The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-06-19

Circuit Court Of Appeals on the Ground
of Lack of Jurisdiction of the Equit,
Court.
RICHMOND. Va, June 1.-THE ceie
brated South Carolina registration
case was decided in the Uuited State:
Court of Appeals here today. The
State wins, Judge Goffs famous In
junction is dissolved and the origina.
bill will BE dismissed The decision
of the court was announced by Judge
Hughes shortly before 3 o'clock ano
an outline of the courts position was
gwen. Judge Hughes submitted 8
strong individual opinion and the Or
der reversing Judge Golf was entered
at once. None of the counsel who took
part in the argument We're present
Judge Hughes, in announcing the
courts decision, said:
''This case was heard by the Chief
Justice, Judge Seymour and myself,
on Friday last. We thought it was OF
character to call for an early decis,
ion and it was determined after ad-
iournment on Friday that the decision
should be annouced later and decree
entertained. The case was exhaus-
lively argued at the bar and nothing
can be gained by waiting a further
time for the examination Of briefs.
We are of the opinion that the inJunc'
ton which was granted IN the case
ought to be dissolved and the bill dis
missed. A decree to that effect will be
entered at once. The opinion of the
court on the important questions pre-
sented by the record will be prepared
by the Chief Justice and filed and re-
ported as soon as possible. Meantime,
3 brief statement of the grounds OF the
decision prepared by the Chief Justice
is now filed"
The Chief Justice expresses hisviews
as follows: The Judiciary act OF
March 8, 1891. contemplates prompt
decision on appeals such as this and
as we cannot give eextended expression
to our views at this time, we content
ourselves with a brief statement of our
conclusions.
Under section of that act, where,
upon a hearing in equity in circuit
court an injunction is granted or con-
tinued by an interlocutory order or de-
cree in a cause in which appeal from
the final decree may be taken under
the provisions of this act to the circuit
court appeal may be taken from such
interlocutory order or decree grantlng
or continuing such injunction to the
circuit court of appeals so by section
5, appeals or writs Of error may be
taken to the supreme court IN any
case in which the legislation orlaw of
a State is claimed to be in contraven.
ton of the Constitution of the United
States. But although the constitution
atty of State law may be drawn IN
question in the circuit court, yet If the
case may be disposed of on other
grounds not involving the validity OF
such law, we think this court has Jur-
isdiction on appeal. Garry VS.. Railway
Company, $50 =: S: 10, y: 5. VS..
John 155, y. S. 109. If, IN the instance
of appeals from interlocutory orders,
on consideration it should appear that
the question of the constitutionallty OF
the law is controlling and must be de-
cided, the cause can be remanded to
the circuit court, so that petition to
the supreme court for certiorari may
be made. American Construction
Company VS.. Railway Company, las
g. S. 372.
"In this case the bill of complaint
challenged the constitutionality of Ger
tain laws of South Carolina, but the
question was raised on the threshold
whether the case made was one Of the
equitable cognizance, and this being
so, we sustain the jurisdiction and
overrule the motion TO dismiss.
'sThe jurisprudence of the United
States has always recognized the dis
tinction between law and equity as
under the constitutional matters OF
substance. as well as Of form and pro
cedure. Cater VS.. Allen, 149 .. S,
451; Mississippi Mills Us. Cohn, $50 Z.
S.. 2O2, POS. It is well settled that a
court of chancery is conversant only
with the questions OF property and
the maintenance Of civil rights. The
court has no jurisdiction in matters OF
political nature, or to interfere with
the duties of any department OF the
government, except under special cir
cumstances, and when necessary TO,
the protection of rights of property
or ia matters merely informal which
do not affect any right of property.
In Sawyer, 124, e. S. 200; Fletche,
VS.. Tuttle. Isl, Ill; Il Hordesty VS.
Taft, 80 Maryland, 513 ex parte Lunls
den. South Carolina, 19 S. +. Rep.
~2as.
The equitable powers Of the court
can only be invoked by the presenta
ton of case of equitable cognlzance
and there can be no such case IN the
Federal courts where there is plain
and adequate remedy at law, nor doe:
illegality alone afford ground for
equitable interference, Shelton VS.
PIatt, 139, U. S. 591.
Tested by these principles, the blI
of complaint cannot be maintained
for it asserts no threatened infringe
ment Of rights OF property of civi
rights, and no adequate ground fol
equity interposition. Being Of this
opinion the restraining order must be
reversed and the cause remanded with
directions to dismiss the bill"
1J-nc.T uT-cuE'S OPINION
Judge Hughes opinion in the South
Carolina case is, in part, as follows
The Judge gives careful review OF
the record, and continuing says
There is nothing in the record tc
show that the complainant is a mar
OF color or that those for whom ht
sues are colored persons. The bill
contains no allegation that the part
of the law complained of were devised
AGAINST the complainant or those TO,