The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1895-07-10
The Opinion Filed at Last.
State Supreme Court and the
Registration Law.
Majority Dismiss Gen. Buffers
Case-Chief Justice McIver Holds
That sthe Court Has Jurisdic-
ton and That The Law
is Jnconstitutional.
Columbia State. july I.

COLUMBIA State, July L.
The Supreme Court has finally DIS
missed the registration law test case
entitled Matthew 6. Butler against
". H. Ellerbe, comptroller general
of the State of South Carolina. and
W. T. C. Bates. treasurer of the State
of South Carolina. This is the case
brought by General Butler at the
November term, 1894, of the Supreme
Court, to test the constitutionality Of
the registration laws of the State.
The case was heard on the Sd of last
December, and the people of the
whole State have waited patiently
ever since for the decision of the Su-
preme Court.
The delay has caused the court to
be severely criticized, and it has
been complained that the delay was
due to the political considerations IN
volved.
Justices Pope and Gary agree in
dismissing the case, but do so on diff
ferent grounds. The decision Of Mr.
Justice Pope dismisses the proceed
ing on the ground that the petitioner
has plain and adequate remedy at
law.
Mr.. Justice Gary dismisses the
proceeding on the ground Of the want
foequity in the petition.
Justice Mc1ver dissents from both
and holds that the proceeding is a
proper proceeding; that the petition.
er is entitled to the relief under the
proceedings, which is asked, and de-
sclares the whole registration law un-
constitutional, null and void.
justice Pope wrote the opinion Of
the court. Justice Gary also filed an
opinion of some twenty-one pages of
foolscap, which in substance agreed
with the positions taken by Justice
Pope. The dissenting opinion Of the
Chief Justice is twenty-nine pages
in length
The object of the case was to test
the constitutiorality of the registra-
ton law, bus it was in the form of a
petition asking that the State Treas.
urer be permanently restrained from
applying funds in the State Treasury
to the payment of salaries for the gu.
oeryisors Of registration
Justice Pope says in his opinion:
"The delay in rendering the judgment
of the court is owing to the failure
to prepare this separate opinion at an
earlier day That when grave con.
stitutional question is to oe passed
upon, unless it is imperatively neces-
sary that there ehall be no delay, !
am disposed to view it as my duty to
hear aud consider thoroughly what is
presented
He differs with Mr. Gary in the
view that there is in effect suit
against the State, and he cites,
among other cases, the case of Evans
VS.. the State Treasurer, il 3S So. Ca +,
and the case of Robertson vs.. the
State Treasurer, in regard to the val
idity of s5,250,000 of State bonds.
Blu, he agrees with MIR. Justice Gary
that the proceeding should be dis.
missed, putting it upon the ground
that he had adequate remedy at law,
and concludes that the court is with
out Jurisdiction in the premises.
Mr. Gary holds in his opinion that
the proceeding ,is in effect suit
against the State
Second-The State is an indispen-
sable party.
Third-The question as to the con
stitutionality of the acts cannot prop
erIy arise. as there are other grounds
opon which the court can rest its
Judgment.
Fourth--If the State could be sued
she would be estopped from interpos-
ing the objection that the services
rendered at her instance and for her
benefit. were illegal The appropria-
tions show that the State desired the
payment of such services. Equity
will not therefore lend its aid to con-
pei the State, indirectly through the
defendants as her fiscal officers, to do
that which the State could not be
compelled to do in a direct proceed
ing.
The rest of the opinion is devoted
mainly to support of these four
main propositions.
Taking these views, he regards it
unnecessary to disSrss the constitu-
tionality or unconstitutlonallty of the
act itself
Chief Justice Mclver holds that
each taxpayer has an interest in the
matter, and that the plaintiff has the
right of action. That he cannot see
how .he plaintiff in this case is estop-
ed from bringing the action simply
because he has -held Office while the
registration laws were in force This