CONSTITUTIONAL. That which is con sonant and agrees with the constitution.
Laws made in violation of the constitu tion are null and void. It is well establish ed that it is the function of the courts so to declare them in any case coming before the court, which involves the question of their constitutionality. See infra. "An unconstitu tional law is not a law." Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Hackett, 228 U. S. 559, 33 Sup. Ct. 581, 57 L. Ed. —. The presumption is always in favor of the constitutionality of a law, and the party alleging the opposite must clearly establish it ; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cra. (U. S.) 87, 3 L. Ed. 162 ; Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U. S. 380, 16 Sup. Ct. 43, 40 L. Ed. 188; U. S. v. Ry. Co., 160 U. S. 668, 16 Sup. Ct. 427, 40 L. Ed. 576 ; Ex parte Davis, 21 Fed. 396; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 64 ; Pleuler v. State, 11 Neb. 547, 10 N. W. 481; Com'rs of Leavenworth Coun ty v. Miller, 7 Kan. 479, 12 Am. Rep. 425 ; Sawyer v. Dooley, 21 Nev. 390, 32 Pac. 437 ; In re League Island, 1 Brewst. (Pa.) 524; People v. Reardon, 184 N. Y. 431, 77 N. E. 970, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 314, 112 Am. St. Rep. 628, 6 Ann. Cas. 515; New York v. Reardon, 204 U. S. 152, 27 Sup, Ct. 188, 51 L. Ed.
415, 9 Ann. Cas. 736 ; where an act is ca pable of two interpretations, the court will adopt that which will sustain it rather than that which Will render it void as unconsti tutional ; St. Louis Nat Bank v. Papin, 4 Dill. 29, Fed. Cas.. No. 12,239; the incom patibility of the statute with the constitu tion should be so clear as to leave little rea son for doubt before it is pronounced to be invalid; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 333, 18 L. Ed. 366.
An act may be declared partly valid and partly void as unconstitutional ; Com. v. Kimball, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 361, 35 Am. Dec. 326; Berry v. R. Co., 41 Md. 446, 20 Am. Rep. 69 ; McPherson v. Secretary of. State, 92 Mich. 377, 52 N. W. 469, 16 L. R. A. 475, 31 Am. St. Rep. 587; In re Sternbach, 45 Fed. 175 ; Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 12 Sup. Ct. 495, 36 L. Ed. 294; Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. 459, 26 L. Ed. 405; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 6
Sup. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615 ; Gamble v. Mc Crady, 75 N. C. 509.
A part of a law may be unconstitutional, while there is no such objection to the re maining parts, and in this case all of the law stands, except that part which is un constitutional; People v. Van De Carr, 178 N. Y. 425, 70 N. E. 965, 66 L. 'R. A. 189, 102 Am. St. Rep. 516 ; Cella Commission Co. v. Bohlinger, 147 Fed. 419, 78 C. C. A. 467, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 537 ; but the parts must be wholly independent of each other ; Allen, v. Louisiana, 103 U. S. 80, 26 L. Ed. 318; and capable of separation ; Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 492, 526, 7 L. Ed. 496 ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 6 Sup. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615 ; El Paso & N. E. R. Co. v. Gutierrez, 215 U. S. 87, 30 Sup. Ct. 21, 54 L. Ed. 106. The parts must be separable so that each may be read by itself ; Bald win v. Franks, 120 U. S. 678, 7 Sup. Ct. 656, 763, 30 L. Ed. 766; U. S. v. Steffens, 100 U. S. 82, 25 L. Ed. 550 ; but if the two pro visions are so united that a presumption arises that the legislature would not have adopted the one without the other both will fail ; Ex parte Frazer, 54 Cal. 94 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. State, 62 Tex. 630; Slau son v. City of Racine, 13 Wis. 398; Con nolly v. Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 565, 22 Sup. Ct. 431, 46 L. Ed. 679 ; and it is a question for the court to determine whether it was the intent of congress to have the part which is constitutional stand by itself ; Butts v. Transp. Co., 230 U. S. 126, 33 Sup. Ct. 964, 57 L. Ed. -; or where the section which is unconstitutional is an inseparable part of several sections which form one sys tem mutually dependent; Campau v. City of Detroit, 14 Mich. 276; or where all the provisions of the act are secondary to the unconstitutional provisions ; Brooks v. Hy dorn, 76 Mich. 273, 42 N. W. 1122; where a portion is unconstitutional, the statute must fall as a whole, unless the apparent legis lative intent is that in such case the re maining portion shall stand alone; Grey V. City of Dover, 62 N. J. L. 40, 40 Atl. 640.