The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-06-12
INJUNCTION DISSOLVED.
IN Of The Court IN lbs South Car
J DINA Registration Cases.
Ill TEXT OF JUDGE HUGHES OPINION
The Opinion If the Cour. WIZ be frepsred
by Chief Jos'icc Fuller as Soon ~ frao-
ticable -Chiet Justices Brief.

The Injunction which Judge Gon grant.
ed in The South Carolina registration
cases was yesterday dissolved by the
United states Circuit Court Of Appeals.
The matter was argued before Chief
Justice Fuller and Judges Hughes and
Seymour. After adjournment Friday IT
was decided that this was case that
required prompt action. and that the
decision should be announced yesterday
At 2.o o'clock Judge Hughes entered
the courtroom with Judge Seymour ana
announced that the injunction was DIS.
solved and "A decree 90 mat effect wor'n
be entered he said the opinion OF 'hc
court would De written by the Chiei JUS
tee and filed later
The counsel in the case did not expect
decision in the case yesterday, ana "'i'
consequently not present
JUSTICE frLLrEs nEiff.
The following. submitted through Ju1s'
Hughes by chief Justice Fuller u.s. tHe
briof upon which the laiiers opinlo"
viii be based ...
THE judiciary act OF March 3. lNil'
contemplates prompt decision on appeals
such as this. and as we cannot give 'N'
tended expression 90 our views az 'n.s
time We content ourselves WIN hiitI
statement of our conclusions.
"Under section z OF tnat act' wh'Ie,
upon a hearing in equity IN 'lfcnt
Court an Injunction is granted or coni'n-
ued bv an intcri0cutory order or Decree
lin "A cause in which am appeal from
final decree may Doe taken under the pro-
visions of this act 20 NE Circuit 'ouT
of Appeals. am appeal may be taken from
such introductory order or decree grant
ing or continuing such injunction TO the
Circuit Court OF Appeals
"By section 3 appeals or wris OF error
may be- taken 10 the Supreme Court in
any case 1n which the Constitution on
law o. State Is claimed 10 Doe in contra
vonti0n Of the Constitution OF the United
States but although tho constiutionai-
IS OF a state law may DE drawn in qu's
ton in the Circuit Court, yet II the case
may be disposed OF on other grounds
not involving the validity OF such la"
We think this court has jurisdiction On
appeal Carey u.s. Railway Company l3o
IT, S. no. United States VS. John. lf
United States. 100 II. in the instance OF
appeals from introductory orders. on
consideration 30 should appear that the
question Of the constitutiOnality OF the
law is controlling and must Doe decided
the cause can be- remauded 10 the Circuit
Court that application TO the supreme
Court for cortiorari may bee made Amer
lean Construction Company vs. Railway
Company Jas United States 81
"ln this case the bin Of complaint chat
lcngcd the cOnstituuonalty OF certain
laws Of South Carolina. but the question
was raised on the threshold whether the
case made was one OF equitable Cogniz-
ancc. and this being so. We sustaln the
jurisdiction and overrule the motion TO
dismiss.
THE Jurisprudence Of the United states
has always recognized the distinction be-
tween the law and equity as, under tho
Constitution matter of substance as well
az Of form and procedure Gates rs. Al
len. li9 u. s.. 4si, Mississippi Mills VS.
Cohu. $50 l.. S.. 2l2. 20l. ID is well settled
that court OF chaucery is cOnversant
only with questions OF property and the
maintenance of civil rights. The court
has mo- jurisdiction in matters 81 poll.
teal nature, or 10 interfere with tho du'
ties Of any department OF government
except under special circumstances and
when necessary t0r the protection of
rights of property. or in matters merely
criminal OF merely infomal which do not
affect any right Of property ln r. Saw
yer ia L. $. POI. Fletcher rs. futile. lli
III. 81 Hariesty VS. Taft. 23 Md. 5l3
5s9 '' " ''' o. ~ 10 '''p
"rhe equitable powers az the court can
only be Invoked by The presentation Of
case Of equitable cOgnizauce and there
can Dee no such ease in The Federal courts
whore there is plain and adequate rem.
edy at law, nor does LEGALITY alone az.
ford ground for equitable interference
Shelton US. Plat. 1872 o. S. 5gl
Tested boy these principles the bin Of
complaint cannot Doe maintained. for
30 asserts no threatened infringement of
rights of property or civil rights. and
mo- adequate ground for equity intcrposi.
ton.
Being OF this opinion. the restraining
orders must Doe reversed. and the cause
remanded with directions 10 dismiss the
bill"
5upGE HrGHrs' ORDER.
The following IS Judge Hughes order I'm
the case;
"rhis case came ON 10 Doe heard ON a
transcript of the record. on an appeal
from an order entered by she Circuit
Court or she United states for the disc
trlct 80 South Carolina. ON May \. 1856
containing certain order granted bv
said court April 10Th. and nlei April 10.
1870. ON the bin OF complaint herein.
whereby appellant was enjoined and re-
strained from exercising duties or per-
forming any acts complained Of in the
sad bih OF the complainant. either in-
dNiauaily. or ass supervisor Of registra-
iiou for The county of Richland state
Aforesaid. and was argued by counsel.
con consideration whereof 10 ls now here
ordered and adjudged and decrecd bv
this court that the said orders of said
Circuit Couft OF April 10th. ana Nav s.
$50 Roe. and the same are hereby re-
versed. and the injunction thereby grant
ci and continued dissolved. with costs.
and that this cause hc and The same is
hereby remandcd % The said Circuit
Court. with directions 10 dismiss the bin
OF complaint.
"RO. W. HCGHEs- Lndcn.