The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-06-12
A BIG VICTORY FOR CAROLINA.
JUDGE GOFF OyERRULED IN THE
REGISTRATION CASE.

by Judge Hughes-The Full Opin-
ion of the Court Is TO BE written
by the Chief Justice and VIII Not
BE Filed for Some Days.
Richmond, Va, June 1.-THE celebrated
South Carolina registration case was de-
cided in the United States circuit court
of appeals here to-day. The state wins,
Judge COTS famous injunction is dis
solved and the original bill viii be dis
missed.
The decision of the court was announced
by Judge Hughes shortly before 3 o'clock.
An outline of the courts position was Civ
en-. Judge Hughes submitted strong in
dividual opinion and the order reversing
Judge Goff was entered at once. None of
the counsel who took part in the argu-
ment were present
Judge Hughes, in announcing the courts
decision, said: "This case was heard by
the chief justice, Judge Seymour and my
self, on Friday last. We thought it was
Of a character to call for an early de-
cision, and it was determined after ad-
journment on Friday, that the decision
should be announced to-day and a decree
entered. Inc case was eXnduSUNely ar
gued at the bar, and nothing can be
gained by waiting further time for the
examination of briefs. We are of the
opinion that the injunction which was
granted in the case ought to be dissolved,
and the bill dismissed. A decree to that
effect will be entered at once. The opinion
Of the court on the important questions
presented by the record will be prepared
by the chief justice and filed and reported
Us soon as practicable. Meantime, a brief
statement of the grounds of the decision
prepared by the chief justice is now filed"
The chief justice expresses himself as
follows: The judiciary act of March 3,
1891, contemplates prompt decision on ap-
peals such as this, and as we cannot give
extended expression to our views at this
time we content ourselves with brief
statement of our conclusions.
Under section of that act where
upon hearing in equity in a circuit court
an injunction is granted or continued by
an interlocutory order or decree, in
cause in which an appeal from a final
decree may be taken under the provis
ions of this act to the circuit court of
appeals, an appeal may be takenN from
such interlocutory order or decree grant
ing or continuing such injunction to the
circuit court of appeals.
BY section 3, appeals or writs of err
Tor may be taken to this supreme court
in any case in which the constitution or
law of a state is elaimed to be in contra
vention of the constitution of the United
States but although the constitutionality
of a state law may be drawn in question
in the circuit court, yet if the cause may
be disposed of on other grounds, not in
volving the validity of such law we think
this court has jurisdiction on appeal.
Carry VS.. Railway company, $50 United
States, 10; United States VS.. John, 155
United States, 100. If in the instance of
apeals from interlocutory or orders on
consideration it should appear that the
question Of the constitutionality of the
law is controlling and must be decided,
the cause may be remanded to the circuit
court that application to the supreme
court for certiorari may be made.
American Construction Company VS..
Railway Co., 14S United States, 372. In this
case the bill of complaint challenged the
constitutionality of certain laws of South
Carolina, but the question was raised on
the threshold whether the case made was
one of equitable cognizance, and this be-
ing so, we sustain the Jurisdiction and
overrule the motion to dismiss
The Jurisprudence of the United States
has always recognized the distinction be-
tween the law and equity as under the con-
stitution matter of substance as we'll as
OF form has procedure. Cater VS.. Allen,
li9 United States 451; Mississippi Mills VS..
Cohn, 49, United States, POP, POS.
1T is well settled that a court of chan
Gerry is conversant only with questions of
property and the maintenance of civil
rights. The court has no jurisdiction in
matters of a political nature; or to inter-
iere with the duties of any department of
government, except under special circum-
stances and when necessary for the pro-
lection of rights of property; or in matters
merely criminal or merely informal, which
DO not affect any right of property. In
Sawyer, 124 United States 200; Fletcher VS..
futile, Isl. Ill, Il; Hardesty VS.. Taft, %,
maryland 513; eXparte Lumseden, South
Carolina, 19 S. E., Rep 749.
The equitable powers of the court can
only be invoked by the presentation of d
case OF equitable cognizance, and there
can be no such case in the federal courts,
Where there is a plain and adequate rem
eay at law, nor does iIiegaiity alone af-
lord ground for equitable interference.
shelton VS. Platt, 139, United States 591.
Tested by these principals the bill of
complaint cannot be maintained, for it
asserts no threatened infringement of
rights of property or civil rights, and no
adequate ground for equity interposition.
Being of this opinion the restraining
orders must be reversed, and the cause re-
manded with directions to dismiss the
bill"
The opinion filed by Judge Hughes is
an exhaustive treatment of the question
raised in the case. The other judges who
sat nave not had an opportunity to see the
paper, so Judge Hughes is solely respon-
Eible for It.
Judge Hughes opinion is in part as fol-
lows. The judge gives a careful review of
the record and continuing says: There is
nothing in the record to show that the
Complainant is man of color, or that those
Tor whom he sues are colored persons. The
bill contains no allegation that the provis-
Ions of law complained of were devised
against the complainant or those for whom
he sues on account of their race, color, or
pervious condition of servitude. There is
nothing in the averments of the bill from
which it may naturally, or must necessar-
lily be inferred that the complainant and
those for whom he sues are citizens of
color. There are no averments in the bill
which show that the case falls within the
purview of the fifteenth amendment of the
constitution Of the United States
Nor does the bill contain any allega-
ions which raise a federal question under
That clause of the fourteenth amendment,
which forbids state Ito deny to any per-
son the equal protection of the laws" It
charges that the effect of the provisions