The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1895-06-20
REGISTRATION LAW STANDS.
JUDGE GOFTS DECREE Is SET
ASIDE.
The State Wins tho Fight--The Fed
eral Court Of Appeals Decides Unan-
imously in Its Favor.

The State Wins tho Eight--The Fed
eral Court OF Appeals Decides Unan
inously in Its Favor.
The United States Court of Appeal.
in session at Richmond has dissolved
the injunction granted by Judge Gof
in tho famous registration cases from
South Carolina. Judge Hughes an
nounced tho decision, and in the course
OF careful review OF the record, ht
says ::
"There is nothing in The record tC
show that the complainant is man O
color or that those for whom no sues
arc colored persons. Tho bill contains
no allegation that the parts of the law
| complained OF were devised against
| the complainant or those for whom he
| sues On account of their race, color or
previous condition Of sorvitude. There
| Is nothing in the averments of the bill
from which it may naturally, or must
necessarily he inferred that tho com
plainant and those for whom he sues
averments in tho bill which show that
the case falls within the purview of the
Fifteenth amendment to the constitu-
tion Of the United States. Nor does
the bill contain any allegations which
raise Federal question under tho
clause of the Fourteenth amendment
which fOrbids q State to deny any per-
son the equal protection of the laws.
t charges that the provisions of the
registration act complained of is to
give unequal facilities of registration
to different classes OF citizens, but it
does not point out how this is so. It
leaves the dissemination as to the priv
llege OF registering, if there be dis
n ft inf
in sources other than it's own aver
ments. 1t charges that the provisions
OF law complained of fdlscriminatcs, but
oocS not describe the manner of diScrim-
luatlOn, or define the classes affected,
pro or con, nor does it show that the
laws complained of in discriminating
between classes as to the privilege OF
registering granted by them, violate
the clause in the Fourteenth amend
ment which forbds II State to DENY TO
any person within it, the equal protcc-
tion OF the laws. 1T cOnfounds privilege
with protection.
1.-The bill has no reference to IL Fed
eral election in setting out complain
ants case. The gravamen Of the bill
contemplatcs only n State election to be
held for members of the State cOnven-
tion to convene in August next. 1t is
not shown that any Federal election is
to be held in South Carolina before
November, 1896.
TO the bill thus described and to the
order of injunction granted by the
court below in pursuance Of it's prayers.
several objections arc urged in behalf
OF the State of South Carolina. In
what follows | shall consider but one
OF these. In the ruling Of the Circuit
Court in this case, it was held that the
court had jurisdiction to restrain Il
county supervisor of registration in the
performance OF his duties under the
election laws of South Carolina Tho
division or our government into the leg
lslative, executive and Judicial deparC-
ments is distinguishing feature Of our
American policy and it is essential to
it's existence that each Of these DEPART
ments shall be independent Of the 9th
er. The division is fundamental and
organic. 1t would be just as dangerous
to its stability for the judicial depart
ment to override the others as for OK
ecutive or Legislative departments to
DO SO. Hence, while the right Of the
judiciary to pass upon the constitutions
ality of the laws is undoubtcd, it has
that right simply as an incident to its
protection Of private rights. 1t has not
that right as u mere means OF settling
abstract questions and even in the en-
fOrcemcnt OF private rights it has not
the power to Interfere with the discre-
tlon vested in the other departments
or with the cXcrcise'of political powers
Of this department. 1t scoms to me
that it IS a dangerous cncroachmcnt
upon the prerogations OF the oJhcr de-
partmcnts Of the government, if the
Judiciary be entrusted to exercise the
power Of interfering with the holding
of an election in a State. If the SUPER
visor OF one county can be cnjoincd
from the performance of the duties
imposed upon him by the election laws
Of the State from whom he holds his
commission, those Of the other counties
can be also: thus Il single citizen in
each county, aud If he Is not even Il
qualified voter, can cnjoin an election
throughout the entire State, and thus
deprive thousands Of their right to
vote. If q court has power to do this,
! free elections are, at an end. If cleo
tions are improperly held, there are
appropriate means provided by law for
questioning their methods and rene
| dying wrongs without the exercise Of
this dangerous power by the courts. n
candidate who has been defeated may
contest; Il voter whose right to register
has been denied may proceed to compel
the enforcement Of that right, anG
these provisions give what the Lcgis
laturc deems sufficient protection tC
the injured, but in my Judgment ono
citizen cannot, under the prctcnsc O
righting his own wrongs, disfranchist
others.
81 do not think that Il court has ju
risdiction to interfere by injunction OF
otherwise with the enforcement OF the
laws by officers holding and deriving
their powers from these laws: certainly
not to the eXtent attempted 10 be done
by this bill. In arriving at this con
clusion | have not considered the qncs
tiOn whether or not the registration
laws OF South Carolina violate the Fed
eral Constitution or laws. prefer tt
re t my opinion upon the ground o
the Independence Of thc different dc
partments of the government upon Tie
impolicy of Interference by the courts
In question which Will result IN drag
!, ging constantly into array party poll
ties, and upon the general prlncipI'
That each department Of the govern
b ment and each officer there, high %
low, has the right to administer accord
1llg to liS bast in1UmrDi tbo uutic