The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1895-06-10
BEGINNING or THE ARGUMENT

sum OF N,uOV. making tie cOnStable'S bond
only half that amount
BEGINNING or THE ARGUMENT
In the south Carolina Repatriation
Richmond. Va. June Argument in the
South Carolina registration case was begun
IN the United States circuit court of ap-
peals today before Chief Justice Fuller,
Judges Hughes and Seymour
Attorney General Barber opened fer the
state OF South Carolina. The trend of his
opening remarks was that the federal
courts had no jurisdiction in the premises.
He said it was set forth by Judge Gor that
the petitioner Il colored man, ana,
therefore, the refusal of the laws of South
Carolina 10 permit him to vote was in
violation of the fifteenth amendment of the
constitution.
Mr.. Barber called the attention Of the
court To the fact that nowhere in the
record did this fact-that the petitioner was
coiorod-appear, though il was commented
upon by attorneys in the lower court, and
very prominently brought to the attention
Of Judge Gon when he granted the injunc-
ticn.
The attorney general stated that instead
OF prov ding for a discrimination against
any voter. the law set forth that any male
citizen, regardless of race, color or condi-
ton, who had resided i'm the state for one
year, was entitled TO vote. IT was not the
law he said. that caused Judge Gof TO
hold that voters were being denied their
privileges, but it was the abuse of the law
10y people ostensibly working under it. lie
commended that the law should not be held
responsible for derelictons Of election oiil-
GERS.
Mr.. Douglass made the opening speech for
the petitioner. He prefaccd his argument
with the statement that though he and his
associate, Mr.. O'Bear appeared in opTosi-
ton 10 the cause OF the state, they were IN
no sense against the state ..eXcept that
were cnaeay oring TO bring ab6GC rigst.
addressing himself to the question the
jurisdiction OF the United States court ne
said that If a wrong was committed ana the
effort Of that wrong was TO disfanchse
voter aud thereby imperil the federal cleo
tions, he c6ntended that federal court
had jurisdiction.
The law, he said. was in violation of section
1, article H. of the constitution of the
United States. The section denies n voter
a liberty when it takes away his vote and,
therefore, the court had jurisdiction to
enjoin against further infractions of the
constitution of the United States In con-
clusion he submitted that the law was in
violation of the fourteenth article ana in
substautiation of that statement called at
tentiou to the features of the law and said
that it was almost impossible for the IL
literate voter to differentiate his registra-
tion from his receipt. or any other official
paper he might have. He asked the court
the direct question: what class is the two
directed against-the whites or the ne
groes2'
Chief Justice Fuller replied that they
m ght have been directed against either.
Mr.. Douglass. continuing, directly at
tackled the law and argued that it was
enacted simply for the purpose of disfran-
chising the negro vote.
Mr. Douglass was followed by Mr. O. Bear,
his associate, whose argument was largely
OF legal nature. lie held that the court
had jurisdiction to hear and act in the
case. and then occupied some time in the
citation OF various authorities and cases
bearing upon the matter as issue.
General Edward McGrady made the clos
ing speech for tho state. He began his ar
gument by making a careful explanation of
the registration laws ana showing that the
circumstances which existed when they
We're enacted justified their passage. lie
compared them TO various other registration
laws and argued that they were not more
unjust or discriminating than laws of other
states, which at various times had been
declared constitutional. and thus, though
the laws had been in existence since 1876,
their Coustitutionality had never been
questioned till 1880 He said if they had been
as unjust as they were charged TO be, they
would not have been allowed To nave It-
manned so long unqucstioned. He claimed
that the whole case was political one,
ana that Mills was only & figurehead and
the speaker did not know so far as the
record went whether Mills was white or
colored General McCrady closed his very
brief argument by saying he thought the
court was i'm full possession OF all the Facts
and that il would be unnecessary for him
to ask the attention OF the court further
IN, chief Justice was asked il it were
allowable to submit briefs but none were
forthcoming Three days were given each
side in which TO hand in the cases TO sub
stautiate their positions.
The court adjourned till Monday at ~
o'clock.
south CarOIina'S DisPcnSary Law.
Washington. June 3.--The South Carolina
dispensary law will again come before the
supreme court of the United States next
October for examination OF the relations IL
bears to the Interstate commerce clause oil
the constitution. 1t will come up on habeas
corpus proceedings in behalf OF h. {.
Beach, a constable under indictment by
Governor Evans, " no is in the custody o.
the United States marshal for contempt OF
court in tine violation of the order of Judge
Con-, Of the federal court forbiGdins the
officers Of the state to seize packages OF
liquors imported into the state for the per-
sonal use OF the owner. Attorney General
Barber made application 4 fortnight ago
for leave 10 file a petition for writ OF hil-
hoas corpus, which would brlnS up
the whole question, and the leave asked
for was granted today. Chief Justice Ful-
Ter announced that the case would he heard
on the first day of the next term OF court
i'm October.
shortage mt "a Disrcnsary.