Butts v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co.

Citations

• 230 U.S. 126
• 33 S. Ct. 964
• 57 L. Ed. 1422
• 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2683

Syllabus

<p>Where the greater p^rt of a statute is unconstitutional as beyond the. power of Congress, the question for the eourt to determine as to.the • part which is constitutional is whether'it was the intent of Congress to have that part stand by itself — if not, the whole statute falls.</p> <p>.This court holds that it was the evident intent of Congress in enacting the Civil Rights Art' to provide for its uniform operation in ¿11 places in the States as well as the Territories within, the jurisdiction of the United States, and that it was not the intent of Congress that the provisions of the statute should be applicable only to such places as are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Government.</p> <p>The provisions of the Civil Rights Act haying been declared unconstitutional as to their operation within the States, Civil Rights' Cases, . 109 U. S. 3, they are not separable as to their operation in such places . as are under the exclusive jurisdiction cf the National Government and the statute is therefore unconstitutional in its entirety. The Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82.</p> <p>The enforcement of a remedial statute, such as the Employers’ Liability Act, in Territories of the United States, although unconstitutional as ■ to the States, is distinguishable from the similar enforcement of a highly penal statute such as the Civil Rights Act. El Paso &c. Railway Co. v. Gutierrez, 215 U. S. 87, distinguished.</p>