Birmingham age-herald., 1895-06-12
THESE DETAILS ARE FULLER
That HiStory-Making Decision at
 Richmond Yesterday.
LEGAL POINTS ARE SET OUT.
An Outline of Judge Hughes 0pnon-He Goes to the Bottom of
 the Case.

Richmond Va, June 1.-The cele- brated South Carolina registration case was decided in the United States circuit court of appeals here today.
 The state wins. Judge Gof's famous injunction is dissolved and the original bill will be dismissed. The decision of the court was announced by Judge Hughes shortly before o'clock. An out line of the courts position was given, Judge Hughes submitting a strong in diyidual opinion, and the order reversing Judge Golf was entered at once. None of the counsel who took part in the ar gument were present. Judge Hughes in regard to the decision said:
 This case was heard by the chief jus
 tice, Justice Seymour and myself on Fri day last We thought it was of char aeter to call for an early decision, and it
 was decided after adjournment on Fri
 day that the decision should be an
 nOunced today and decree entered. The case was eXhaustiVely argued at the bar,
 and nothing can be gained by waiting
 further time for the examination of briefs.
 We are of the opinion that the injunc
 tion which was granted in the case
 ought to be dissolved and the bill dis
 missed. decree to that effect will be
 
 court on the important questions pre- sented by record will be prepared by
 the chief justice and filed and reported
 as soon as practicable. Meantime, brief statement of the grounds of the de-
 cision prepared by the chief justice is now filed"
 The chief justice expresses himself as follows:
 "The judiciary act of March 3, 1891, contemplates prompt decisions on ap- peals such as this and as we cannot give extended expression to our views at this time we content ourselves with 9 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 an appeal from
 a final decree may be taken under the | provisions of this act to the circuit court of appeals, ansappeal may be taken from such interocutory order or decree grant | ing or continuing such injunction to the 1 circuit court of appeals.
 Section ,. Appeals or writs of error | may be taken to the supreme court, in any case in which the constitution | or law of a state is claimed to be a con- | travention of the constitution of the United States. But although the con- | stitutionality of a 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 inYalfdity of such law, we think this court has juris- | diction on appeal If in the instance of | appeals from interlocutory orders on | consideration it should appear that the | question of the cOnStitutiOnal1ty or the | law is controlling and must be decided l the cause can be remanded to the cir cult court that application to the su- preme court for certiorari may be made. "In this case the bill of complaint chal- lenged the conStitutionality of certain | laws of South Carolina, but the question 1 was raised on the threshold whether | the case made was one of equitable cog | nizance, and this being so, we sustain | the Jurisdiction and overrule the motion to dismiss.
 "The jurisprudence of the United | States has always recognized the dis | tinction between law and equity, as un- | der the constitution matter of substance | as well as of form has procedure. "It is well settled that a court of chan l eery is conversant only with questions | of property and the maintenance of civil l rights. The court has no jurisdiction in | matters of political nature, or to inter-
 fere with the duties of any department of | government except under special cir | circumstances or when necessary for the | protection of rights of property. or in | matters merely criminal or merely infor- nal, which do not affect any right of l property.
 "'Fhe equitable powers of the court | can only be invoked by the presentation | of a case of equitable cognizance, and | there can be no such case in the federal courts where there is. plain and adequate | remedy at law, nor does illegality alone | afford ground for equitable interference l Tested by these principles the bill of | complaint cannot be maintained for it l asserts no threatened infringement of rights of property or civil rights and no adequate ground for equity interposition l 4I.... 1 ders must be reversed, and the cause re- | handed with directions to dismiss the | bill"
 The opinion filed by Judge Hughes is | an exhaustive treatment of the question
 raised in the case. The other judges who
 sat have not had an opportunity to see | the paper. so Judge Hughes is solely re- l sponsible for 1t.
 80 far as the rights of the individual 1 complaint in the bill were concerned. it | may have been competent for the court | to grant individual relief. The supreme | court of the United States the other day | granted relief from the payment of an | income tax to the individual complainant l in the suit before it, but it went no fur l ther On the authority of Mississippi l vs. Johnson, supra, we may assume that l it would not have entertained bill for l enjoining linternal revenue officers of l the government from collecting income 1 taxes generally. The judicial power cov- | cred the right to grant individual relief, l but did not extend to the general power | of repeating the law imposing the tax | as to the entire public.
 q repeat that in the case at bar it may have been competent for the court 1 to grant individual relief But the bill l asked more. It asked similar relief for l all citizens of the county constituted 1 like the complaint. It practically asked 1 relief for a portion of that people to | whom the legislator was solely responsi- | ble for it's laws and to whom alone the | genius of our institutions makes the l legislator responsible Moreover it | brought the court into immediate and l active contact with party contestation. | It made the court a controlling factor in l party strife.
 q can imagine nothing more perncu- 1 ous than a direct participation by the l judiciary. by judicial action In the poli- tics of the people The bill asked prac-
 tcally that the process of registration under the laws of the state should be suspended in an entire county during