The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-08-14
RETIRES WITH DIGNITY,
NO MORE lNJUNCTlONS AGAINST
OUR REGISTRATION LAWS.

NO MORE lNJUNCTIONS AGAINST
OUR REGISTRATION LAWS.
eom Says that the Circuit Court of Appeals
has EnectHally Disposed oftliat Matter,
and he, Therefore. Refuses the Injunc-
ton.
RICHMOND, Va, Aug. 6.-In the
United States Circuit Court here this
morning Judge Golf handed down a
brief in the South Carolina reglstra-
ton cases, dismissing complainant's
bill for an injunction. Only the at
torneys in the case and a few 9TH
ers were present when the opinion was
delivered. The Courts opinion is rs
follows:
'When the bill in this case was pre-
sented for my consideration | deemed
it my duty to give the complainant an
opportunity to demonstrate that he
was entitled, as claimed, to the relief
he prayed for and the jurisdiction Of
this Court in order to secure it. My
views upon the question presented by
this case were fully expressed in the
opinion | filed in the case Of Mills VS.
Green | have given the opinion filed
in said cause by the Circuit Court Of
Appeals for this circuit for the May
term, 1895, and all the cases cited there
in my careful consideration and
thorough examination, and | must be
permitted to say, with all due respect,
that | am unable to find the reason or
authority for and by which the injunc-
ton granted in that case was dissolved
and ordered to be dismissed. | think
that in the Mills case, as we'll as in
this, the rights claimed by the respec-
tive plaintiffs rs citizens of the United
States and OF the State of South Caro-
lima have property value Of the high
est and most sacred character, of far
greater value and importance than
have commodities, the values Of which
are measured by henumber of fpomds
they weigh or the number of goods
they contain. These rights, it is ad
mitted, said plaintiffs are deprived of,
but it is insisted that they have ade
quate remedies at law and that equity,
therefore, cannot entertain their COM
plants.
Il very much regret that the Circuit
Court Of Appeals did not indicate the
character of the remedy at law alluded
to in such opinion. And l also regret
that l am unable after thorough in
vestigation to find it. | will not con-
cede that it is proper to close the doors
of the Courts of the United States to
their citizens who are complaining
that they are deprived by the States of
the rights and privileges given to them
by the Constitution Of the United
States, and advise them that they
must seek the juridiction of the Courts
of the States for relief from the out
RACES imposed by the unconstitutional
exactments Of the States. I am ad-
vised that the full and complete opin-
ion of the Circuit Court of Appeals is
yet to b, filed, and | indulge the hope
that upon this point it will not leave
us in doubt. In my judgment, such
cases-under the rules distinguishing
equity and law cases applicable to the
Courts. of the United States-shoulS
be especially heard on the equity side
Of such Courts, for the reason that said
Courts are among other things estab-
lished to determine controversies in
volving conflicts between State and
Federal Constitutions and enactments,
and for the further reason thatin such
cases there is no full and adequare rem
edy at law. It has been repeatedly
held by the Courts ofthe United States
that equity will interfere when the
wrong complained of is such that ii
cannot oe fairly compensated for by
damages, or if it is continuing or per-
manent in character. (Here the Court
cites various opinions to sustain that
point
The fact that there is a remedy at
law is not of itself sufficient to deprive
equity of jurisdiction until it also ap-
pears that the farmer is as complete
and effectual as the latter. (Other
cases here cited.) Nevertheless while
entertain these views, my great re-
spect for the Circuit Court of Appeals,
my desire to properly regard the judi
cial proprieties, and my duty to give
due warrant and authority to the deci-
sions and opinions of the Appellate
Courts of the United States, compel
me, finding as l do, that this case in
its material allegations, its true scope
and effect, is in fact similar to the
Mills case, to which l have referred,
to refuse the injunction asked for and
to dismiss the complaint and such
a decree will now be entered. "
This is of course, a complete victory
for the State of South Carolina, but
Attorney Obear, who represents the
plaintiff, will take an appeal direct to
the Supreme Court Of the United
States, and thinks he can get an early
hearing as privileged case He has
left for Washington, and the South
Carolina attorneys will return home
this evening.