Birmingham age-herald., 1895-06-12
The Decision.

The Decision.
 Richmond. Va. June 1i-Judge Hughes opinion in the South Carolina case is in part as follows:
 The judge gave a careful review of the record, and continuing. says: There Is nothing in the record to snow that the complainant is a man of color or that those for whom he sues are colored rer= sons. The bill contains no Allegation th1t the prop 'sitions of law complained of were devised against the complain ant or those for whom he sues on ac- count of their race color or previous con dition of servitude. There are no aver ments in the bill from which 1t may naturally, or must necessarily be ln- ferred that the complainant and those for whom he sues are citizens of color.
 There are no aVermentS in the bill which show that the case falls within the purView of the fifteenth amendment or the constitution of the United States.
 Nor does the bill contain any allega- tions which raise federal question un- der that clause of the fourteenth amend ment which forbidS a state to deny to any person the equal protection Of the laws. II charges that the effect or the provisions of the registration acts conl- plained of is to give unequal facilities of registration to different classes ot eitl- zens, but it does not point out now thls is so. 1t leaves the discrimination as to the privilege of registering, if there be
 
 searched in sources other than it's own aVerments.
 Tt charges that the provisions of the law
 complained of discrintiuate, but does
 net describe the manner of discrmina-
 tion or define the classes affected, nor
 does it show the laws complained of dis
 criminate between the classes as to the privilege of registering granted them by
 the clause of the fourteenth amendment
 which forbids to state. to deny 10 any 1,TN EF Fs n the law. It confounds privilege with protection. The bill has no reference to a federal election. In stating our com plainant's case, the graVamen Of the bill contemplates only @ state election to be helGA at the state convention to convene in August next. It is not known that
 any federal election is to be held in the
 state of South Carolina before NoVem- ber 1895.
 ''To the bill thus described and to the
 orders of injunction granted by the court below in pursuance of its prayers seV- eral iniunctions are urged in behalf ot the state of South Carolina. In what fol lows l shall consider but one of these. In the ruling of the circuit court rendered in the circuit i'm this case it was held that the court had jurisdiction to restrain a county supervisor of registration in the | performance of his duties under the eiec- l tion laws of South Carolina.
 "rhe division of our government into | legislative executive 1 and judicial de- partments is a distinguishing feature of l our American polity and it is essential l to it's existence that each of these depart ments shall be independent of the other | The division is fundamental and organic. | It would be just as dangerous to It's sta 1 billty for the judicial departments to | override the others as for the executive l or legislative departments to do so. Hence, while the right of the judiciary | to pass upon the conStitutionality of the
 laws is undoubted, it has that right | simply as an incident to it's protection | of private rights, and even in the en- | forcement of private rights it has not | the power to interfere with the discre- | ton vested in the other departments or | with the exercise of the principal pow | CTS of those departments. It seems to 1 me that it is a dangerous encroachment
 upon the prerogations of the other de- 1 partments of government if the judiciary | be entrusted to exercise the power of in- | terferng with the holding of an election
 in e state.
 If the supervisor of one county can be | enjoined from the performance of the | duties imposed upon him by the election | laws of the state from whom he holds his commission those of the other counties l can be also. Thus a single citizen in each county (and in the case in bar he | is not even qualified Voter) can enjoin an election throughout the entire state | and thus deprive thousands of their | rights to vote. If court has power to | do this, free elections are at an end. If
 elections are improperly held there are | appropriate means provided by law for | questioning their results and remedying | wrongs without the exercise of this dan | gerous power by the courts. A candi- | date who has been defeated may con- | test; a voter whose right to register has l been denied may proceed to compel the enforcement of that right, and these privileges give what the legislator deems 1 sufficient protection to the injured, but | in my judgment one citizen cannot think | that a court has jurisdiction to inter-
 fere by injunction or otherwise with the | enforcement of laws by officers holding
 and deriving their powers from these | laws certainly not to the extent in which
 it is attempted to be done by this bill 'In arriving at this conclusion l have | not considered the question whether or not the regiStra ton laws of South Caro- | lima violate the federal constitution or | laws. I propose to rest my opinion upon | the ground of the independence of the | different departments of the government upon the impolicy of interference by the courts in question which will result in | dragging them constantly into the arena | of party politics, and upon the federal 1 principle that each department of the | government and each officer thereof high | or low, has the right to administer ac- cOrding to his best judgment the duties | imposed upon him by the laws creating l his ofice As Illustrating these general l principles I refer to the following de- cisions: Mississippi vs Johnson, Wall | 475; Gaines vs Thompson, Wall 347; Louisiana vs. Jumel, 107 U. s. I'll; Ha- | good Vs. Southern IF U. $. 52; Ayers in | report 121, U. s. Al; In Re Sawyer, 124 U.
 S. 209. | "It is useless to cite the many cases | which bear on the questions arising in 1 this case and so profusely at the bar.