The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-05-16

the sea1e constitution. az e<eaaiasfsi7E
auaiaecafsons for rh< suffrage nof reauir-
81 or warranted By thzt Instrument
The other chief point Is fhe claim that
these state laws violate fss FEDERAL con-
stftu1son. The latter provides that tire
electors q me lover hranca Of congress
"a each STATE shah have TIRE aEsiifica-
f8ons requisite for eleeors OF the rzoST
numerous branch OF the state iegisla-
tara.~ These qualifications. It Is contend
81. must BE set down IN the state cons;i-
taglon. and any attempt by state Law 70
establish other Qualifications violates the
right OF tie citizen 20 vote for member OF
congress. ard 50 is obnoxious 70 the Fed
ersl constitution. The fifteenth amend
rnent forasds any Arrangement OF the
right o. citizens OF tse United States TO
vote ION account Of race, color. or pre-
vlons condition OF servitude." While the
registration law in question does not sps-
cfacaliy discriminate against the negro.
Il Is claimed that It's rigorous provisions
regarding the procurement OF a certi6-
cate rs preservation and us restoration
81 lost are directed against the ignorant
and migratory blacks. A justification
for an appeal to the Federal judiciary Is
found ia the provision of the Federal con-
stltutson that ''the United States shall
guarantee 70 every state In this Union a
republIcan form of government" and II
the contention that the practical effect
OF the registration laws OF South Carolina
is 70 put that state under the rule OF a
white oligsrcly.
The main reliance Of the attorneys on
the other side vas the claim that The
action was virtually directed against the
state, and So was forbidden by the
eleventh amendment. declaring that "the
judicial power OF the United States shall
not be construed TO extend 10 any suit In
law or eauIty commenced or prosecuted
against one OF the United States by citi-
gems OF another state, or by citizens or
subjects Of any foreign state"-though
the present action, II viii be observed,
was brought by citizens OF the state itself.
II was also claimed that the matters COM
plained of we're political rather than judi
ciai, and consequently not the subject of
judicial cognizance. and that adequate
remedies for any grievance might be OBJ
tanned at law In the state courts.
The Injunction was granted on the
grounds that the registration act OF 1882
was unconstitutional; that there was sufti-
Client fraud at the polls in the election last
fan 10 vltiate the calling of the constitu-
ti0nal convention; that there was then
conspiracy between Tillman. Evans and
others 10 commit frauds; that the agree
ment between Tillman, Evans, Barnwell,
Hemphiu and Others tmaking division
OF delegates between the factions) was
conspiracy 10 defraud the negro OF his
right of suffrage; that Evans. as COVER
nor. had sought 10 carry out this con-
spiracy by removing notaries for taking
affidavits from negroes; that the Illegal
acts Of the supervisors of registration
were parts OF the same conspiracy.
The Injunction restraints all persons
charged under the laws of the said state
WITH the duty of holding or managing cleo
tlons for delegates to a convention TO he
held September .. 1895. for the purpose OF
revising. amending. or changing the con-
stltution Of that state. from any and all
action looking to the holding of such cleo
ton or elections
The case will OF course. 30 taken up 10
the supreme court. but no decision can he
reached until next fan. The governor
could have called the legislature together
and passed a new registration law, but