|
|
Butts v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co., 230 U.S. 126 (1913)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Butts v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co., 230 U.S. 126 (1913)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 230 U.S. 123, click here.
Butts v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Company No. 131 Argued January 21, 1913 Decided June 16, 1913 230 U.S. 126
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Syllabus
Where the greater part of a statute is unconstitutional as beyond the power of Congress, the question for the court 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.
This Court holds that it was the evident intent of Congress, in enacting the Civil Rights Act, to provide for its uniform operation in all places in the states as well as the territories within the jurisdiction of the United States, aud 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. The provisions of the Civil Rights Act having 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 of the national government, and the statute is therefore unconstitutional in its entirety. The Trade Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82. 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.
The facts, which involve the constitutionality of §§ 1 and 2 of the Civil Rights Act of March 1, 1875, as applied to vessels of the United States engaged in the coastwise trade, are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Butts v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co., 230 U.S. 126 (1913) in 230 U.S. 126 230 U.S. 127–230 U.S. 130. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=L488AJYRLQP7T5Q.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Butts v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co., 230 U.S. 126 (1913), in 230 U.S. 126, pp. 230 U.S. 127–230 U.S. 130. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=L488AJYRLQP7T5Q.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Butts v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co., 230 U.S. 126 (1913). cited in 1913, 230 U.S. 126, pp.230 U.S. 127–230 U.S. 130. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=L488AJYRLQP7T5Q.
|