The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-06-19
oes not noint ont how this is So

discrimination, to inference and re
search in sources other than its owl
ayerments. 1t charges that the pro
visions of law complained of discrim
mates, but does not describe the man
ner Of discrimination, or define the
classes affected, pro or con, nor doe:
it show that the laws complained O.
in discriminating between classes a:
to the privilege of registering granted
by them. violate the clause in the
Fourteenth amendment which forbid:
State to deny to any person withlI
it, the equal protection of the laws. L
confounds privilege with protection.
The bill has no reference to a Fed
eral election in setting out complain
ants case. The gravamen of the bill
contemplates only State election tc
be held for members of the State con
vention to convene in August next. l
is not shown that any Federal cleo
ton is to be held in South Carolin;
before November, 1895.
To the bill just described and t
the order of injunction granted by tht
court below in pursuance of its pray
ers. several objections are urged II
behalf of the State OF South Carolina
In what follows I shall consider bU1
one of these. In the ruling of the
Circuit Court rendered on circuit, IN
this case, it was held that the cour
had jurisdiction to restrain a county
supervisor of registration in the per-
formauce of his duties under the elec
ton laws OF South Carolina. The di'
vision of our government into the leg
islative, executive and judicial depart
ments is distinguishing feature OF
our American policy and it is essen
tial to its existence that each Of these
departments shall be independent OF
the other. The division is fundament'
al and organic. 1t would be just as
dangerous to its stability for the judi
cial department to override the others
as for executive or legislative depart
ments to do so. Hence, while the
right of the judiciary to pass upon the
constitutionality of the laws is un,
doubted, it has that right simply as
an incident to its protection of private
rights. It has not that right as mere
means of settling abstract questions
and even in the enforcement of prl,
vate rights it has not the power to IN,
terfere with the discretion vested in
the other departments or with the ex-
ercise OF political powers of this de,
partment. 1t seems to me that it IS a
dangerous encroachment upon the
prerogations Of the other departments
of the government, if the Judiciary be
entrusted to exercise the power of in
terferring with the holding of an elec.
ton in 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 com
mission, those of the other counties
can be also; thus single citizen in
each county, and if he is not even a
qualified voter, can enjoin an election
throughout the entire State, and thus
deprive thousands of their rights to
vote. If a court has power to do this,
free elections are at an end. If elec-
tions are improperly held, there are
appropriate means provided by law
for Questioning their methods and
remedvlng wrongs without the exer-
else of this dangerous power by the
courts. A candidate who has been
defeated may contest; voter whose
right to register has been denied may
proceed to compel the enforcement OF
that right, and these provisions give
what the Legislature deems sufficient
protection to the injured, but IN my
judgment one citizen cannot, under
pretense of righting his own wrongs,
disfranchise others.
Il do not think that a court has Ju-
risdiction to interfere by injunction or
otherwise with the enforcement of the
laws by officers holding and deriving
their powers from these laws; certain
ly not to the extent attempted to be
done by this bill In arriving at this
conclusion I have not considered the
question whether or not the reglstra'
ton laws Of South Carolina violate
the Federal Constitution or laws. ]
prefer to rest my opinion upon the
ground of the independence Of the
different departments of the govern
ment upon the impolicy of interfer'
ence by the courts in question which
will result in dragging constantly IN
to array party politics, and upon the
general principle that each depart
ment of the government and each Of.
fcer there, high or low, has the right
to administer according 10 his best
Judgment the duties imposed upon
him by the laws Grating his office.
''As illustrating these general prln
ciples, refer to the following decls
ions: Mississippi VS.. Johnson, 4 Wall
AIS, Gaines VS.. Thompson, Wal
347; Louisiana VS.. June, 1O7 United
States, I'll Hagood Us. Southern, III
United States; Ayers in re 123 Y. s..
in re Sawyer 124 U. S., 2O9. It's use
less to cite the many cases which
beard on the questions arising In thu
case and so profusely at the bar.
$50 far as the rights of the lndlvld
ual complainant in the bill were con
cerned it may have been competen
for the court to grant individual re
lief. The Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States the other day granted relle
from the payment of an income tax tt
the individual complainant in hi:
suit before it but it went no further
On the authority Of Mississippi VS.
johnson, supra, we may assume tina
it would not have entertained a bill
for enjoining internal revenue otticer
of the government from collecting in
come taxes generally. The judicia
power covered the right to grant lndl
vidual relief, but it did not extend t.
the general power of repeating the Law
imposing the tax as to the entire pub
lie.
Il repeat that in the case at bar may
have been competent for the court t
grant individual relief. but the bill
asked more. 1t asked similar relief TO-
all other citizens of the county situat
t.