Gambar halaman
[ocr errors]

these complainants that such accommodations would not be furnished to him, when furnished to others, upon reasonable request and payment of the customary charge. Nor is there anything to show that in case any of these complainants offers himself as a passenger on any of these roads and is refused accommodations equal to those afforded to others on a like journey, he will not have an adequate remedy at law. The desire to obtain a sweeping injunction cannot be accepted as a substitute for compliance with the general rule that the complainant must present facts sufficient to show that his individual need requires the remedy for which he asks. The bill is wholly destitute of any sufficient ground for injunction and unless we are to ignore settled principles governing equitable relief, the decree must be affirmed.

Decree affirmed.




No. 49. Argued November 4, 5, 1914.-Decided November 30, 1914.

While the jurisdiction of this court under § 237, Judicial Code, may not attach where the state court gave no effect to the state enactment claimed to have impaired the obligation of a contract, where the State does give effect to later legislation which does impair the obligation of a contract, if one exists, this court has jurisdiction to, and must, determine for itself whether there is an existing contract, even though the state court may have put its decision upon the ground

(238 U.S. 347 (1914))


No. 96. Argued October 17, 1913.-Decided June 21, 1915.

The so-called Grandfather Clause of the amendment to the constitution of Oklahoma of 1910 is void because it violates the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The Grandfather Clause being unconstitutional and not being separable from the remainder of the amendment to the constitution of Oklahoma of 1910, that amendment as a whole is invalid.

The Fifteenth Amendment does not, in a general sense, take from the States the power over suffrage possessed by the States from the beginning, but it does restrict the power of the United States or the States to abridge or deny the right of a citizen of the United States to vote on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude. While the Fifteenth Amendment gives no right of suffrage, as its command is self-executing, rights of suffrage may be enjoyed by reason of the striking out of discriminations against the exercise of the right.

A provision in a state constitution recurring to conditions existing before the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment and the continuance of which conditions that amendment prohibited, and making those conditions the test of the right to the suffrage is in conflict with, and void under, the Fifteenth Amendment.

The establishment of a literacy test for exercising the suffrage is an exercise by the State of a lawful power vested in it not subject to the supervision of the Federal courts.

Whether a provision in a suffrage statute may be valid under the Federal Constitution, if it is so connected with other provisions that are invalid, as to make the whole statute unconstitutional, is a ques

tion of state law, but in the absence of any decision by the state court, this court may, in a case coming from the Federal courts, determine it for itself.

The suffrage and literacy tests in the amendment of 1910 to the constitution of Oklahoma are so connected with each other that the unconstitutionality of the former renders the whole amendment


THE facts, which involve the constitutionality under the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of the suffrage amendment to the constitution of Oklahoma, known as the Grandfather Clause, and the responsibility of election officers under § 5508, Rev. Stat., and § 19 of the Penal Code for preventing people from voting who have the right to vote, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, with whom Mr. C. B. Stuart, Mr. A. C. Cruce, Mr. W. A. Ledbetter, Mr. Norman Haskell and Mr. C. G. Hornor were on the brief, for plaintiffs in error:

Determination of the constitutionality of the Grandfather Clause in the Oklahoma constitution, not being necessary to a full solution of this case, this court will not pass upon the constitutionality of such provision. Atwater v. Hassett, 111 Pac. Rep. 802; Bishop on Stat. Crime, §§ 805-806; Braxton County v. West Virginia, 208 U. S. 192; Burns v. State, 12 Wisconsin, 519; Devard v. Hoffman, 18 Maryland, 479; Liverpool Co. v. Immigration Commissioners, 113 U. S. 39; Mo., Kans. & Tex. Ry. v. Ferris, 179 U. S. 606; §§ 19, 20, Penal Code; § 5508,

Rev. Stats. (§ 19, Penal Code); Smith v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 139; Cruce v. Cease, 114 Pac. Rep. 251; New Orleans Canal Co. v. Heard, 47 La. Ann. 1679.

As to the nature of suffrage, see Jameson on Const. Conventions, § 336.

Suffrage in the States of the American Union is not controlled or affected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Blaine's Twenty Years in Congress; Brannon's Fourteenth Amendment, 77; Coffield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371; Miller's Lectures on Const., 661; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303; 1 Willoughby's Constitution, 534; 2 Id. 483; 5 Woodrow Wilson's Hist. Am. People.

The Grandfather Clause does not violate the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Atwater v. Hassett, 111 Pac. Rep. 802; Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 371; Fairbanks v. United States, 181 U. S. 286; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87; Mills v. Green, 67 Fed. Rep. 818; Mills v. Green, 69 Fed. Rep. 852; Mitchell v. Lippencott, 2 Woods, 372; McClure v. Owen, 26 Iowa, 253; McCreary v. United States, 195 U. S. 27; Pope v. Williams, 193 U. S. 621; Southern R. R. v. Orton, 6 Sawyer, 32 Fed. Rep. 478; State v. Grand Trunk R. R., 3 Fed. Rep. 889; Stimson's Fed. & State Const. 224; United States v. Reece, 92 U. S. 214; United States v. Cruickshank, 92 U. S. 542; United States v. Anthony, 11 Blatchf. 205; United States v. Des Moines, 142 U. S. 545; Webster v. Cooper, 14 How. 488; Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U. S. 214; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356.

Even though the exemption privilege provided in the Grandfather Law may be invalid, yet, the body of the law may be permitted to stand. Albany v. Stanley, 105 U.S. 305; Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82; Little Rock &c. Ry. v. Worthen, 120 U. S. 97.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

The exception does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition. of servitude.

The purpose and motive which moved the legislature to submit and the people to adopt the amendment are not subject to judicial inquiry.

The exception which is challenged as vitiating the entire amendment, even if open to judicial inquiry, is valid, because it applies without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

In support of these contentions, see Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219; Cruce v. Cease, 28 Oklahoma, 271; Home Ins. Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594; McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27; Ratcliffe v. Beal, 20 So. Rep. 865; Smith v. Indiana, 191 U. S. 138; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703; United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U. S. 213; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356.

Mr. Solicitor General Davis for the United States:

The questions propounded by the Circuit Court of Appeals are raised by the facts as certified and are indispensable to a determination of the cause.

The answer to the second question propounded by the court, is that the Grandfather Clause of the amendment to the constitution of Oklahoma of the year 1910 is void because it violates the Fifteenth Amendment.

The so-called Grandfather Clause incorporates by reference the laws of those States which in terms excluded negroes from the franchise on January 1, 1866, because of race, color, or condition of servitude, and so itself impliedly excludes them for the same reason.

The doctrine of incorporation by reference has been frequently enunciated and applied. Bank for Savings v. Collector, 3 Wall. 495; Donnelly v. United States, 228 U. S. 243; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S. 556; In re Heath,

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »