*1 appellant was the time and it introduced, at it was clearly he court whether within the discretion of the jury direct the not to it when he came consider jury. v. instruct the Johnson State, prove did not devolve W. It conspiracy, conspiracy charged as no indict appellant, Sangston Sangs ment between Ike and Glenn given ton. For the reasons the court did not err refusing grant appellant’s requested instructions numbers 19 and 20. appearing, judgment
No error is affirmed.
Webb Adams.
Opinion delivered December 23, 1929. *2 Owens, Pinnix, & A. Ra/nkin Pinnix John Claude appellant. *3 appellee. Tom Kidd, facts). ap- (after stating The act J., Kirby, purpose indicating
pears, terms, and from its title its optional general, providing for an unit or to be operating for the State, consolidated school uniformly throughout equally for the and but exception proviso reading: provisions §in 14 “The or way apply no or act shall in to affect Gosnell this Mississippi County, Special in Arkan- District School provisions that the also, sas. this bill shall Provided, apply Sharp Faulkner and not counties.” Assembly reads: No. 17 “The General
Amendment any special pass or act. This shall not local amendment repeal special prohibit of local or shall not acts.” plain language and The of the amendment unam- meaning disclosing biguous, clear, the intention of and its adopting dispensing people it, and with the neces- interpretation. sity seeking aids for its other provisions legisla- of the Constitution on the restrictive passage special power to the of local or relative tive legislation, Legislature, leaving its exercise to the discretion of the disregarded been so and
had abused as to condition. Numerous intolerable measures an create Assembly, of the sessions General in all enacted were operation and from nature, and general their terms more of the counties of the State from adopted rem- excepted, was this amendment were edy and Assembly power of the and General the evil, legislation special withdrawn, Gen- was enact local or passing Assembly being prohibited terms from its eral excepting special from the The effect local or act. Special provisions operation of Gosnell the act the and of Faulkner District the counties School only applicable remainder of law to leave the excepted excepted as to the and the law the State not so unchanged, though had territory of 1929 as Douglass, Casey enacted. S. W. been special district can be If school two counties excepted general otherwise from the lawa uniformly operative equally throughout say whole there would be no reason to that twen -State, ty-five fifty seventy-four seventy- counties or excepted, five counties ing so could not be leav application county, law to but one abrogating legislative judicial determination and con struction prohibiting the Constitutional Amendment passing “any from local or act.” single county operation The exclusion of a from law makes it local, and it cannot be both a a local statute. Davis Clark, *4 v. 106 Penn. v. State 384; Twp., Mullica N. L. 51 J. 412, 17 941; Kister, Miller v. Atl. 68 Township Cal. 142, 8 Pac. 813; Lodi v. 51 of N. J. L. 402, 18 Atl. 749, 6 L. R. 56. The A. courts look practical operation to the substance and of a law in deter mining general, special whether it local, or and if its operation necessarily special must be or local, it must special legislation, may held to be or local whatever p. its form. R. 25 Sutherland, C. L. 1 Lewis’ 815; Statutory ap Construction, 359. A local law is one that p. plies or subdivision subdivisions of the State less 3 & p. whole. Words than Second Phrases, Series, special 172. A law is in a constitutional sense when, separates an arbitrarily force inherent of limitation, person, place upon but which, thing some those from v. operate. separation, Cleve for Van such it would Valley Sewerage Atl. 183, 71 N. J. L. Cm’rs, Passaic Ry. 294; W. v. 291, 571, Hanniford, 572; W. 79 S. Rock, Little Rock North Little except- express provision This reason of the arbitrarily from its ing of the certain counties 'State excepted, territory operation limiting it to the special meaning the Con-- within the becomes local beyond power of stitutional and was Amendment, consequently and is void enact, holding. no the court err effect, and did not in so The decree is affirmed. dissenting. McHaney JJ.,
