The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1895-08-07
G0FF HASN'T CHANGED
BUT HE REFUSED TO GRANT
INJUNCTION IN THE REG
ISTRATION CASRS.
DECISION RENDERED YESTERDAY.

The Opinion is Exactly Opposite to
that Rendered by Judge Gof in the
MiIl's Case--This, He Says, Is Not
Due to Amy Change of Opinion, but
to Desire to Show Difference TO
tho Circuit Court of Appeals Which
Over-Ruled the Other Opinion.
RICHMOND. Va, Aug. Elm the
United States Circuit Court this morn
ing Judge Golf handed down a brief
in the South Carolina registration
cases, dismissing complainant's bill
for an injunction. The opinion orea-
ted some surprise as it was exactly
opposite t9 the opinion. rendered by
Judge Golf in the Mills eaSe, in
volving the same questions Judge
Golf makes it clear, however, that he
has not changed his opinion as to the
equal jurisdiction of the Federal Courts
in such cases, but says his change of po
sition is directly due to desire to show
Difference to the Circuit Court of Ap-
peals by which he was reversed in ihe
Mills case.
Only the attorneys in the case and a
few others were present when the opin-
ion was delivered. The courts opinion
is as follows:
when the bill in this case was pre-
sented for my consideration I deemed it
my duty to give the complainant an op-
portunity to demonstrate that he was
entitled, as he claimed, to the relief
prayed for, and to the jurisdiction of
this court in order to secure it. My views
upon the questions presented by this
case were fully expressed in the opinion
/ filed in the case of Mills vs. Green. l
have given the opinion fled in said case
by the Circuit Court of Appeals for this
circuit for the May term, 1895, and all
the cases cited therein, my careful con-
sideration and thorough examination,
and l must be permitted to say with all
due respect that I am unable
to find the reason or the authority
for and by which this injunction granted
in that case was dissolved and the bill
dismissed. I think that ia the Mills
case, as well as this, the rights claimed
by the respective plaintiffs as citizens of
the United States and Of the State Of
South Carolina have property value
of the highest and most sacred
character, Of far greater value and
Importance than have commodities, the
values which are measured by the num-
Der of pounds they weigh, or the num-
Der of goods they contain. These rights,
it is admitted, said plaintiffs, are de-
prived Of, but it is insisted that they
have adequate remedies at law, and that
in equity, therefore, cannot entertain
their complaints,
81 very much regret that the Circuit
Court Of Appeals did not indicate the
character of the remedy at law alluded
to in its said opinion. And / also regret
that / am unable, after thorough inVes-
tigation, to fud it. will not concede
that it is proper to close the doors of
the courts of the United States to
their citizens who are complaining
that they are deprived by the States of
the rights and privileges guaranteed to
them by the Constitution of the United
States, and to advise them that they
must seek the jurisdiction of the courts
of the States for rel ef from the outrages
imposed by the unconstitutional enact
ments of such States. | am advised
that the full and complete opinion of
the Circuit Court of Appeals is yet to be
fled and indulge the hope that upon
this point it will not leave Us in doubt.
In my judgment such cases, under the
rules distinguishing equity and law
cases applicable to the courts of the Uni
ted States, should be especially heard on
the equity side of such courts, for
the reason that said courts are
among other things established to deter
mine controversies involving conflicts be
t geen State and Federal Constitutions,
and enactments and for the further rea-
son that in such cases there is no full and
adequate remedy at law, 1t has been
repeatedly held by the courts of the
United States that equity will inter
fere when the injury complained of
is such that it can not be fairly compen-
sated for by damages or if it is continu-
ing or permanent in character. (Here
the court cites various opinions to sus-
tain that point)
''The fact that there is a remedy at law
is not itself sufficient to define equity of
JuIISulCIlOu uHl6SS IL dloO appears budU
the former is as complete and effectual as
latter. (Other cases here cited.
The fact that State laws provide
legal remedy for wrongs committed does
not deprive the Federal courts of equity
htv,ng jurisdiction over the same in a
proper course. Gases cited
Nevertheless, while entertain these
views my great respect for the Circuit |
Court of Appeals, my desire TO properly |
regard the judicial proprieties and my
duty to give due weight and authority |
to the decisions and opinions of the
appellate courts OF the United States com
pels me, finding as do that this case in
its material allegations, its true scope |
and effect, is in fact similar to the Mills |
case, to which have referred, to refuse |
the injunction asked for, and to dismiss |
the complainant's bill, and such decree |
will now be entered.
This is, of course, a complete victory |
for the State of South Carolina, but At |
torney Obear, who represents the plain
tiff, will take an appeal direct to the |
United States Supreme Court, and thinks