The Harrison times., 1914-02-21

white citizens and those who are not
white, is invalid, it is because it is in
conflict with section IS. article @ Of
the state constitution, which reads as
follows:
The General Assembly shall not
grant to any citizen or class OF citizens
privileges or immunities which upon
the same terms shall not equally be
long to all citizens
Violates State Constitution.
"The negro is a citizen. No one will
deny his citizenship. Does the Co
ing act grant to the white adult citi-
zen any privilege or immunity which
II withhods from adult black citizens?
It so, It attempts to do what the para
graph above quoted from the constitu-
ton says shall not be done. OF course,
If the General Assembly attempts to
do what the constitution says 1t shall
not do, its act Is void, and no one is
under obligation to obey It. The con,
stitution Is the peoples attempt to
prevent unjust enactments by the Gen
eral Assembly.
"In the case Of Leon Levy, eXparte,
43 Ark, AZ, IS persons applied to the
county court OF jefferson county for
license to retail liquor. The cour.
selected eight Of the applicants and
granted them licenses, and arbitrarily
refused the other 10, Upon appeal to
the Supreme Court, the court quoting
the section Of the constitution set
forth above, held that the county court
could not thus arbitrarily grant to
one person q saloon license to sell
liquor and withheld the same priyl-
lege for another person equally worthy,
And the court spoke of the business Of
retailing liquors as a privilege or i'm
munity,' within the language OF that
section Of the constitution, In other
words, the court held that neither the
County Court nor the legislature could
grant a privilege to one citizen which
upon the same terms did not equally
belong to all citizens; and that the
court must grant licenses to all proper
applicants, or else to none. This case
presented facts which showed an ar
bitrary and unjust discrimination be
tween citizens as individuals, which
the court held to be in violation Of the
constitutional provisions mentioned
above.
Another Case In Point.
an the case OF Lewis VS.. State, de-
cided by our Supreme Court a few
weeks ago, and not yet officially re.
ported, the constitutionallty Of a
special game and fish law was under
consideration. The special law ap-
piled only TO Grant, Hot Spring and
Lonoke counties. It allowed citizens
OF these three counties to hunt and
fish without conditions, but forbade
all citizens who lived in the state, out
side these counties, to fish and hunt
therein, unless they first procured n
iconse and paid n tax for the PRIV.
ilege, The court held this act was
an attempt by the General Assembly to
grant privileges to citizens Of these
counties which the other citizens Of
the state >ould not enjoy upon the
same terms, and that the act was void
because IN conflict with the language
Of the constitution, heretofore quoted,
This was n case Of arbitrary disorlm'
nation, not between citizens as indl'
Wduals, but a discrimination between
classes or bodies Of citizens between
those who lived In these three coun'
ties, and those who lived In the state
outside these counties. The constItu'
ton, however, forbIds the granting OF
privileges to any citizens or class Of
citizens which upon the same terms
shall not equally belong TO all cItl.
2ons,
Sauce for the Goose.
"lf the General Assembly may eX'
eludo negroes from participating ip
proceedings for or against the issu'
Nnco OF saloon licenses, thero would
bo no constitutional objection TO It's
placing the whole matter In control
Of tho negroes and excluding the
whites, which case the above section
Of the eonBtltutlon would seem TO fur.
lnlsh an excellent reason for holding
|tho act void, And II the legislature
|Bhould pass an net allowing negroes
|the right TO petition for saloon H.
|censes, and excluding white people
from any voice in IT, would any per
son doubt its unconstIutionalIty or
|Ihat the courts would hold II yold2
| |And yet II II would be void In one case
would be equally 80 In the other,
have discussed the matter with
seyeral lawyers and have hoard Of two
possible ways Of escape from the CON
|,lusion have reached
Prohl Arguments Refuted,
"Tho first n, that the Going act
loes not In faot grant any privilege