The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1895-06-18
won BY THE STATE.
JUDGE. GOFF TURNED DOWN.

The Restraining Act in the Registra-
tion Matter Improperly Granted
Judge Hughes Individual
Opinion.
The celebrated South Carolina re-
g;straiion case was decided in the UNI
ted States Circuit Court of Appeals ct
Richmond, Va. on Tuesday. The
State wins, Judge Gof's famous in
junction is dissolved, and the original
bill will be dismissed. The decision
of the court was announced by
Judge Hughes and an outline
OF the coult's position was given.
Judge Hughes submitted strong lndl-
vidual opinion, and the order reversing
Judge Golf was entered at once. None
of the counsel who took part in the ar
gument 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 1t
was OF character to call for an early
decision, and it was determined,
after adjournment on Friday, That the
decision should be announced to-day
and a. decree entered. The case was
exhaustively argued 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 pre-
sented by the record will be prepared
by the Chief Justice and filed and re-
ported as soon as practicable. Mean
time, brief statement of the grounds
OF the decision prepared by the Chief
Justice is now fled;
The Chief Justice expresses himself
as follows: The Judiciary act of
March 8, 1891, contemplates prompt de-
cision on appeals such as this, and as
we:cannos give extended expression to
our views at this time we content our
selves with a brief statement of our
conclusions.
s.Under section of that act, where,
upon q hearing in equity in Circuit
Court, an injunction is granted or con-
Z tinued by an interlocutory order or de-
from final decree may be taken, under
the provisions of this act, to the Cir
cult Court of Appeals, an appeal may
be taken from such interlocutory order
-or decree granting or continuing such
injunction to the Circuit Court of Ap-
peals-
by section FIVE, appeals or writs of
-eescor may be taken to the Supreme
Court. in any case in which the consti-
tuition or law Of State is claimed to be
in contsSyention of the constitution Of
the United States but although the
constitutionality of State law may
be drawn i@nauestion in the Circuit
Court, yet if vs. case may be disposed
of on other, groundsH not involving the
validity of such laws we think this
court has jurisdiction on appeal. Car
~ vs.. railway company, $50 United
States ITO: United States VS.. John,
" l55 United States 100. If in the
instance of appeals from interlocutory
orders on consideration it should ap-
pear that the question Of the consti-
tutionaiity of the law is controlling and
must be decided, the cause can be re-
manded to the Circuit Court that ap-
plication to the Supreme Court for GER
tiorari may be made. American Con-
struction Company VS.. Railway Com
pany, 14S United States, 372. In this
case the bill of complaint challe: ged
the constitutionality of certain laws of
South Carolina, but the question was
raised on the threshold whether the
case was one of equitable cognizance,
and this being so, we sustain the
nd n
dismiss.
'.The Jurisprudence of the United
States has always recognized the dis
tinctlon between law and equity, as un-
der the constitution matter Of Substance
as we'll as of form has procedure. Cater
VS.. Allen l49, United States 45l; Missis-
sipni Mills VS.. Cohen $50, United States
202, 2O5.
.'Iti is we'll settled that Court of
Chancery is conversant only with ques.
tions of property and the maintenance
OF civil rights. The court has no juris-
diction il matters Of political nature,
or to intefere with the duties of any de-
:partment of government except under
special circumstances and when neces-
sary for the protection ofrights of prop
erty, or in matters merely criminal or
merely informal, which do not affect
any right of property. In Sawyer l24,
United States 200, Fletcher VS.. Tuttle
Isl, Ill, Al; Hardesty VS.. Taft %, Mary
land 5i3; ex-parte Lumsden, South
Carolina, 10 E. Rep. 749.
The equitable powers Of the court
san only be invoked by the presenta-
tion of>a,sase of equitable cognizance,
and there cSr@sbe no such case in the
Federal Courts where there is a plain
and adequate remedy-at law, nor does
illegality alone afford ground fer equita-
BILE interference. Shelton VS.. Platt,
13a, United States 59l.
Tested by these principles 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 in
terposition. Being Of this opinion the
restraining orders must be reversed,
and the cause remanded with directions
to dismiss the bill
- The opinion filed by Judge Hughes
is an exhaustive treatment OF the ques-
tion raised in the case. The other
Judges who sat have not had an oppor-
Hughes is solely responsible for it.
JUDGE HCGaEs' oPIS1oN.
Judge Hughes opinion in the South
Carolina case is in part as follows.
The Judge gives careful review Of the
!. record, and continuing, says:
There is nothing in the record to
show that the cornplainapt is man of