existing treaty, should remain in force until congress should otherwise determine. Congress did not otherwise determine until June 14, 1900. It was held that the resolution did not annul legislation permitting criminals to be tried on information and to be convicted by less than the unanimous verdict of a jury, that the intent was to continue the exist ing system of laws under which civil and criminal justice was administered, and that the intent prevailed over the letter of the resolution." Though the reason for a statute ceases, the statute continues until repealed.22 21 Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197. 22 State v. Eaves, 106 N. C. 752, 11 S. E. 370, 8 L. R. A. 259. CHAPTER IX. STATUTES VOID IN PART. § 296 (169). Statutes may be void in part and good in part. In this country legislative bodies have not an unlimited power of legislation. Constitutions exist which contain the supreme law. Statutes which contravene their provisions are void. Courts have power, and they are charged with the judicial duty, to support the constitutions under which they act against legislative encroachments. They will declare void acts which conflict with paramount laws. Where a part only of a statute is unconstitutional, and therefore void, the remainder may still have effect under certain conditions. The court is not warranted in declaring the whole statute void unless all the provisions are connected in subject-matter, depend on each other, were designed to operate for the same purpose, or are otherwise so dependent in meaning that it cannot be presumed that the legislature would have passed one without the other. The constitutional and unconstitutional provisions may even be expressed in the same section, or even in the same sentence, and yet be perfectly distinct and separable, so that the first may stand though the last fall. The point or test is not 1 Scudder v. Trenton Delaware Falls Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 694, 23 Am. Dec. 756; State v. Parkhurst, 9 N. J. L. 427; Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley's Lessee, 2 Pet. 492, 7 L. Ed. 496; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213, 6 L. Ed. 606; Emerick v. Harris, 1 Bin. 416; Piscataqua Bridge v. N. H. Bridge, 7 N. H. 35; Pierce v. Kimball, 9 Me. 59; Goshen v. Stonington, 4 Conn. 225, 10 Am. Dec. 121; Hill v. Sunderland, 3 Vt. 507; Holden v. James, 11 Mass. 396, 6 Am. Dec. 174. 2 Grimes v. Eddy, 126 Mo. 168, 28 S. W. 756, 47 Am. St. Rep. 653, 26 L. R. A. 638; People v. Knopf, 183 Ill. 410, 56 N. E. 155; State v. Dillon, 32 Fla. 545, 14 So. 383; Moore v. State, 63 Neb. 345, 88 N. W. 514; State v. Westerfield, 23 Nev. 468, 49 Pac. 119. whether they are contained in the same section, for the distribution into sections is purely artificial, but whether they are essentially and inseparably connected in substance. If so connected the whole statute is void. 3 Treasurer v. Bank, 47 Ohio St. 503, 523, 25 N. E. 697; Commonwealth v. Hitchings, 5 Gray, 482; Mobile, etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 29 Ala. 573; South & North Ala. R. R. Co. v. Morris, 65 Ala. 193; State v. Brown, 19 Fla. 563; Morrison v. State, 40 Ark. 448; State v. Wilson, 12 Lea, 246; Tillman v. Cocke, 9 Baxt. 429; Johnson v. Winslow, £3 N. C. 552; Harlan v. Sigler, Morris, 39; State v. Marsh, 37 Ark. 356; State v. Kantler, 33 Minn. 69; S. C., 6 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 169; American Print Works v. Law. rence, 23 N. J. L. 590, 17 Am. Dec. 420; Lea v. Bumm, 83 Pa. St. 237; Bittle v. Stuart, 34 Ark. 224; National Bank v. Barber, 24 Kan. 534; Darrah v. McKim, 2 Hun, 337; Berry v. R. R. Co., 41 Md. 446, 20 Am. Rep. 69; Fleischner v. Chad 4 Yerby v. Cochrane, 101 Ala. 541, 14 So. 355; Randolph