◆ SpookStack

10 Lynch vs. United States. with payments to be made under con term insurance under which judgment heretofore rende in any suit on a contract tracts of yearly renewable payments have commenced, or on any red in a court of competent jurisdiction of yearly renewable term insurance, or which may hereafter be rendered in any such suit now pending."’ That is, the rights under certain yearly renewable term policies are excepted from the general repealing clause.?? Fifth. There is a suggestion that although, in repealing all laws granting or pertaining to Yearly renewable term insurance’, Congress intended to take away the contractual right, it also in- ‘ended to take away the remedy; that since it had Power to take away the remedy, the statute should be given effect to that extent, even if void insofar as it purported to take away the contractual right. The suggestion is at war with settled rules of construction. It is true that a statute bad in part is not necessarily void in its entirety. A provision within the legislative power may be allowed to stand if it is separable from the bad: But no provision however un- objectionable in itself, can stand unless it appears both that, stand- ing alone, the provision can be given legal effect and that the legis- lature intended the unobjectionable provision to stand in case other provisions held bad should fall. Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. 8. 286, 288, 290. Here, both those essentials are absent, separate provision in § 17 dealing with the remedy ; not appear that Congress wished to deny the remedy of the contractual right was held void under the Fifth War Risk Insurance and the war gratuities were en un, by the same classes of Persons; and were ad -~€ Same governmental agency. In respeet of both, theretofore expressed its benevolent purpose perhap ously than would have been warranted in 1933 by the financial condition of the Nation. When it became advisable to reduce the Nation’s existing expenditures, the two classes of benevolences were associated in the minds of the legislators; and it was natural that they should have wished to subject both to the same treat- ment. But it is not to be assumed that Congress would have re- ea There is no and it does if the repeal Amendment. joyed, in the ministered by Congress had 8 More gener- 11 Lynch vs. United States. f benevolences dealt with in 0 , 7 incidents between the two classes ant of the Nation’s legal obli § 17 as that it wished to evade paym d. in the ations. r to have been base » Ip the g Sizth. The judgments below awn put on § 5 which provides: onomy > Af main, not on § 17 of the Ee istrator of Veterans’ A y the Admin ulations issued f this title or the ween questions of i tes he United Sta t therwise any “+ Al) decisions rendered 9 . the provision give fairs we ‘thereto, shall be final an . Mourt of vey and fact, and no other officia, , mandamus or 0 seat have jurisdiction to review bY such decision.” ici Gener . ion, as the Solicitor ts to v Wer Risk Insurance. It concerns ey allowances an ¢ ir dependents—to pensions, see Phe purpose of the section ap- ei ve et ; : ratuities. r -vdicial relief in privileges all of aoa remove the possibility of Judie sug gested pears to have seen ever under the special nanan v. United » 84 ein V. that class of United States, 266 U. S. 180; Silberschet Os. 285; ei hee, 286 U §, 221; United States v. Willian Tnited States V. Statler nited States, 57 (2d) 998. Compare Smith vV. , Meadows, 281 U. 8. 271. Seventh. The Solicitor fate des, does not re al concedes, eterans and d special . 1 no General concedes that Ne ut upon jurisdiction depen ; t that of jurisdic discussed i g presented except | nomy Act ais questo ction of the clause in § 17 of the Bee Non is entertained, the a tends in No. 855, that if juris hat the complaint above. He con ined on the ground that tut ld be sustaine ‘ . ‘+ fails to show the demurrer show a good cause of action, since it fe ane fails to Be +t was brought within the period aoe ention of either that ie fect was not pleaded or brought ‘° te Solicitor General alleged de r it brought by oe low. Nor was ing the petition for a of the courts be ‘ when opposing the p sas ion of this Court tion, which like to the attention 0 ss upon that ques a . ‘orari e do not pa : by the writ of crating to me soeite will be open for consideration by others relaul a remand. . : Con aan hth. vt ae abou be made of legislation by Fighth. . ent of these suits. eee. enacted since the oomaga e101 § 20, 48 Stat. 309 prov ides: € } avr ? gress Sorted to the device of withdrawing the legal remedy from bene- 1. Act of Jun . ovisions of Section 17, title tee ficiaries of outstanding yearly renewable term policies if it had “Notwithstanding thé Pr Congress, any claim a to the date realized that these had contractual rights. It is, at least, as prob- Numbered 2, ae rance on which premiums were pa able that Congress overlooked the fundamental difference in legal newable term > igions of law . under the provisi : to nsured . : filed prior of the death See etion 17 wherein claim was duly 1Compare Veteran Regulation No, 8, March 31, 1933, | repealed by said 8