Mbhabey, Butler, (dissenting). majority J., The the court Butler, provision has exempting concluded that in § 14 Mississippi County school district and the counties of Faulkner and from bill renders the entire void as a local bill within prohibition of Amendment No. has therefore decided the act is uninforcible. respectfully
From this I decision must dissent. duty Assembly cast the G-eneral § general, article 14, Constitution of “maintain whereby efficient suitable and of free schools all persons ages twenty- 'State between the six and ’’ gratuitous years receive instruction. This endeavoring perform adoption been has since the with Constitution but success, indifferent so that lags today majority Arkansas behind the of its sister point average in the States education of its citi- In some communities there great- were, zens. because ample population, local wealth number of er funds purposes, while in educational others the funds for wholly inadequate. purpose were A *5 youth being was educated, of growing up the 'State ignorance. in enlightened public
An conscience became aware duty it was the of localities the richer and more favored poorer aid the com- education of of the children the Assembly heeding munities, and, the General voice, passed the other law under in aid of consideration, legislation recently passed expected that which it was throughout might educational become facilities the State equal illiteracy blight uniform, the banished from within our borders. gathered subject-matter
As from the title and act Legislature No. provide 149, it was the intention of the optional county system for an unit consolidated school by popular for several counties of vote. The proviso inclusion of the must have been deemed an im- ap- material matter, because before the could law become plicable provision, major- to the counties named ity people given have their must 'But the assent. proviso purpose was in direct conflict with the provide optional which was to for an uniform unit for the conduct of the schools for entire pro- State. In order for the to fail act because proviso, must viso, this court determine without the that, Legislature passed would not have No. rationally supposed Could be it that System” “County the enactment of Unit in- dulging gesture, in a mere vain and useless and in order might proviso. that this the result inserted Was beguile people, their intention deceive which, given serpent? fish, when it for a asked case, view of the can it be In assumed that it passed did intend and would not the act with say history proviso omitted? I no. The legislative body, necessity the traditions language the unmistakable law, statute itself, practically unanimous vote which the statute was cry against any out assumption; enacted, all such but inescapable from all of this the conclusion rather esteeming Legislature, doubtless if the inclusion of *6 pro- anticipated unimportant, proviso that had it would local measure bill a viso would have made passed the it and to include would have declined without it. act elementary every rule of con reasonable
It is a statute in order to struction be resorted to must save unconstitutionality, in presumptions be should from dulged validity uphold not to -strike of laws and it render would one construction them and where down, latter should valid, the would render void and another it adopted. 114, v. 153 Ark. Brodie, Standard Oil Co. be 454, Dist., 142 Road Rice v. Lonoke 753; 239 W. S. Handlin, 175, 100 Ark. 139 S. W. v. W. State 179; S. 9. Martineau, 174 Ark. 295 S. W. Bush v. 1112; Jennings, v. 27 Ark. In the case followed since been has rule was laid down, particular so clause court, that where is this large expressions import the other in its extensive legislative in- true if from these the in the statute, Legislature intent of the ascertained, the real tent can disregarded. given and the other effect, should be consistently that, held This has court where apparent if it is unconstitutional, statute is Legislature the statute enacted without would have provisions, will dis- such unconstitutional indulge duty regarded it court because is uphold every presumption in order reasonable validity 356; Marsh, 37 Ark. State v. statute. Pryor Murphy, Ry., Leep v. 407, W. 75; v. 58 Ark. 25 S. Dalton, 138 Ark. 415; 96 W. Sallee W.
213 S. entirely apparent, taking into is consideration It provide equal, duty resting ade- quate of the children of the education facilities for the years struggled problem, the with this has comprehensive scope its law, manifest need unanimity passage, terms, unmistakable proviso. have been without the As enacted proviso repugnant act, remainder of the to the and its retention would unconstitu- render the'entire act proviso it is our tional, void, and conclusion that the proviso rejected, with and constitu- a valid *7 tional enactment. McHaney Justice Meitaeey and Mr. Justice
Mr. concur in this dissent. (on rehearing). According J.,C. to the deci Hart, Casey Douglas,
sion in
296
But it is first insisted the act not local a under Amendment No. 17 to the Constitution which reads as follows: Assembly pass any “The G-eneral not shall local or This, special prohibit act. amendment shall not the re- n
peal special of local or acts.” Impliedly, uniformly least, at this court has held general operation through laws shall have uniform out many the territorial limits of the State; are there reasoning effect, decisions to this as will seen of the court in relating the cases heretofore decided special uniformly local or laws. It has been held that subject legislation, general in order to be a operate every uniformly upon person thing law, must designated throughout of a class the territorial limits of Ry. Little Rock & Fort Smith the State. v. Co. Hanni Ark. W. 294; 49 5 S. Little Rock ford, North v. Little McLaughlin 79 W. S. Rock, 785; v. Ford, 1108, 273 S. W. 707. cited, case last said court In the that the differ- special general and gen- statute is between ence applies eral law to all of a statute while class applies only. two, one or of a class Again, Farelly Hudson, Lake Levee Dist. Ark 33, law court said that a 711, W. to,persons things must relate must as a class, operate uniformly throughout whole subject or whole class, and must be restricted to particular locality within the State.' apply throughout
Now, if a law must territorial limits of the State, the exclusion of one or more counties from its makes it a local statute. This is the common and well-known between difference general and local acts. 4, §
Article 104, of Alabama, Constitution of adopted provides that the shall not pass *8 special, private a or local law in certain enumerated cases. Section 110 of the same article is follows: as
“A meaning within law of this article applies ais law which to the whole a State; local law any applies political a law which subdivision or sub- divisions of the special less 'State than the a or whole; private meaning law within the of this article is one applies to an individual, association or corporation.”
The framers of the Alabama Constitution define according and local laws to the common under standing meaning of the language used, rigid no courts have to do other-wise. In construc Pitts, tion of this clause of Constitution in State v. 160 Ala. 133, 441, So. 135 A. 79, S. R. it was held that prohibition a law in major which, parts, some of ap plies to all of the State, does not lose its character as a general law because it prohibition retains in local force already operation parts in laws in some of the State. provision The reason is that the constitutional must be applicable separate considered as to each and distinct By way act. of illustration, the court said that there might proper abe classification of the schools of the closing regulations opening as
State, control for different schools different localities and management local various needs of to meet the conformity aWhen ities in conditions. different with applies important law, features, to its material and into local to the it be converted State, whole will not operate special detail alike in law not because does throughout al can Reasonable classification the State. ways general law. be made under a application v. Hender
In in LeMaire of this rule son, court sustained 327,W. classifying counties, in certain school districts statute Legisla classifying districts held school density population, wealth ture consider the topography county, roads, hilly country or not. reference whether it with operation effect, is not but the form,
It constitutionality All of a statute. which determines the general. law included, the counties must be is not operation from exclusion of or more counties may be excluded, of the act makes it local. If one where judge? shall line be and who is to drawn, discussing in Edmunds v. Herbrand In the matter L. son, 2 N. D. 50 N. W. R. A. Supreme Dakota “If an act is North said: Court of single except because it relates all classification, reason for the in the without *9 accomplish indirectly Legislature is what it then the can by beyond power steps. bring to about direct When their single new introduce rule as to a ever it is desired to a county, passed establishing general be rule a law can and then another law can be counties, all the enacted in except re-establishing the one the old rule in all counties by governed singled the rule. The first out to be new clearly general, is and, under what it be law would doctrine, York the second could claimed is New the legislation. This in would, not be assailed as neutralizing of the constitu- ingenious an mode be deed, prohibition legislation. against special We would tional give might buttressed it be not it our sanction, however by authority.” pro- Legislature expressly
