The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1895-07-16

most painsfaking study should be given
their consideration While disagree.
ing with Justice Gary as TO this being
. quit against shs State and citing
the case OF Evans aud Robertson
against tile State Treasurer In the
matter of the validity Of the IS, 100000
issue OF. bonds ayear or two ago, as
authority, he agrees with Justice
Gary that the plaintiff had an adequate
remedy at law ard hat the court had
no jurisdiction.
Chief Justice McIyer evidently
wrote his opinion first, for after e
Ing that the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
he takes up sereatim his objections
to the opinions OF his brethren as to
the points stated by them. AS to his
views on the constutiopality of the
law the following is q synopsis fur
nfshea by q lawyer ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
with the case
The Chief Justice announces the
conclusions that he arrives ut on the
merits of the controversy, namely, the
eonstitutionality OF the registration
Law. He says in substance that these
enactments ARE In violation of sundry
provisions OF the State constitution, ali
of which he enumerates. He holds
that the many provisions and requires
ments set. forth In the registration
laws as prerequisites to the right of
ballot are burdensome ana uneaual
and could not have been intendeuto
merely regulate the right OF suffrage,
bat upon NE. 9ontc,i.y IKE etfacS OF the
provisions of the law is to abridge and
impede The citizen In registefing and
voting. He says that, al registration
laws 10 be constltutional must have. for
their purpose the regulation of the
suffrage and their province should be
to- facilitate and mob To discourage reg
istration.
He holds that the closing of books
or july and allowing no provision for
registration, except for minors between
July | and election day was, also, un-
constitutional. s. Also, that the scheme
OF tue Act which Is to have but one
general, original repatriation is con-
trary to the section of the constitution
vince reQaires registration from time
to tiliie. He, also, holds that the cer-
tificate feature of the Act in effect re-
quires double registration, namely,
that voters must be both registered on
the books and have certificates tn pre-
sent at the polls in c~ontravention of
the State Constitution. He also points
out various other portions OF the Act
that are c0nstitutionally obnoxious, and
l - heS = CIV oo hi1hJ ~
of the law that are unconstitutional
which arelso Interviewer with others
thattare not void that the whole Act
mnst be deciared unconstitutional.
The opinions of the other Justices
as 10 jurisdiction having been sub
Eaitted to the Chief Justice, he in a
s~nbsequent opinion takes up their
views. He conte ads that it Is not an
action against the State because it
would not injuriously affect any prol
erty or property rights OF the State.
He considers it q question when the
constitutionality of an Act should be
decided upon, md this ia Que OF them
in that 1t intends to refrain officers
from applying public funds for an IL.
legal purpose. Any taxpayer, be | G
~elector or a female, has u right Ia
bring an action to preyentsuch action.
What other remedy 9 taxpayer would
have to prevent an illegal diversion OF
public funds by fiscal officers of the
| government, otherwise than t%Lattaken,
he was at d loss 20 conceive of. The
fund to be paid out had been properly
reelected and placed in the treasury
AMI howits illegal use could otherwise
be prevented except by an action