v. Builders' and Painters' Supply Co., 106 Ala. 501, 17 So. 721; Orange County v. Harris, 97 Cal. 600, 32 Pac. 594; Ballentine v. Willey, 3 Idaho, 496; Duggan v. Peoria, etc. Ry. Co., 42 Ill. App. 536; Tolley v. Courter, 93 Mich. 469, 53 N. W. 620; AttorneyGeneral v. Gramlich, 129 Mich. 630, 89 N. W. 446; Board of Education v. Moses, 51 Neb. 288, 70 N. W. 946; Ex parte Hewlett, 22 Nev. 333, 40 Pac. 96; Johnson v. State, 59 N. J. L. 271, 35 Atl. 787; Johnson v. State, 59 N. J. L. 535, 37 Atl. 949, 38 L. R. A. 373; Smeath v. Mager, 64 N. J. wick, 5 Ore. 152; Village of Deposit v. Vail, 5 Hun, 310; State v. Clarke, 54 Mo. 17; Turner v. Board of Commissioners, 27 Kan. 314; State v. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 290; People ex rel. v. Kenney, 96 N. Y. 294; Duryee v. Mayor, etc., id. 477; Matter of Met. Gas Light Co., 85 id. 527· Matter of Sackett, etc. Streets, 74 id. 95; Matter of Ryers, 72 id. 1; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123, 26 L. Ed. 103; Powell v. State, 69 Ala. 10; State ex rel. v. Tuttle, 53 Wis. 45, 9 N. W. 791; State v. Newton, 59 Ind. 173; Tripp v. Overocker, 7 Colo. 72, 1 Pac. 595; Gunnison Co. Com. v. Owen, 7 Colo. 467; People v. Jobs, id. 475; People v. Hall, 8 id. 485, 9 Pac. 34; Cole v. Commissioners, 78 Me. 532; Re Groff, 21 Neb. 647; Frazer, Ex parte, 54 Cal. 94. In Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 96, L. 94, 44 Atl. 983; McArdle v. Jersey City, 66 N. J. L. 590, 49 Atl. 1013, 88 Am. St. Rep. 496; New York v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 143 N. Y. 1, 37 N. E. 494; Rathbone v. Wirth, 150 N. Y. 459, 44 N. E. 1124, 34 L. R. A. 408; Angell v. Cass County, 11 N. D. 265, 91 N. W. 72; State v. Bradt, 103 Tenn. 584, 53 S. W. 942; Kimbrough v. Barnett, 93 Tex. 301, 55 S. W. 120; Skagit County v. Stiles, 10 Wash. 388, 39 Pac. 116; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 22 S. C. Rep. 431, 46 L. Ed. 679; Loeb v. Colum bia Tp., 91 Fed. 37; Union Sewe▾ Pipe Co. v. Connelly, 99 Fed. 354. If one provision of an enactment is invalid and the others valid, the latter are not affected by the void provision, unless they are plainly dependent upon each other, and so inseparably connected that they cannot be divided without defeating the object of the statute. And the converse is true. The vicious part must be distinct and separable, and, when stricken out, enough must remain to be a complete act, capable of being carried into effect, and sufficient to accomplish the object of the law as passed, in accordance with the intention of the legislature. It should be confined to Comstock, J., said: “A doctrine which is expressed in the words 'void in part, void in toto,' has often found its way into books and judicial opinions as descriptive of the effect which a statute may have upon deeds and other instruments which have in them some forbidden vice. There is, however, no such general principle of law as the maxim would seem to indicate. On the contrary, the general rule is that if the good be mixed with the bad it shall nevertheless stand, provided a separation can be made. The exceptions are, first, where a statute by its express terms declares the whole deed or contract void on account of some provision which is unlawful; and second, where there is some all-pervading vice, such as fraud, for example, which is condemned by the common law, and avoids all parts of the transaction because all are alike infected." part was sustained as an act complete in itself: Bradley v. State, 99 Ala. 177, 13 So. 415; Keutz v. Mobile, 120 Ala. 623, 24 So. 952; Browne v. Mobile, 122 Ala. 159, 25 So. 223; State v. Davis, 130 Ala. 148, 30 So. 344, 89 Am. St. Rep. 23; Leep v. Railway Co., 58 Ark. 407, 25 S. W. 75, 41 Am. St. Rep. 109, 23 L. R. A. 