The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-06-12
JUDGE G0FF IS REVERSED
famous South Carolina Injunction
Dissolved.
Nothing More Perncious Than a
Direct Participation by the Judi
ciary, by Judicial Action,
in the Politics of
The People.
By Southern Associated Press.

was decided in the United States Cir
cult Court OF Appeals here to day. The
state wins. Judge Goil's famous III
junction is dissolved aud the original
bill will be dismissed.
The decision OF the Court wns an.
nounced by Judge Hughes shortly be-
'ore ) o'clock. au outline of the Courts
position was given, Judge Hughes sub
Mitting strong individual opinion,
aud the order reversing Judge Golf was
entered ut once. Mono of the counsel
who took part in the argument wore
present
Judge Hughes in announcing the
courts decision said: "Ihis case was
beard by the Chief Justice. Judge Sey-
nour nnd myself ON Friday last. We
shought it was of n character to call
5or an early decision, aud it was deter
Tnlned, after ADJOURNMENT Oh Friday,
that the decision should be announced
40 day and decree entered.
We ure of the opinion that the IN.
junction which wns granted in the case
uughtto be dissolved and the bill dis.
sIlssod. a decree to the elect will be
entered at once. The chief Justice ex
crosses himmsel( as follows: "Iu this
case the bill OF complaint challenged
Ihe constitutlonality OF certain laws OF
south Caroliua, bat the question was
falsed Oh the threshold whether the
case made was ono of equitable cog
nlzance, and this being SO, We sustain
ahe jurisdiction and oyerrule the mo.
alon to dismiss.
"Ihe Jurisprudence of the United
States has always recognized the dis
iinctiou between the law and equity
as, under the constitution, matter OF
substance rs well us of form has pro
cedure. Gates VS.. Allen, l49 q, S., 1871
tlississippi. Mills vs. Conn, $50 u. S. =,
2O2, 205.
1t is we'll settled that a Court OF
Chancery is cohversant only with
questions of property and the mainteu.
once of civil rights.
1.-The equitable powers of the court
eau only be involved by the preseuta,
,ion of c case of equitable cogniZance.
aud there Gun be no such case III the
Federal courts. Here there is o plain
and adequate remedy at law, nor does
,Ilegality alone afford ground fo- equit
able interference. Shelton VS.. Platt,
139, u. S., 59l,
Tested by these principles, this bill
OF complaint cannot be maintained, for
1t asserts no threatened infringement
va iBu'S VI property VI CIVIL III llS,
and no adequate ground for equity in
terpositiou.
''Being OF this opinion, the restrain.
Ing orders must be reversed, and the
cause remanded with directions to dis
miss the bill"
The opinion fled by Judge Hughes
Is an exhaustive trentment OF the uies
lions raised in the case. The other
Judges who sat have not had an oppur-
tunity to see the paper, SO Judge
Hughes is solely responsible for it.
Judge hughes opinion III the South
Carolina case IL, in part, as follows:
There Is nothing III the record to
ehow that the complainant Is man of
color or that those Tor whom he sues
are colored persous. The bill contains
no allegation that the provisions OF
law complained OF were d wise d upajnst
the complainant or those for whom he
sues on account of their race, color or
previous condition OF servitude,
There Is nothing IN tue averments of
the bill from which II may naturally, OF
must necessarily, be inferred, thut the
complainant mud those for whom he
cues arc citizens of color. There are
no averments in the bill which show
that the case falls within the puryiew
OF the fifteenth amendment uf the Con.
stitution of the United StGtes.
Nor does the bill contain aGy alIo.
cations which raise Federal question
under that clause of tho fourteenth
amendment, which forbids n State 80
deny any person the equal protection
of the laws.
1t charges that tho effect of the pro.
visions OF the registration acts com.
planned of ls to give unequal facilities
of registration to different classes of
citizens, but 1t does not point out how
1hls Is so. 1t leaves the discrimination
as 10 the privilege of registering. ii
there be discrimination, to infer
cnce and research in sources
other than its own ayermeuts.
1t charges that the provisions of law
complained Of discrimination, but does
not describe the manner of dlscrimina.
zion or define the classes elected, pro
or con; nor does it show that the laws
complained of in discriminating be-
tween classes as to the privilege OF reg.
istering granted by them violate the
clause IN the fourteenth amoud ment.
which forbids State "to DENY to any
person within it the equal protection
of the laws" 1t oonfounds privilege
With protection.
The bill has no reference to Fed.
oral election in settipg out com plain.
Ants case, The grayamen of the bill