The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1895-07-31

VI SlICuIt uu6S3 1gh SAASuASs
It seems, from perusal of the bill in
this case, which was seen in the Office Of
Obear e. Douglass, here, that it differs in
some essential particulars from the Mills
case, recently decided In the Circuit Court
of Appeals. The Mills case was brought
in behalfof himself and all others like
situated against w. Briggs Green, in his
official capacity as Supervisor of Registra-
ton, while the new case Is suit against
Mr.. Green individually, and 1t seems
that he Is not sued as Supervisor. Upon
the contrary, it is positively alleged in
the bill that the sections Of the registra-
ton law which create the office are them
selves, together with all the balance of
the act, unconstitutional, and that there
exists in the State no such office as Su-
peryisor Of registration. And it is claim
ed as legal consequence that the acts
and regulations under which Mr.. Green,
the Supervisor, has baen acting are his
own individual acts. Another essential
difference is that it Is in so many words
alleged that the complainant was dis
tinctly refused registration. Also, it is
stated in the bill, that he is citizen Of
African descent. The peculiar hardships
Of the act of 1894 requiring the supporting
afidavits are made clear by the facts
surrounding the particular case Of the
party suing. And that act is specially
attacked as in violation of the fourteenth
amendment as guaranteeing to every
citizen the equal protection of the law, it
being claimed that under the act of 1894
impossible and impractical conditions to
register are imposed upon the voters un-
registered at the time Of the passage Of
that act, which are not required and i'm
posed upon those electors now upon the
registration books.
The particulars In which the registra-
ton laws are in violation Of the fifteenth
amendment to the United States Consti-
tuition are set forth fully and in detail;
It is also affirnatively stated in the bill
that the complainant has under the facts
of his case no remedy at law at all.
Among other things, that judgment at
law for damages against the defendant
could. not be collected, and that even if
collected would not be adequate relief to
him for the deprivation of his right to
vote. The other legal remedies hereto
fore suggested in the Mills case are dis
posed Of under the facts of the new case,
and it Is clearly alleged that the complain
ant can have no legal recourse to any of
the suggested remedies.
The bill in addition to a number Of
other differences between 1t and the Mills
bill seems to be without any Of the tech
nical objections raised by the counsel for
the State in the former case. The docu-
ment in question is very full and care
fully prepared and elaborate legal paper,
but its length is such that it cannot here
be given in full. Hence the above synop.
sis. It is inferred that the purpose of
the council is to differentiate the new case
from the old so as to obtain an injunction
in the new case without conflicting with
the principles laid down by the Circuit
Court of Appeals in the Mills case. What
the result OF this fight will be of course no
one can tell. This much, however, seems
to be certain, namely: That it presents
the issues upon the merits clearly and
souarely and absolutely freed from any
of the technical points upon which the
counsel for the State sought to side-track
the former case, and that when this case
reaches the United States Supreme Court
it will be difficult to dodge the moment
Gus issues made.
It seems that Mr.. Obear, Of the firm of
Obear & Douglass, appeared before Judge
Golf few days ago and obtained the rule
to show cause elsewhere referred to.
The hearing has been set for the 5th Of
August, p. M, in the courtroom of the
Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, at
which time it is expected that the argu-
ments on the case will take place. 1t is
not known as yet who will take part in
the argument. Probably Mr.. H. N.
Obear will make the argument for the
mplainant.-Colunabio State.