264; Gray v. Matheny, 66 Ark. 36, 48 S. W. 678; McGowan v. McDonald, 111 Cal. 57, 43 Pac. 418, 52 Am. St. Rep. 149; Murphy v. Pacific Bank, 119 Cal. 334, 51 Pac. 317; Johnson v. Tautphaus, 127 Cal. 605, 60 Pac. 172; English v. State, 31 Fla. 340, 12 So. 689; State v. Dillon, 32 Fla. 545, 14 So. 383; Ex parte Pitts, 35 Fla. 149, 17 So. 76; Irwin v. Gregory, 86 Ga. 605, 13 S. E. 120; Gainesville v. Simmons, 96 Ga. 477, 23 S. E. 508; People v. Illinois State Reformatory, 148 Ill. 413, 36 N. E. 76; Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98, 40 N. E. 454, 462, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315, 29 L. R. A. 79: People v. Knopf, 183 4 Duryee v. Mayor, etc., 96 N. Y. Ill. 410, 56 N. E. 155; Smith v. Mc477; Re Groff, 21 Neb. 647. 5 The following cases sustain the general principles stated, and in each case the act in question was held to be severable and the valid Clain, 146 Ind. 77, 45 N. E. 41; the same limits and still subject to the intended qualifications." § 297 (170). General rules and principles.- It may be laid down generally as a sound proposition that one part of a statute cannot be declared void and leave any other part in force, unless the statute is so composite, consisting of such separable parts, that, when the void part is eliminated, another living, tangible part remains, capable by its own terms of being carried into effect, consistently with the intent of the legislature which enacted it in connection with the void & Tex. Ry. Co. v. Simonson, 64 v. Moir, 199 Pa. St. 534, 49 Atl. 351, Kan. 802, 68 Pac. 653, 91 Am. St. 85 Am. St. Rep. 801; Philadelphia, Rep. 248; Hardy v. Kingman Coun- M. & S. St. Ry. Co., Petitioner, 203 ty, 65 Kan. 111, 68 Pac. 1078; State Pa. St. 354, 53 Atl. 191; Treasurer v. Goff, 106 La. 270, 30 So. 844; Gra- v. Bank, 47 Ohio St. 503, 25 N. E. ham v. Muskegon County Clerk, 116 697; State v. Russell, 20 Ohio C. C. Mich. 571, 74 N. W. 729; Moreland 551; State v. Clark, 15 R. I. 383, 5 v. Millen, 126 Mich. 381, 85 N. W. Atl. 635; State v. Cummins, 99 882; Belding Land & Imp. Co. v. Tenn. 667, 42 S. W. 880; Grebble v. Belding, 128 Mich. 79, 87 N. W. 113; Wilson, 101 Tenn. 612, 49 S. W. 736; Stotz v. Thompson, 44 Minn. 271, Zwerneman v. Van Rosenberg, 76 46 N. W. 410; Reimer v. Newel, 47 Tex. 522, 13 S. W. 485; People v. Minn. 237, 49 N. W. 865; State v. Clayton, 4 Utah, 421, 11 Pac. 206; Sullivan, 72 Minn. 126, 75 N. W. 8; State v. Kibling, 63 Vt. 636, 22 Atl. State v. Justus, 85 Minn. 279, 88 N. 613; Carter v. Commonwealth, 96 W. 759, 89 Am. St. Rep. 550; North- Va. 791, 32 S. E. 780, 45 L. R. A. 310; western Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lewis Danville v. Hatcher, 101 Va. 523; & Clark County, 28 Mont. 484; State v. Henry, 28 Wash. 38, 68 Moore v. State, 63 Neb. 345, 88 N. Pac. 368; Baker v. State, 80 Wis. W. 514; State v. Humboldt County 416, 50 N. W. 518; Bittenhaus v. Com'rs, 21 Nev. 235, 29 Pac. 974; Johnston, 92 Wis. 588, 66 N. W. 805, State v. Westerfield, 23 Nev. 468, 49 32 L. R. A. 380; Field v. Clark, 143 Pac. 119; State v. Franklin, 59 N. U. S. 649, 12 S. C. Rep. 495, 36 L. J. L. 106, 34 Atl. 1088; Lawton v. Ed. 294; Reagan v. Farmers' L & Steele, 119 N. Y. 226, 23 N. E. 878, T. Co., 154 U. S. 362, 14 S. C. Rep. 16 Am. St. Rep. 813, 7 L. R. A. 134; 1047, 38 L. Ed. 1014; Busch v. Matter of New York & L. I. Bridge Webb, 122 Fed. 655. Co., 148 N. Y. 540, 42 N. E. 1088; Bohmer v. Haffen, 161 N. Y. 390, 55 N. E. 1047; McCless v. Meekins, 117 N. C. 34, 23 S. E. 99; Rothermel v. Meyerle, 136 Pa. St. 250, 20 Atl. 583, 9 L. R. A. 366; Commonwealth 6 Meshmeier v. State, 11 Ind. 485; Burkholtz v. State, 16 Lea, 71; Bittle v. Stuart, 34 Ark. 224; Allen v. Louisiana, 103 U. S. 80, 26 L. Ed. 318; People v. Porter, 90 N. Y. 68. |