In the at bar, case the applicable in two coun- vided that shall not be law by cited, these ties. As in case last said the court provisions of law counties are left out of the either statutory permitting- or to take ad- there is no them rule vantage is act. Whatever view sepa- placed Sharp in are a taken, Faulkner and counties say by do that the It would to class themselves. not rate arbitrarily group together Legislature might two coun- provisions of law. ties and them outside leave wholly Legislature allowing This would amount disregard amendment and leave the 'Constitutional say or not law whether at its own will apply throughout territorial the whole limits shall operation should be restricted whether its proper classification is al- to certain counties. While regard lowed, reason, it stand some must legislation and cannot ar- to the character bitrarily Legislature. used opinion law not we are of the that the is Therefore, opera- it does have a uniform law because presents throughout the State. entire acts tion regulation of the com- for the establishment counties, various and two are in the counties mon schools exclusion of and the one more coun- out left operation it act makes local. The from ties in Faulkner and counties a class classification arbitrary prevents being it is themselves classification without reasonable because law basis. uphold sought invoking statute is next
It may part a statute rule that in well-established unconstitutional, if constitutional parts that the valid nature, so separable invalid independent; and if there is no such con- stand *10 nection the unconstitutional between constitutional and parts to Legislature elected have the would stat- part enact the other, constitutional without good except part will is in con- ute be held in that with the flict ’Constitution. equally
It is the unconstitutional well-settled that if part they de- so that connected with the remainder are pendent upon separated, or each other and cannot be part, change the that the valid if left so alone, Legislature original character of the statute that presumed would not be to enacted it without other, must be aside. whole set In v. Greenhow, Poindexter 114 U. S. Ct. question, discussing Mr. in Justice Matthews, said: may undoubtedly
“It true that there be cases part may one where of statute be enforced as constitu- inoperative another be tional, and declared and void, be- cause unconstitutional; but these are cases where the .parts distinctly separable are so can each stand alone, court is see, declare, able to where Legislature part intention of pronounced though should enforceable, valid even part other should fail. hold To otherwise would be substitute law intended they willing never have been itself to enact.” Spraigue Thompson,
Again, in S.U. 6 90, S. pilotage Ct. had under court consideration 988, the act Georgia, which was the State claimed to be in con- Congress subject. an on flict with The court was exceptions urged disregard certain in a section of the exempted port a certain statute which in the State of Georgia port and one in Carolina and South a certain Georgia contrary and one the State- Florida, Congress provision subject. of the act on Georgia Supreme had Court held the statute valid in application the rule that the unconstitutional ports might exempting above referred to, be stricken
725 principle upon might the out and the stand, remainder n separable unconstitu- part is that of a statute preserved rejected tional remainder and the opinion of the delivered enforced. Justice Matthews the court this and said: case application difficulty insuperable the with “But present principle instance of that or construction to the Legis- by by exceptions rejecting intended is that, con- Georgia, what made enact is lature statute fessedly Legislature It confers never meant. legislative beyond positive operation the statute a say any beyond can intent, and what exceptions. illegality We of the enacted in view of hold constrained to that are, therefore, separated Georgia so cannot §of 1512 of the Code of exceptions merely, reject unconstitutional as to as annulled and be treated section must that the whole by abrogated Revised 4237 of the Statutes.” § recognized uniformly both has This rule been Supreme this court. of the United States Court the Employers’ Liability 141; S. 463, 28 207 U. S. Ct. Cases, Bittle v. 246; Stuart, 25 Smith, Leach v. Ark. parte Ark. 639 and State Jones, 49 S. W. Ex
