The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-05-15

suits against officers in their official
capacity either to arrest or direct their
official action by injunction or man
damus where such suits are author
lied by law, and the act to be done or
omitted is purely ministerial IN the
performance or omission of which the
plaintiff has legal interest.
In Davis VS.. Gray, IL Wall, 203,
the Supreme Court held that Circuit
Court of the United States, in prop
er case in equity, may enjoin a State
officer from executing a State law in
conflict with the Constitution or a
statute of the United States when such
execution will violate the rights of the
complainant: that making a State Of
fcer party does not make the State a
party, although her law may prompt
his action and she may stand behind
him as the real party in interest. That
case was suit by Gray against Davis,
the Governor of the State Of Texas,
and Keuchler, Commissioner of the
Land office of that State, and the in,
junction issued by the Circuit Court
of the United States for the western
district of Texas, restraining said otti-
GERS from issuing and signing certain
land warrants was sustained, as have
mentioned, by the Supreme Court OF
the United States.
In the case of Pennoyer VS.. McCon-
naughy, 140 I. S., l, in which the
Supreme Court reviewed the cases
bearing on this subject, Mr.. Justice
Lamar, speaking for the court, said
But the general doctrine of Osborne
VS.. Bank Of the United States, that the
Circuit Courts of the United States
will restrain State officer from exc
cutting an unconstitutional statute OF
the State, when to execute it would
violate rights and privileges of the
complainant which had been guaran.
teed by the Constitution and would
work irreparable damage and injury
to him has never been departed from.
On the contrary, the principles OF
that case have been recognized and en-:
forced in very large number OF
cases, notably in those we have refer
red to as belonging to the second class
of cases above mentioned" In refer
ence. to the case just referred to, he
used this language: THE first class is
where the suit is brought against the
officers Of the State, as representing the
States action and liability, thus max
ing it, though not a party to the rec
ord, the real party against which the
Judgment will so operate as to com
pei it to specifically perform its con-
tracts"
The other classes is where suit is
brought against defendants who,
claiming to act as officers of the State.
under the color of an unconstitutional
statute, commit
ACTS OF WRONG AND INJURY
to the rights and property of the plain
tiff acquired under a contract with the
State. Such suit, whether brought to
recover money or property in the
hands of such defendants, unlawfully
taken by them in behalf of the State,
or for compensation in damages, or IN
a proper case where the remedy at law
is inadequate, for an injunction to
prevent such wrong and injury, OF
for a mandamus, in like case, to en-
force upon the defendant the perform
ance of plain legal duty, purely
ministerial, is not within the meaning
of the Eleventh Amendment an &C,
ton against the State. Osborne VS..
Bank Of the United States, 9 Wheat,
73S; Davis VS.. Gray, 16, Wall, 2O3;
Tomlinson VS.. Branch, Is Wall, $50;
Litchheld VS.. Webster county, 1O1 Y.
S., U3; Allen VS.. Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad, ia U. S., 81; Board OF
LIQUIDATION VS.. McComb, 80 .. S.,
53l; Poindexter VS.. Greenhow, ia U.
S., 30"
Complainant insists that his case is
included in the reasoning of the court
in the cases last cited, and also that he
is entitled to present his bill to this
court, relative to the matters therein SET
forth, because of the provisions of the
Constitution of the United States, and
particularly of the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments thereof. To
the consideration of this point and OF
the constitutionality Of theregistration
laws of the State of South Carolina
we now come. Complainant insists
that the registration laws Of South Car
olina are in contravention Of the pro
visions of the Constitution Of South
Carolina, and that they also violate
the Constitution of the United States.
his rights as citizen of the United
States being so affected thereby as tc
entitle him to be heard in this court
on the complaint we now consider.
The Constitution of South Carolina
contains the following pro.
visions: Article 1, section 81: AL
elections shall be free and open, and
every inhabitant of this commonwealth
possessing the qualifications provided
for in this Constitution shall have
equal right to elect officers and be
elected to fill public Offices.
Article S, section 2: Every male
citizen of the United States of the age
of 81 years and upwards, not laboring
under the disabilities named IN this
Constitution, without distinction Of
race, color or former condition, who
shall be a resident of this State at the
time of the adoption of this Constitu
ton, or who shall hereafter reside II
this State one year and in the county
in which he offers to vote sixty day:
next preceding any election, shall bf
entitled to vote for all officers that are
now or hereafter may be elected by
the people, and upon all question:
submitted to the electors at any elec
ton. Provided that no person shall
be allowed to vote or hold office wht
is now or hereafter may be dlsquall
fed therefor by the Constitution Of the
United States, until such disqualified
tons shall be removed by the Congress:
of the United States. Provided, fur
ther, that no person, while kept IN al
almhouse or asylum, or of unsouno
mind, or confined in any public prison
shall be allowed to vote or hold public
Office
Article s, section 3: 1T shall be the