Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-08-06
THEIR LAST EFFORT.
The Negroes Make Another Attack on
South Carolina Registration Laws.
MOTION FOR AN INJUNCTION.
The Case Argued Before Judge Con,
who VIII Decide This Morning
cidcd.-The Contention.
cidcd-The Contention.

fore Judge Gon In the United states
Circuit Court at o'clock yesterday AFTER
noon The style Of the suit is joseph ii.
Gowdy against W. Briggs Green, ana II
Is a most intricate one. me complainant Is
being represented by Mr. II. n. OBear.
of Washington. while Attorney-General
W. A. Barber. OF South Carolina, has
General Edward McCrady. OF Charleston
with him on the other side Of the case.
The controversy was briefly argued by
these gentlemen before Judge Con-. and
their returns were submitted to the
Court. The Judge took the matter under
advisement until 10 o'clock this morning,
when he will announce HIS decision.
This case originated In Columbia, s. c.,
IN which place the complainant. Gowdy,
IS a colorcd resident and voter, and Green,
the defendant, a supervisor of registra-
ton. Yesterday was the last day Of regis
trauon in South Carolina before the cleo
ton Of delegates 70 the Constitutional
Convention 90 bc held on the 10th Instant,
and it IS understood that this application
for an Injunction IS the last desperate
effort Of the colored people to forestall
the convention.
THE LAWS ABRIDGE RIGHTS.
Argument was opened by Mr.. O'Bear
for the complainant. lie made an able
presentation of the case against the regis
tration laws Of the state of South Caro-
Ina. which he claimed were unconsti-
tutional in many material respects. lie
averreI that the complainant was duly
qualified voter IN the State. and explained
al great length the legislative euactments
II South Carolina concerning registra-
ton ana voting. By the plan now in
vogue in that Commonwealth the voter
has 10 present his registration certih-
cate al the polls, ana cannot vote I'M
less he does go. In the event voter
loses or misplaces his certificate he has
to furnish satisfactory proof of losing
or misplacing before another certificate
will be- issued to him. Mr. O'Bear de-
cared that these enactments worked
hardshps upon certain classes Of citizens,
ana denied the right of suffrage to many
In both Federal and state elections The
speaker referred TO sections OF the Con-
stitution Of the United States which, he
taid showed that these laws were
clearly in direct contrOvention Of.
The facts In this particular case were
deliberately gone into I'm order that the
alleged hardships Of the laws might b
more clearly portrayed, and Mr.. OBear
closed his very able argument
JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS.
The Washington attorney was closely
followed by Attorney General Barber He
said that the defendant. w. Briggs Green.
upon whom had been served "a rule to
show cause before the Hon. Nathan
GC1. Circuit Judge OF the United States.
at Richmond. at 3 O'Clock in the after
noon on the 9TH day of August, why an
order should not De made in the cause
cnjoining and restraining him from fur
Their exercising the powers and privileges
claimed 10 be conferred 10y certain al
eyed enactments Of the government OF
the State OF South Carolina upon him as
the incumbent of an alleged office known
and described in said alleged enactment
az Supervisor of registration" and also
from furnishing and delivering to the
several boards Of managers for the seve-
raj precincts I'm Richmond county, 5. c.,
appointed TO hold the election OF dele
gates 20 a certain constitutional cOnVen-
ton soon to he held in the said State.
certain paper-writings purporung TO be
resislration-books for the several pre-
Cincts and also from doing any and
every other act complained Of In the
said bill. by pr0testation, now came and
showed FOR cause:
That he is advised and AYERS that the
Circuit Court Of each district Of the
United States sits within and for that
district. and is bounded by It's local lin
its; that whatever may be the extent of
its jurisdiction over the subject matter
OF suits in respect to person and proper
Is, such jurisdiction can be exercised only
within the limits OF the district that
Judge Of the Circuit Court of the United
States is authorized by statute 10 grant
injuuctlons only in cases when they
might be granted by such court itself;
that, as q Circuit Court has ~ jurisdic-
ton beyond the territorial Units OF the
eli 81
judge thereof such jurisdiction.
The Attorney General said at the time
Of granting the restraining order and rule
to show cause In this case, the Circuit
Court for the Eastern District Of South
Carolina was open and sitting in Charles
ton In said state; that the defendant
was q citizen Of the state Of South Caro-
lima and a resident of Rlchland county.
in the Eastern District of that State that
as such process had been served upon him
70 appear, plead. answer. or demur To
the bill filed in this cause in the Circuit
court for that district and this defendant
respectfully submitted that he could not
be required TO appear 10 answer 10 any
rule or process in this cause beyond the
limits Of the said Eastern District OF
South Carolina.
The defendant was advised and averred,
tile Acknowledgement continued, that the
tI IA this case presented no question
arising under the Constitution and laws
o. the United States TO give jurisdiction
=, This court; that he was advised ana
aNcrgct that this was In effect suit
against the state Of South Carolina, in
violation Of the eleventh amendment OF
Doe Constitution of the United States;
that Dee was advised and averred that the
Dill presented no case upon which the
jurisdiction OF the Court Of Equity could
Dos founded as there were plain and ade-
quatc remod es at law for the correction
az any no the matters and things alleged
II the said allegations were true; that IN
the recent case Of Lawrence i. Mills
against this defendant, upon similar
grounds and FOR similar purposes. the
Circuit Court OF Appeals at the last term
set aside the Injunction granted In that
case and dismissed the bill therein Tor
want o. Jurisdiction
CHIEF JUSTICES WORDS.
Chief-Justice Fuller, in filing a brief of
the decree in this case, declared: 1T Is
wen settled that q Court OF Chancery is
conyegsant only with questions OF pro-
pcIty and the maintenance II civil rights.
The court has no Jurisdiction in matters
OF political nature. or 10 interfere with
the duties OF any department Of the gov
crnm nJ except under special circum-
stances, and when necessary for the pro-
iecuJn OF property; or In matters merely
criminal or merely immoral which DO
not alcct any right Of property.
"The equitable powers OF the court can
only be invoked 10y the presentation OF
case OF equitable cOgnizance. ana there
can be no such case IN the Federal CoHrts
where there IS a plain and adequate rem
Cdy an laws nor does illegality alone ar
ford ground for equitable interference"
4 4 "A g.