The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1895-07-10
Was There a Change?
A Significant Feature Of The
Courts Decision.
The State.

There is something mysterious
about the decision Of the Supreme
Court in the case brought to test the
constitutionality of the registration
law
The opinion of Chief Justice
McIver purpoIts to be dissenting
opinion. 1t is so entitled on It's face
But reading of the paper. as it ap-
pear. to have been submitted by the
chief Justice to his own associa:es,
fails to disclose anything going to
show that it was such
Lawyers say it is the invariable
practice Of judges who write dissent
| ing opinions to state that fact in the
outset This Chief Justice McIvey
has not done. His opinion opens
with statement Of the proceedings
and of the questions which are raised
thereby Throughout the paper he
uses The pronoun eve never 81 u
The opinion contains the following:
1--WE must, therefore. conclude that
the registration law of this State is
unconstitutional, null and void, and
hence any appropriation of the public
moneys for the pay Of the supervisors
of the registration for carrying out
the provisions of this unconstitutional
statute is without the warrant Of law
and should be forbidden -
Next there is what was once, with.
out doubt, the conclusion of the docu-
ment in The following words:
.'It is, therefore, ordered aud ad-
Judged that the prayer Of the com
plant, in so far as it asks that the
Comptroller General of the State be
perpetually enjoined from issuing
warrant on the Treasurer of the State
for the pay of any supervisor of regis
tration, and that the State Treasurer
be perpetually enjoined from paying
any such warrant be granted Any
formal order necessary to carry into
effect this order may hereafter be
passed.
A conclusion such as this would
never have been appended to an opin-
ion which did not embody the judg-
ment of the court 1t is altogether
meaningless except as a part Of an
opinion which, adopted by majority
of the court, was the means OF carry
lug into effect the conclusions pre-
viously reached.
But this concluding part is marked
ont with pen and ink-this to such
an extent that it cali only with great
difficulty be deciphered
Next there is a statement Of the
chief Justices reasons for his dissent
from the conclusions reached by
Associate Justices Pope and Gary in
their respective opinions In this
portion OF the paper Chief Justice
Mciver, following tie invariable form
in dissenting opinions, uses the pro-
noun in the singular number.
1t is plain that had the chief justice
really dissented from conclusions pre-
viously reached by the majority of the
court. he would have SO stated in the
outset of his opinion. 1t is also clear
that his opinion divides itself into
two separate parts-that which dis
cusses the law and declares it void,
and that which discusses the reasons
of the associate justices for denying
jurisdiction in the Supreme Court to
determine the questions raised.
Between these two portions is the
erased passage-the passage grant
ing the prayer Of the petition.
From all this the conclusion is ire
sistible-that the chief Justice and
one, if not both OF the associates, had
copcurred in the opinion that the
registration law is altogether uncon-
stitutional. null and void that the
chief Justice was assigned to write
the opinion, and that the dissent o.
one or both of the associates was the
result of later consideration.