Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1842-06-07

ment, was fully sex ID. But there
is no necessity for suSt lining the pub
LEGATION Of this sectioN alone, since,
for any thing that appet rs in this plea,
the whole oflhe charter as published,
and must be free from OBJ Aadon, unless
it be contaminated by tt eonstltu-
tionality Of the supplemd be
supposed then that the
act was void. does itnec( 9fow
that the original act is foN reason
also void' | cannot pa e how
such consequence wo follow.
That which is valid cannot u destroy
ed by tina which is void, ~ oid act
can have no influence on a valid one;
and fit be true, and it is not denied,
that the original act would have beer
valid without the supplement, ben it
would seem TO follow that it'd
ity could not be shaken by
supplement. They are separat
and it would seem to be an an
in legislation, that previous va
could be destroyed by subsd
void one. | am aware that acts
same subject are to be construe
gether for the purpose of carrying
fully the provisions Of such laws,
this is a mere rule Of construction;
when their validity is attacked, I
they may be considered as having
separate and independent existence.
Ii one be void, the other will not be
affected, unless they be so essentially
connected and blended together, as 10
make one useless and imperative with
out the other. But, suppose we con-
slider them as making but one law, does
it then follow that, if the provisions of
the supplemental be void the provisions of
the first act are also lost? 1t undoubt-
eddy does not. This again would de-
pend on the connection or dependence
Of the several provisions. part of
the act can be carried out, and that
part be constitutional, it must stand,
and the portion which is unconstitu-
tional must be rejected. Suppose the
legislature were to make in one act an
entire code Of law, either with or with
out title, and one section or one pro-
vision Of that code should turn out TO
be unconstitutional, surely it would
not necessarily follow that the whole
code must for that reason be declared
unconstitutional. The void would be
separate from the valid, aEd that which
was not unconstitutional would remain
in force. 1t is not at all uncommon
for the courts ofthe country to declare
a section or provision in a law un-
constitutional, and to retain and en-
force the balance. Thus in the case
Of Thomson, Us. The Grand Gulf Rail
Road Company-3 Howard 240-this
court held single provision in the
charter unconstitutional, but this did
not induce us to declare the whole
charter void. The same doctrine is
recognized in the case Of Sturges, Us.
Crownenshield, reported in 4 Whea-
ton; and again in the case ofthe Bank
of Hamilton, rs. Dudley's lessee, 2
Peters 492, in which the constitution
atty of an act ofthe legislature Of Ohio
was questioned. In deciding the case,
Chief Justice Marshall remarked, that
elf any part Of the act be unconstitu,
tional, the provisions Of that part may
be disregarded, while full effect will be
given to such as are not repugnant to
the constitution Of the United States,
or of the State, or 10 the ordinance oil
1857" 1t would then necessarily
follow that, even if the supplement be
void, The original act is not for that rea-
son ais void. 1t is not therefore, material
whether they be regarded as one law,
then the provisions which are uncon-
stitutional must be rejected, and the
remainder must be enforced or carried
out. Ifthey be regarded as separate
laws, then one must be rejected anC
the other retained. The position
taken by counsel necessarily destroy;
the force of the argument advanced, as
will be seen by reference to the date!
of the acts. On the 21st Of January
1887, the original charter was passed
and approved. 1t was 6y the All
section referred TO the next legislature
and directed to be published asSlh'
constitution required, andAit is not de
MED bat what this was do Ga tn,
; thad originally passed, without any al
iteration was passed by the succeed
9th of February, 1888, the act, as i
: ing legislature and approved by tn
Governor. 1t then became law, con
fessedly constitutional. On This Stat
Of things let the mind for a momen
pause and survey the past, Here i
bank constitutionally enacted by th
legislature, and which must therefore
g be valid. It's not void for imbiguity
/; or because it cannot be carried out. 1t
I details are such as the legislator
g thought necessary and sufficient, an