The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1895-06-19
TURNED DOWN!
THEDOUGLAS REGISTRA.
TION CASE PUT OUT
OF COURT.
Judge Goff's Injunction Dissolved
by the Circuit Court
Of Appeals.

.as decided iu the United States Court
of Appeals here to-day. The State
wins. Judge Goa's famous ioj uoction Is
dissolved aud the original bill will be
dismissed. The decision Of the court
was announced by Judge Hughes
shortly before 8 o'clock aud an outline
of the courts decision was given.
Judge Hughes submitted strong iodi-
vidual opinion and the order reversing
Judge Goff vas entered at once. None
of the counsel who took part in the ar
gument were present. Judge Hughes.
in announcing the courts decision.
said:
This case was heard by the Chief
Justice. Judge Seymour and myself. on
Friday last. We thought it was Of q
character to cali for au early decision
and it was determined after adjourn
mens on Friday that the decision
should be announced later and decree
entered. The case was exhaas'ively
argued at the bar and nothing can be
gained by waiting further time for
sbe examination of briefs. We are Of
the opioion that the injunction which
Was granted in the case ought to be
dissolved and the bill dismissed. A de
cree to that effect will DC entered at
once. The opinion of the court on the
important aoes,ions presented by the
record will be prepared BY the Chief
Justice aud filed aud reported as soon
as possible. Meantime. a brie. state
ment Of the grounds of the decision
prepared By the Chief Justice is now
Sled"
The Chief j us:ice expresses bis veiws
as follows: '.Tbs judiciary act Of March
8, 1891. contempIates prompt decision
on appeals such as this and as we can
not give extended expression to our
views at this time, we content our
selves With a brief statement Of our
conclusions.
..Under section Of that act. where.
upon hearing 10 equity io q circuit
court an Injunction is granted or con-
tinued by 30 interlocusory order or de-
cree in cause in which appeal from
sbe snai decree may be taken under the
pro-isions Of this act to the circuit
eour, ef appeals, az appeal may be
sakea from such interlocusory order or
decree granting or continuing such in
iiuuct. .ou to the circui, court of appeals
80 by section 5. appeals or wrlts OF e'-
-ror may De taken to the supreme court
in any case 10 which the legislation or
law of state is claimed to be in con-
.sraventiou Of the Constitution of the
Uni,ed States. But although the coossi-
,u.iooal,sy Of State law may be drawn
iu qaestiou iu the circuit court. yet If
the case may be disposed of on other
grounds not involving the validity of
such lsw. we think this cours has juris-
niction on appeal. Garry VS.. Railway
Company, $50 U. S 10, U. S. W.
John l55, u. S. l09 If in the in-
stance Of appeals from in'erlocotory Or
ders. on consideration it should appear
that the question of the constitutional
i.y of the law is controlling and must
be decided. the cause can be remanded
70 The circuit court. so that petition to
sbe supreme court for certiorari may be
made. American Construction Com
pauy VS.. Railway Company, 148 U. S.,
372.
..In this case the bill of complaint
challenged the constitut;ouality of GER
tain laws Of South Carolina, but the
question was raised on the threshold
whether the case made was one of the
equitable cognizauce, and this being 80,
We sustain the Jurisdiction and over
rule the motion to dismiss.
The Jurisprudence of the United
States has always recognized the dis
,inctioo between law and equity as
ander the constitutional! matters of
substance. as we'll as of form aud pro-
cedure. Carter VS. Allen, l49 U. S.
451; Mississippi Mills rs. Coho, 100
u. s. 2G2, 205. 1t is we'll settled
shat court of chancery is couversant
only with the questions Of property and
the maintenance OF civil rights. The
court has 90 jurisdiction in matters Of
a political oature. or to Interfere with
the duties Of any department of the
government, except under special cir
eumstauces, and when necessary for
the protection of rights Of property; or
in matters merely criminal or merely
informal which do not affect any right
Of property. In Sawyer. 124. U. S.
200; Fletcher vs.. Tuttle. Isl, Ill;
Al Hardcs,y vs. T.ft. % Maryland,
513 !; ex parte Lumsden. South { %
lima, 10 S E. Rep, 749.
The equitable powers of the court
can only be invoked BY the presenra-
ton of a case of equitable coguizauce
and there car be no such case in the
Federal courts where there is plain