reserved the right to
repeal, alter and amend charters.

Justice Harlan dissented. He referred to the fact that the court held
also, in _Huntington_ v. _Werthen_,[72] that if one provision of a
statute be invalid the whole act will fall, where "it is evident the
legislature would not have enacted one of them without the other."
Harlan meant to say here that to construe this law as applying only to
corporations and not to individuals would give it an interpretation
that the legislature never had in mind. The intention of the State
legislature was to prevent all coeducation of Negroes and whites
whether it should be done by persons or corporations. The whole law,
therefore, should fall. Justice Harlan conceded that a State reserved
the right to repeal the charter but it was not repealed by this act.
The statute did not purport even to amend the charter of any
particular corporation but assumed to establish a certain rule
applicable alike to all individuals, associations, or corporations
that teach the white and black races together in the same institution.
This decision of the United States Supreme Court was then nothing more
than "fine sophistry" to sanction an arbitrary invasion of the rights
of liberty and property guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Harlan contended that if the giving of instruction is not a
property right, it is one's liberty. Exposing the sophistry of the
court he remarked that if the schools must be subjected to such
segregation, why not also the Sabbath Schools and Churches? "If States
can prohibit the coeducation of the whites and blacks it may prohibit
the association of the Anglo-Saxons and Latins; of the Christians and
the Jews. Have we become so inoculated with prejudice of race,"
continued Justice Harlan, "that an American government, professedly
based on the principles of freedom, and charged with the protection of
all citizens alike, can make distinctions between such citizens in the
matter of their voluntary meeting for innocent purposes simply because
of their respective races? Further if the lower court be right, then a
State may make it a crime for white and colored persons to frequent
the same market places, at the same time, or appear in an assembly of
citizens convened to consider questions of a public or political
nature in which all citizens without regard to race, are equally
interested."

THE RIGHT TO LABOR

Although the Negro by these various decisions of th