The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-08-03

one ana lu0lVfSu Uies dHu tHde SeSh RiV- vision thereof Is separate. distinct, in- dependent and indivisibie."
 Mir. Sanders--It seems r. me that the substitute reported by the Commit tee contains a suggestion and intima- ton that some of the provisions in the Suffrage Article are void and would fall before the courts. I do not be- lieve, MT. President. that would be the case, but I doubt the wisdom, and doubt the policy of the Article upon it's face containing a doubt and intima- ton as to the soundness of all of. it's provisions. I take 1t that what the Committee aims to accomplish is that each provision of the Suffrage Article shall be separate, distinct, independent and indivisible, so that if one part of it shall fall the other part will remain intact, and every provision will stand upon it's own merits. 1 think that ;ths substitute accomplishes all that wt should attempt 10 embodye In the suf' frage Article .upon that point.
 Mr. Carmichael (Colbertl-I move to lay the section, substitute and amend ment to the substitute upon the table
 Mir. Knox-I hope the gentleman will withdraw that for a moment.
 Mir. Carmichael-I withdraw 1t.
 , Mir. Knox-Mr. President. it seems to me that we should adopt the snbsti- ute as reported by the Committee on Suffrage and Elections. Tie gentleman from Lee General Harrison) has main tained with great emphasis in the dis cussion of the general question. that he believed that one clause. the de- scendants clause of the suffrage plan, was unconstitutionaa. and would he st StN < .NlH to concur in the wisdom of the com mittee in reporting that provision of the plan which provided that all those of good character should have the fright to vote, and that all soldiers should have the right to vote. and yet he ob- jects in his argument here. to sim ols statement in this article. that 1t is not the intent and meaning ot the framers of this Constitution that it should all stand or fall together. Now we Remember that when the income tax tcasss were before the Supreme Court iof. the United States. that court first that the statute was valid ir part. and invalid in part. and vet fol the want of a declaration in the statute itself disclaiming any suchAsintention a divided court, upon a reconsideratfor of the question, he'd the whole act void Why? Because they said they would presume that Congress would not have passed any part of that act if they had known and understood that the other part was going to be declared in- valid
 And so the gentleman from Tee here following up the strenuous oppositf0n he has offered to one provision of this article, objects to our making any pro- visions for protection to the rest of the plan against a disaster which he says will befali the whole plan. when the Supreme Court knocks out one clause. He suggests. Mir. Chairman and this has been harped upon great deal during the discussion of this ar- ticle on suffrage, that when<we make any declaration in this article as to what ohr intentions are with reference to the whole article we show a lack oi confidence in the article. I do not think that because an attorney is eau tious and prudent. because i1o wishes to hedge about an article with every safeguard which it is possible to throw around 1t. that 1t indicates any lack of confidence on his part in It's validity or Gonstitutlonality. These people who are always so dead cock sure about
  do not always make the safest counsel lors or advisers. Of what comfort is Il to your client, after he has entrusted important interests to your manage ment and has lost his case. to be able t. say that my attorney was so conf. vdeut Tn the position he occupied thai he even omitted to throw around 1t 2 needed safeguard, which would have protected the whole scheme. on prac- tically the whole scneme
 Mir. Sanders-May I interrupt the gentleman. .. ..
 The President pro tem.-Wiu the gen tleman yield?
 Mir. Knox-I prerer not to yield just now Lord Eldon, the greatest of the Lord Chancellors--one of the greatest was regarded and so designated by the profession as the great doubter." The attorney is not always wrong. either Mir. President. simply because the court has decided contrary to the ad- vice he has given. The court Is some times wrong. and the court sometimes admits that 1t Is wrong. Why. I re- member a case where Gen. Butler Benjamin r. Butler-who without re- gard to his many other shortcomings was justly regarded everywhere. as very eminent lawyer. appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States and filed an application for rehearing of a case that had been decided against him. His application was overruled and he appeared and presented sec ond application for rehearing. Chiei Justice Waite. who was then presiding called him to order. and said: "Don't you know. General Butler, that 1t is contrary to the precedents and prac- tice of this court to entertain second application for q rehearing!" To which General Butler replied: Yes, if Your Honor please. I recognize that. but venture to suggest that If the court will take this application for rehearing. they will not only grant 1t. hut they will thank me for putting 1t in" And ithe court did take the application fo' a rehaaring and 1t was granted! Ee member another instance which Is re. lated as having occurred in that court. where it is said that a very bright young Irishman by the name of John son ~as arguing some important case before the court. and heIhad with him Coke and Blackstone and Kent, and was laying down elementary princi ples one after another. when Judge Miller, who was fond of interrupting counsel. interrupted and said: "Oh. Mi Johnson. MT. Johnson. I think you might at least indulge the presumption that this court Knows the A F C,S of the law" No he said. If Your Hon or please, indulged that presumption in the court below. and got left. and do not propose to take any chances here!"
 Now, Mir. President, simply because court decides a proposition adversely