The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1914-04-14

this state. initiation by this or
dilanee of a public policy so little in
aecord with the above legislation can
reasonably be inferred from tbs
general expression in the charter re-
lied ipon.
There is a wide distinction between
suffrage which is not an inherent
right but which is conferred from time
10 time and h in~alienabie right to
own. acquire, and dispose OF prop
erty which IS not conferred by tho
Constitution, but exists OF natural
right. There is no question that legts-
lation can control social rights hv
f%orbidding intermarriage of the races
and in requiring Jim Crow cars ana
in similar matters. II was also held
in Mugler v. Kansas 122 L. s. SIS
that as the State had h right
to regulate or forbid the sale OF liQ-
uor that one who had devoted his
property to such purpose could not
object that he is forbidden longer L.
so use. but none of these interfere
with the fundamental right OF every
| one to acquire and dispose Of prop
erty by sale. The right TO devise *
tut and therefore can not be
| modified. In re Garland 100 \. {.
SIS.
whether if the General Assembly
had passed a statute comforting ola
town or county commissioners tn.
authority to make such an ordinance
as this it would have been constitu
tionai, is not now before US. We
simply hold that an act OF this broad
scope SO entirely without preceden>
in the public policy Of the State ano
| so revolutionary in its nature can not
be deemed to have been within the
| purview of the Legislature from tho
use Of the words comforting author .
| ity to make ordinances for the gen
eral welfare.
There was a similar restriction %
the Jews to certain quarters of tn"
towns in the middle ages and the
quarters assigned them were called
"Ghettoes." II the intention OF the
Legislature had been to establish sucl
policy as to the colored people eitheI
in our towns or country districts
there would certainly have been SOM.
provision prescribing the methods ["
be used in selecting these districts
The selection would not have been left
to the arbitrary and irrevieWable pow
er Of the majority Of the board elect
ed withou any reference to this mat
ter. A man whose property might be-
made unsaleable, or reduced III value
by forbiddinS him to sell OF rent it
to a white man because the majority
of the houses in such district were &C
cupied by negroes certainly should
have some compensation from the
public for his loss. The same would
be true Of property just across tn"
street from one OF those Ghettoee>
which might be established to the de
probation OF his property. Then to"
both in town and country the owners
OF property who might be deprived
OF the opportunity Of renting it to
laboring people Of color, because the
majority in that section or block were
white people who did not wish to rent
or buy, might make an objection to
the demarkation adopted. Then. too
the designation Of these localities
surely wouid not be left to a majori-
; ty OF the aldermen or the county
5 commissioners without some right to
I have the facts found by q jury and a
) review Of the proceedings by a cour'
2 Of justice.
5 The absence Of such provisions i.
| further evidence a the General AS
!, sembly did not intend to confer 81
l broad and arbitrary a power upoI
: the aldermen of Winston.
? We therefore hold that the ord.
1 lance was adopted without authorit,
2 Of Law and the indictment should hav,
been QuaShed. Action dismissed.