The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1895-06-12
TIE SOUTH CAROLINA CASE
The United States Court of Appeals D,.
solves Judge Gon's Ipjupction

THE SOUTH CAROLINA CASE.
The United States Court of Appeals Dis
solves Judge GoH's Injunction.
RICHMOND, Va June 1.-THE United
States circuit court OF appeals TO-DAY
dissolved the Injunction granted bv
Judge Golf in the South Carolina reg
tstration cases. Argument was heard
before Chief Justice Fuller, Judges
hughes and Seymour. II was decided
friday after argument WAS concluded
that this was matter requiring prompt
action and that p decision should be
| rendered to day. The chief justice and
AZ $3.50 p. m. Judge Hughes went on
the bench and announced what the de-
cision was, and stated that the chief
| justice would write the opinion and file
| 1t later. None of the counsel were
present. Judge Hughes filed the fol-
lowing papers with the clerk: United
States circuit court OF appeals for the
fourth circuit. Richmond, Va, June,
1895. Lawrence p. Mills, com plainant
and appellee. va. w. Briggs Green, de.
fendsnt and appellant. This case was
heard by the Chief Justice, Judge Sew
mour and myself, on Friday last We
thought it was of charact ter to call for
an early decision, and 1t was deter.
mined, after adjournment on Friday,
that the decision should be announced
to-day and decree entered The case
was exclusively argued at the bar.
and nothing can be gained by waiting q
further time for the examination of the
briefs.
We are OF the opinion that the in
junction which WAS granted in the case
ought to be dissolved and the bill dis
missed. A decree to that effect will be
ensered at once. The opinion of the
court on the important question pre-
scented by the record. will be prepared
by the chief justice and filed, and re-
ported as soon az practicable. The de-
cree is as follows
In United States court OF appeals,
Fourth circuit, w. Briggs Green, az
pellant, vs. Lawrence P. Mills. Ap-
pealed from the circuit court of the
United States for the district of South
Carolinia.
This cause came on to be heard on
the transcript OF the record and an an
peal from an order entered by the cir :
cunt court OF the United States for the
district OF South Carolina, on Nav s.
1895, continuing certain order granted
by said court April 16. and fled April
10, 1895, on the bill OF com plant herein,
whereby appellant was epjoined and
restrained from exercising duties or
performing any act complained of In
the said bill OF the omplainent, either
individually or as supervisor Of reRis>
tration for the county OF Rlchland,
State aforesaid" and WAS argued by
counsel.
On consideration whereof, It is now
here ordered, adjudged and decreed by
this court, that the said orders of the
said circuit court Of April 16, and Nav
z. 12QS ha nd hn
versed and the injunction thereby
granted and continued dissolved with
costs; and that this cause be and the
same is hereby remanded to the said
court with directions to dismiss the bill
Of complaint.
(Signed) R. W. HUGHES.
Some OF these reasons for the decis-
lon OF the court is set forth in this: w.
Briggs Green vs.. Lawrence P. Mills
before Fuller. Hughes and Seymour
Fuller, circuit justice. The judiciary
act OF March 3, 1891, contemplstes
prompt decision on appeals, such as
tnls' and, as we cannot give extended
expression to our views at this time,
we content ourselves with a brief
statement Of our conclusions. Various
authorities are quoted to sustain the de.
clsion, which concludes as follows:
1t Is we'll settled that court of chan.
cary is conversant only with questions
of property and the maintenance OF
civil rights. The court hiss no iurisdic.
tion In matters Of political natures;
nor to interfere with duties Of any de-
partment OF government except under
special circumstances and when neces.
sary protection Of rights and property;
or in matters merely criminal or merely
immoral, which do not affec. snv right
OF property.
The equitable powers OF the court
can be invoked by the presentation of
case Of equitable cognizance, and there
can be no such case in the Federal
courts where there is plain and ade.
quate remedy at law, nor does illegality
alone afford ground for equitable inter
ference. Shelton VS.. Plat. 1a9 U. s.,
sol. Tested by these principles the
bill OF complaint cannot be maintained,
for 1t asserts no threatened infringe
ment OF rights of property or civil rights
and no adequate ground for equity in.
terposition. Being of this opinion, the
restraining orders must be reversed and
the cause remanded with directions to
dismiss the bill.
a Triumph for State Sovereignty
COLUMBIA. s. c. lima II -Gouarnor