered defeats
the purpose of Congress by taking out
CT ',l1e revenue nCS le.ls than thirty
millions and possibly fifty millions of
dollars, expected to be raised by the
duty on incomes. We know from the
official Journals of both Houses Of
Congress that taxation on imports
would not have been reduced to the ex-
~ -hC ~ was Wy IlEC w llOOl EiCI tAtcpt
'for the belief that that could be safely
! done IL the country had the benefit of
revesue derived from a tax on income.
We know from official sources that
each House Of Congress distinctly re-
| fused to strike out the provisions i'm
posing tax on incomes. The two
Houses indicated in every possible way
that 1t must be part Of any scheme
for the reduction of taxation and for
raising revenue for the support of the
governments; that with certain speci-
fled exceptions) incomes arising from
every kind Of property and from every
trade and calling should bear some of
the burdens Of the taxation imposed.
Yet the court, regardless of the clear
intent of Congress, knocked out as I'M
constitutional the income-taX provis-
ion, while leaving the other sections.
THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
But, Mr.. President, the two decisions
cited by the Senator, even If they rep
resented the weight of authority and
fixed an unvarying rule of the court
(Which they do nCt), would not apply
to the present case In the least unless
the court should be convinced that the
legislature would not have attempted
to restrict suffrage at all unless i
could do SO by placing the restriction
upon former slaves and their descen
dants While leaving all other citizens
free to vote without any restrictions
To say that such was the intention o
the legislature would be to make the
Legislature ridiculous. Would not the
court rather conclude that the intent
ion of the legislature was to restric
suffrage by an educational test, an(
that after having done this it made al
attempt through section to exempt, i
possible, certain class from it's opera
tions, which every lawyer in the legis
lature must have known, to say tn
least, was of very doubtful constitu
tionality?
There are many reasons to believ,
that the legislature did not expect sec
ton to stand the test CT the court
while they did expect the remainde
to stand. When the Louisiana amend
ment was being discussed in that Stat
convention, such admissions wer
made on the floor by delegates WIN
were good lawyers | read from tn
Harvard Law Review of December
1899, from an article entitled 'tSuffrag
| clause of uhe Louisiana constitution.
Mr.. Eaton, the author of this article
reviews the proceedings of that conven
tior. Judge Simms, member OF tina
convention, while advocating the in
sertion Of section in opposition to tn
advice of the two Senators from tina
State and of many other distinguish
lawyers, called attention to the fac
that if section should be declared un
, constitutional there would still renal
{ good constitutional working scheme
/ He expressed the opinion in the con
| yention that If section should fall tn
remainder would stand; and that sam
opinion was expressed by others sup
I porting the amendment, and in tn
face of that the convention adopte
the constitutional amendment. Th
only difference, The declared, would b
) that the special class of illiterate upo
I whom they tried to confer the right t
! vote under section 5 would be preven
. ted from voting and would have t
, stand the same educational test wit
: the negro. Gen. T. +. Bell, who wa
, chairman of the suffrage committee {
. that convention. when reporting tn
. amendment with section to the COL
: vention, in answer to objections t
/ section 5, said:
/ If 1t fails in the courts, you will sti
, have a faiGy good system with sectio
D 5 out.
Would not the court look at that d.
I claration, provided it looked at any
! thing outside of the act itself?
o Mr.. President, it was after explans
lions like this that the amendment We
q adopted by the convention. All of th
I and more, too, was known to the Les
a islature in North Carolina when
o adopted similar provision. Indeed,
v delegation came to Washington Cit,
+ in behalf of the legislature to confe
q with Louisiana Senators and ctht
r Senators about the suffrage provision
o in their respective States.
r The leading daily at Raleigh publish
7 ed full reports of interviews whie
; showed that the general consensus
: opinions in Washington was that se
" tion would not stand the test of tt
:, court, and the editor of that paper r
!. commended that the legislature ado,
= the Mississippi suffrage provision il
- stead of the Louisiana provision, c
4 account of the danger of the cou
- knocking out section 5.
- Mr.. President, have here a copy
~ the paper, the Raleigh News and o.
e server, containing that editorial. TIL
= is the same paper to which / have r
;. feryed, one Of the leading Democrat
n dailies Of Raleigh. The edit0r editor
ally advises the legislature to put bo
: the Mississippi plan and the Louisia1
II plan in the same amendment, and tn;
~ proceeds to say:
70 If, however, the court should decla
l. the "son and grandson" clause unco
l. stituuonal, there would then rema