224; Dry Co., Goods 3 S. W. v. Williams-Echols (2d) v. Standard Oil In late case Williams Company, quoted the court 278 U. S. Ct. Jersey opinion of the New of Errors Court from an (afterwards by Judge Pitney, Appeals, delivered a Jus Supreme States), Court of the United who tice setting rule above announced, forth the said: after legislative seeking presumption intent, “In of a against statute, mutilation is courts only where an elimination unconstitutional will resort interjected into a statute provision valid, otherwise separable independent and its removal so and is purposes constitutional features will leave the process.” substantially unaffected legislative journals originally show the act excepting proviso introduced did not contain the Faulk- ner and counties from the terms of the How act. proviso can we know was not the consideration pass inducement for the statute? proviso We do know statute *12 which we are asked to hold and that the constitutional, thing proviso statute does mean not the same the without proviso as it does with it. The statute with the not does apply Sharp to Faulkner and counties. the Without proviso apply it would to whole have State. We not been able to find authorizing authorities tous separate by a statute which its own terms is indivisible, separable or to construe meaning a statute within above give announced, rule when to do so would wholly of the statute allowed to stand a different meaning effect and from the statute as a whole. We attempt interpret have reached the conclusion that the to by upholding part rejecting part the act law, Washington equivalent as stated in 75, is usurpation 'by legislative power. to the the court of territory by It is enlarged manifest will be proviso the elimination of the apply the act not shall to Faulkner and territory counties, and the over operate enlarged which the law is to would be ex- specifically of these two counties tent which are named practical in legislation, this would judicial effect willing are which we undertake ac- complish earnestly the school men what insist is a wise change in our and beneficial school law. we Indeed, original opinion would been content to our have let stand enlargement, strong but for the without insistence in by leading school men. matter subject, rule on the The established laid down Statutory (2d Lewis’ Sutherland ed.) Construction, vol. as follows: reads 1, § by striking- exception, out a void proviso “If, clause, restrictive
other remainder, reason of its subject scope generality, toas will have a broader legisla- territory, operation its not in accord with and made tive affected intent, and the whole would be 'by invalidity part. void of such
“An act of a nature Constitution operation throughout required to a uniform operation. excepted This from certain counties striking* ex- out act rendered whole void. After operation gave ception, words if the directly excepted con- cQunties, such the trary effort expressed of the lawmaker.” to the intent deals that article 14 of our Constitution It is true requires Legisla- subject of with the education provision support of our common for the ture to make require, however, schools. It does not special legislation. accomplish purpose by local or expressly provides § other hand, On the of the article Assembly provide general laws shall that the General *13 support by of taxes. The for the the common schools by provides Assembly, gen- also General section that the by may of the districts a vote eral authorize law, school millage qualified No. electors to vote tax. Amendment only changes the section so as to 'Constitution 14 to the school tax. the voters to increase the allow to do be In connection we not wish understood this impairing in the the force of the decisions in as least 236, which holds that a stat- Crawford, State v. Ark. par- settling accounts between the State certain and ute special general act; and in Water- ties is a and not a holding Hawkins, man v. S. W. establishing abolishing*separate or courts relate statutes justice of and are local administration either to the operation. special recognition is in in their of This sovereignty principle State, of under which the may protect Legislature, through its its own interest, every by of it the treat virtue sub- ject sovereignty by as a class itself, within bills of usually general ldnd and not of are held to be local special its laws. There are where the cases sovereign .Legislature, discharge its commits political pur- agencies it for that functions to selected pose, general usually and such to held acts been acts. impair
Neither do to we wish force of like cases Harwood v. Wentworth, 162 U. S. 16 S. Ct. Congress by legislation county where fixed the salaries territory thereby displaced of Arizona and officers fees and the act held allowances; was to one, not a local or law. The operation, court said that the act was applied territory. to all counties in the The counties purpose fixing classified for the were the the salaries of population, according officers to wealth, things, other which were calculated to furnish a reason nearly able practical, basis the classification so as that, compensated according the officers would be to amount work done. exemption
In the at bar, case of two counties application from the of the act did not constitute purposes. reasonable basis classification for school for. attempt By no Indeed, at classification. there terms spe- Faulkner and counties were cifically exempted provisions, from its and we are asked interpretation judicial place them under operation policy act. While it has been the construing relating this court, statutes schools and give districts, school them a liberal construction and uphold them when that can be done violating without *14 power by judicial Constitution, no we construc- put a law in force tion to in or counties where expressly provided apply. should of our view result is that opinion our former rehearing the motion for correct, will be denied. McIIaney Justices and Butler Mehaffy, dissent.