The Journal of Negro History, Volume 6, 1921 — John Shaqi
The Journal of Negro History, Volume 6, 1921Various
History
The Journal of Negro History, Volume 6, 1921
Various
African Americans -- Periodicals
The court conceded that the reserve power to alter, or amend charters
is subject to reasonable limitations but insisted that the Kentucky
law includes no alteration or amendment which defeats or substantially
impairs the object of the grant of vested rights. The court then went
almost out of its way to say that "a general statute which in effect
alters or amends a charter is to be construed as an amendment for all
even if not in terms so designated. The court conceded that a statute
which permits the education of both whites and Negroes at the same
time in different localities, although prohibiting their attendance in
the same place, does not defeat the object of a grant to maintain the
college for all persons and is not violative of the contract clause of
the Federal Constitution, the State law having reserved the right to
repeal, alter and amend charters.
Justice Harlan dissented. He referred to the fact that the court held
also, in _Huntington_ v. _Werthen_,[72] that if one provision of a
statute be invalid the whole act will fall, where "it is evident the
legislature would not have enacted one of them without the other."
Harlan meant to say here that to construe this law as applying only to
corporations and not to individuals would give it an interpretation
that the legislature never had in mind. The intention of the State
legislature was to prevent all coeducation of Negroes and whites
whether it should be done by persons or corporations. The whole law,
therefore, should fall. Justice Harlan conceded that a State reserved
the right to repeal the charter but it was not repealed by this act.
The statute did not purport even to amend the charter of any
particular corporation but assumed to establish a certain rule
applicable alike to all individuals, associations, or corporations
that teach the white and black races together in the same institution.
This decision of the United States Supreme Court was then nothing more
than "fine sophistry" to sanction an arbitrary invasion of the rights
of liberty and property guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account