Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-06-12
GOFF Is OVERRULED.
The Appellate Court DissolTE His In
junction In the Registration Case.
SOUTH ,cARoLrNAs VICTORY.
Chief-Justicc Fuiler sends the Out
line of what the Opinion VIII BE,
and the Decree for the Dismissal
of the Bill In Entered.

The decision of the court was an
nounced by Judge Hughes shortly before
3 o'clock, an outline of the courts posi-
ton was given. Judge Hughes submitted
strong individual opinion. and the
order reversing Judge Goff was entered
at once. None OF the counsel who took
part In the argument were present.
Judge Hughes, In announcing the Courts
decision. said:
This case was heard by the Chief JUS
tice, Judge Seymour. and myself, on
Friday last We thought 1t was Of
character TO call for an early decision.
and was determined, after adjournment
on Friday that the decision should be
announced to-day and decree entered
The case was exclusively argued at the
bar, and nothing can be gained by walt
ing a further time for the examination
of briefs We are OF the opinion that
the Injunction which was granted In the
case ought 10 be dissolved. and the bill
dismissed. A decree TO that effect VIII
be entered at once. The opinion OF the
court on the important questions pre-
sNnted by the record viii be prepared by
the chief Justice and filed and reported
a
brief statement Of the grounds OF the
decision prepared by the Chief Justice
is now fled"
GROUNDS OF THE DECISION.
The Chief Justice expresses himself as
follows:
THE judiciary act Of March 3. 1891 con-
templates prompt decision on appeals sucn
as this. and we cannot give EXTENDED
exnrsssion to our views at this time We
content Ourselves with a brief statement
OF our conclusions.
Under section Of that act where. upon
a hearing in equity in circuit court an
Injunction is granted OF continued by an
interiocutory order or decree, in a cause
in which an appeal from nnsl deere
may be taken under the provisions OF
this act to the Circuit Court of Appeals,
an appeal may be taken from such inter
locutory order or decree granting or con-
tnuing such injunction 10 Tue IHCui'
Court OF Appeals.
s'By section appeals or writs of error
may b. taken To the Supreme touft III
any case ~ which the Constitution or
law a a state is claimed to be in con-
traycntion of the Constitution OF the
United States but although the constr
tuti1nality Of q state Law may be drawn
In question IN the Circuit Cour', yer II
the case NAV be disposed Of on other
grounds, not involving the validity OF such
law, we think this court has Jur.sdlcuon
l50 United states 10: United States VS..
John. i55 United States lO9. IL In the IN
stance Of appeals from interlocutory or
ders, on consideration, Ii should appear
that the question OF the consttutionality
Of the law is controlling and must be de-
oded. the cause can be remanded TO Ihe
Circuit Court that application TO the gu
prerne Court for certiorari may be mace.
American Construction Company VS. Rail
way Company 1iS United States, S72.
COURT HAS JURISDlCTION.
"In this case the bill OF complaint chal- |
lenccl the constitutionality OF certain |
laws of south Carolina, but the question |
was raised on the threshold whether the
case made was one OF equitable cohsIl
2ance, and this being so, we sustain inc
jurisdiction and overrule The motion 70
The Jurisprudence Of the United States
has always recognized the distinction pc |
tween the law and equity as. under the
Constitution, matter OF substance az wei
len SS % 10 g. United states 81 MisslsspPi
Mills vs. Cohn 80 United states, H2, 200.
IL IS well settled that a court of chancery
Is cOnversant only with questions OF pro
perry and the maintenance OF clVil rlghls.
The court has no jurisdiction IN lnattf.s
OF a political nature; or TO interfere VIII
the duties OF any department OF govern |
ment except under special circumstances
and when necessary for the protection OF |
rights of property; or in matters mercy |
criminal or merely informal, which do |
not affect any right Of property In re
Sawyer. 124 United States. 200; fletehei
vs.. rlttie. 15l. III, Al; Hardesty VS.. Iait !
South Carolina, 10 s u. Rep. 7l9.
The equitable powers of the court can
only be invoked by the presentation OF
case OF equitable cosnizance, and there
can be no such case, in the federai
courts. where there is plain and ade-
quate remedy at law, nor does liieg ISinr
ference. Shelton VS.. Plat, lSJ united
States. 5el. at. An,
complaint cannot be maintained. for u
asserts no threatened infringement OF
rights of property or civil rights ana no
adequate ground for equity lnterposiiti!on,
orders must be reversed, and the cause
rernanded with directions to dismiss the
bill"
judge Hughes's Opinion.
The opinion filed by Judge Hughes IL
an exhaustive treatment of the questions
raised in the case. The other judges VINO
sat have not had an opportunity TO see
the paper, so Judge Hughes is solely re-
sponslble for ii. The Judge gives care
full review Of the record, and. continu-
ing. says:
There is nothing in the record to show
that the complainant Is man OF color
or that those for whom he sues are co..
oIed persons. The bill contains no az
legation that the provisions OF law com
planned OF were devised agaih ms su une
on account of their race, color, or pre-
vious condition of servitude; There Is
nothing in the avermenis OF the bill from
which II may naturally. or must neces.
sarily, be inferred that the complainant
and those for whom he sues are citizens
OF color. There are no aNerments IN the
bill which show that the case falls within
the pervew of the fifteenth amendment
OF the Constitution OF the United States
Nor does the bill contain any allegia-
tons which raise Federal question
under that clause of the fourteenth
amendment which forbids a State TO
deny 10 any person the equal protection OF
fhA la
OF the provisions of the registration acts
complained of Is TO give unequal faciii-
ties OF registration to different classes
of citizens; but II does not point out how
this is So Ii leaves the discrimination
as to the privilege of registering, IL there
be discrimination. TO inference a., ana re,
averments II charges that the provisions
of law complained of discriminate; but
does not describe the manner of dis
elimination or define the classes affected.
pro or con; nor does II show that the
laws complained OF in discriminating be-
tween classes as TO the privilege of regis
tering granted by them violate the clause
In the fourteenth amendment. which for
bids State Ito deny to any person with
IN II. The equal protectiin OF the laws
The bill has no reference to Federal
election In setting out compainants
case. The grayamen OF the hall con-
templates only State election to be held
for members OF the State convention to
convene In August next. IL is not shown
tndt any Federal election is 10 be held I'm
the State OF South Carolina before No
vember, 1895
FEATURE OF AMERICAN POLITY.
To the bill thus described and TO the
orders OF injunction granted by the court
below In pursuance of its prayers. seye.
raj objections are urged in behalf OF the
state OF South Carolina. In what follows
i SHAH consider but one of these. In the
ruling OF the Circuit Court rendered on
circuit In this case, II was held that the
court had jurisdiction 10 restrain coun
" supervisor OF registration, In the per
Torrance of his duties under the election
laws OF South Carolina
The division OF our government into
the legislative executive and judicial de
partments Is Distinguishing feature 81
our American pollty. and II Is essential
to Its existence that each OF these de-
partments shall be independent OF In
other The division Is fundamental apd
organic. II would be Just as dangerous
10 It's stability for the judicial department
20 override the others as for the executive
or legislative departments 20 do so. Hence
while the right OF the judiciary 10 pas
upon the constitutionaliy OF laws Is I'M
doubted, II has that right simply as an
incident TO It's protection or private rights