The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-06-21
SEATTLE, FRIDAY, JUNE FL.
THE soTrTU CAROLINA CASE.

The somewhat hasty judgment popular
~ passed upon an imperfect knowledge
of Judge COTS famous South Carolina
decision calls for modification. The pub
llshed reports Of the ease mixed up
statement of outside circumstances with
the pleadings and even Judge Gon seems
10 have been controlled TO some extent
b. the knowledge he had gathered outside
of the case. South carolina has had
registration law for some years requiring
an educational qualification and term
of residence. both OF which provisions
were aimed at the ignorant and nomadic
negro vote. A citizen applied for an in
junction to prevent the holding of an
election to prepare for a new constitution
on the ground that the law placed re-
strictions beyond those found in. the ex-
listing constitution and the Federal con-
stitution. Judge Goff issued the injunc-
tlon. whereupon Gov. Evans uttered some
remarks whish were adversely comment
ell upon.
The circuit court has reversed the lower
Federal court In decision which lays
down some broad and important funda-
mental doctrines The intercession
of the courts seemed desirable TO
meet an exigency in South Car
DINA politics which involves the APP
parently inequitabie application OF gem
eraI wholesome law. but the Federal court
excerpts to the remedy sought. Chief Jus
tice Fuller promises a more carefully pre-
pared opinion, but meantime dlssolves the
injunction upon the principal ground that
tho complaint asserts no threatened in
fringement OF rights of property or civil
rights ard no adequate cause for equity
interpos.tion.
Judge Hughes shows. in his opinion. the
defects in the hin OF complaint. He says
that u contains no averment that the pro-
visions complained of were devised against
the complainant or those for whom he
sues con account Of their race color or
previous condition of servitude." The gem
eral principles relied upon are those laid
down and may be briefly summarized
The division OF our government into the
legislative. executive and judicial depart
ments Is distinguishing feature OF our
American polity. and Il is essential to its
existence THAI each OF these departments
shall be Independent OF the other. The d.
vision is fundamental and organic. II
would he just as dangerous to It's stability
for the judicial department TO override
the others as fer the executive or legisla-
tive departments 10 do SO. Hence. while
the right Of the judiciary to pass upon the
constimtlonsllty u the law Is uudoubted.
II has that right simply a. an incident 10
its protection Of private rights. Il has
not that right As a mere means Of settling
abstract questions: and even IN the en-
forcement of private rights 20 has not the
power 20 interfere with tho discretion
vested in the other departments in the
exercise OF the political powers OF those
departments.
1T seems 10 me-" adds the court. that
Il Is dangerous enCroachment upon the
rrerogatives Of the other departments Of
government II the Judiciary be intrus,ed
to exercise the power Of interfering with
the holding OF an election in state"
The legislature was responsible % the
people Tor the laws II passed and any
individual could apply Tor relief. but the
attempt by injunction 10 stay an elec-
ton pending the pleasure Of a court
would have resulted IA DISTINGUISHING the
entire people. The judge says he can
imagine nothing moro rerniclous than a
direct participation by the judiciary ~
judicial action in tho politics or the PEG
pie.