The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1895-07-11

defendants as her fiscal officers to do
hat which the State could not be
compelled to do in direct proceed.
ne.' It seems to me that this objec-
ion ignores the important and vital
distinction between the legislature and
he State. The legislature is not the
State; but is simply one of the agen-
lies or departments of the government,
.alled into existence by the voice of
he people, who are the source of ali
power, as expressed in the constitution.
The legislature can only oct lawfully
within the limits prescribed in the con-
Ititution, and any action Oh their part
n conflict with the provisions of the
constitution is without lawful authori-
y, and therefore null and void; not
binding on the organic body, so-called
the State or upon the pe0pls COM
posing such organic body. Hence
he inquiry inevitably comes back to
he question whether the registration
aw establishing the Office of supervisor
If registration and providing for the
Ialary of such Office Is constitutional:
If it Is, then clearly the present action
,annot be maintained, but if it is not;
then it necessarily follows that the pub
Sc finds cannot be lawfully applied to
;he payment of such salaries, and it
leems to me that nothing can be clear
If than that any taxpayer, whether
lue or more, may invoke the aid of
!de court to prevent the fiscal officers
tf the State from applying the fuhdsin
he treasury to any purpose not au--
;horized by law, for besides tie fact
that such funds are derived from taxes
Ievied and collected from the people
Df the State, and in which, therefore,
very taxpayer is more orless interest
ID, the constitution expressly provides
that nomoney shall be drawn from the
treasury but in pursuance ofan appro-
,riation made by law Art. H., Sec:
p. And this prohibition is repeated
practically in the same terms in Art:
tx, Sec. II. It is not correct to say
;hat the State has expressed any desire
apon the subject Until it is shown that
here is some valid act of the law max
ing departm ent of the government es-
;ablishing the Office of supervisor of
registration and fixing the salary of
such Office.
Fourth, All the other objections to
;he Jurisdiction of this court, except
The last, which will be presently con-
idered, are based, as it seems to me,
upon misconception Of the true ma
sure and real object of the action. This
is not an action by which the plaintiff
seeks to obtain relief against wrong
either done or threatened against him
rs an elector or voter, and the fact
that there is no allegation in the com.
paint that either the plaintiff OF any
other citizen of the State has been de
prived of the right of suffrage by rea-,
son of the provisions of the registra-
ton law, is a matter of no consequence,
for such an allegation would not be per-.
tinent to the issue presented by this
act. Conceding, for the purpose of this;
inquiry only, that no citizen of this
State entitled to exercise the right Of
suffrage has ever yet been deprived OF
such right by the operation of the
registration law, I am unable to per-
ceiye how that atcould affect the real is.
sue presented by this case. The
wrong complained of is that the fiscal
officers OF the government have ex-
pressed their purpose to apply a por-
ton of the public funds under their
custody to an illegal purpose, and the
remedy sought is to prevent such a le.
gal diversion of the public funds from
the purposes to which they can alone
be lawfully applied. The action is
brought by the plaintiff as taxpayer,
and the allegation that he is also du-
ly qualified elector is wholly superiu'
Gus, for 7 am unable to see any reason
why any citizen of the State, who is q
taxpayer, femalefor example, wheth-
er an elector or not, may not bring an
action like this to prevent any illegal
diversion of the public funds in which
all the taxpayers, whether electors or
not, are interested.
! 'sIt only remains to consider the last
objection to the Jurisdiction which is
based upon the well-settled doctrine
that court of equity will not take
jurisdiction of the same case where the
plaintiff has plain and adequate rem'
edy at law. The bare statement o.
the doctrine is sufficient to show that,
6n order to sustain this objection it
must appear that the plaintiff has a
lplain and adequate remedy at law
and in my Judgment this has not been
and cannot be made to appear. What
other remedy taxpayer has to pre-
vent an illegal diversion of the public
funds By the fiscal officers of the gov.
ernment than that adoptedin the pres
ent case has not been suggested, and
I am at loss to conceive of any. II
will be observed that the fund here in
question was derived from taxes levied
under and by virtue of the act to raise
supplies for the fiscal year commencing
November l, 1898, 'for the purpose OF
meeting appropriations to defray the
current expenses OF the government
for that fiscal year, and, SO far as am
informed, there never was any special
or separate levy of taxes to pay the
salaries of supervisors of registration.
How then was it possible for the tax
payer to raise the Issue here presented
by refusing to pay his taxes or by
paying the same under protest and
bringing an action to recover them
back.
s'The action does not and should not
proceed upon the ground that any
wrono WAS done To the taxpayer in