The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1895-07-11
IT WAS DISMISSED.
STATE SUPREME COURT AND
THE REGISTRATION LAW. -
Majority Dismiss Ge.s. Buffers Case.
Chief Justice Mcfver Holds the
Court Has jurisdiction and
That t,le Law is Uncon-
stitutional.


II. Ellerbe, comptroller general of the
State of South Carolina, and ". T, G.
Bstes, treasurer of the State Of South
Carolina. This is the case brought by
General Butler at the November term,
1894, of the Supreme Court, to test the
constitutionality of the registration
laws of the State The case was heard
on the Sd of last December, and the
people of the whole State have waited
patiently ever since for the decision Of
the Supreme Court.
The delay has caused the court to be
severely criticized, and it has been
complained that the delay was due TO
the political considerations involved.
Justices Pope and Gary agreejn dis
missing the case, but do so on differ.
ent grounds. The decision of Mr.
Justice Pope dismisses the proceeding
on the ground that the petitioner has
plsin and adequate remedy at law.
Mr.. Justice Gary dismisses the pro.
ceeding on the ground Of the want OF
equity in tn, petition.
Justice McIver dissents from both
and holds that the proceedings is q
proper proceeding; that the petitioner
is entitled to the relief under the pro-
ceedings, which is asked, and declares
the whole registration law unconstitu.
tional law, null and void.
Justice Pope wrote the opinion fthe
court, Justice Gary also fled an opin-
ION Of some twentyone pages of fools,
cap, which in substance agreed with
the positions taken by Justice Pope.
The dissenting opinion Of tue Chief
Justice is twenty nine pages in length.
The object of the case was to test the
constitutonelity of the registration
law, but it was in the form of peti-
ton asking that the State Treasurer
be permanently restrained from apply
ng funds in the State treasury to the
paynent of salaries for the supervisors
Of registrations.
Justice Pope says in his opinion:
s'The delay in rendering the Judgment
of the court is owing to the failure to
prepare this separate opinion at an
EARLIER day. Thatwhen q grave con-
Ttitutonal question is to be passed up
on, unless it is imperatively necessary
that there shall be no delay, I an lis
posed TO view it as my duty t., near
sne consider thoroughly what Is pre-
sented.''
He differs with Mr.. Gary 4n tlse-1iiew
hat there is IN erect suit against
ihe State, and he cita.<, among other
cases, the case of Evans VS.. the State
Treasurer, in 3S 80. Ca, and the case
IF Robertson ". the State Treasurer,
q regard to he validity of S., 25O,0
If State be ads. But he agrees with
Ir. Just.co Gary that the proceeding
lould oe dismissed putting it upon
he c.tound that he had adequate rem
- at law, and concludes that the
;,urt is without jurisdiction in the
reruises.
Mr. Gary holds in his opinion that
he proceeding is in effect suit
,gainst the State.
Second-The State is an indispensa-
lie party.
Third The question as to the con-
titutionality of the acts cannot prop
rly arise, as there are other grounds
ipon which the court can rest its iudg-
0ent.
Fourth-If the State could be sued
be would be estopped from interpos-
hg the objection that the services rem
tered at her instance and for her bene.
It were illegal. The appropriations
how that the State desired the pay
nent of such services Equity will
,ot therefore lend its aid to compel
he State, indirectly through the de-
endsnts as her fiscal officers, to do that
which the State could not be COM
9elled to do in direct proceeding.
The rest of the opiuion is devoted
mainly to support OF these four main
propositions.
Taking these views, he regards it
unnecessary to discuss the constitution
!lity or unconstitutionality of the act
itself.
Chief Justice McIver holds that each
taxpayer has an interest in the mat
Ter, and that the plaintiff has the right
Of action. That he cannot see how the
plaintiff in this case issestopped from
bringing the action simply because ne
has held Office while the registration
laws were in force. This disposes of
the two main objections raised by the
Attorney General to the petition.
Coming to the real question at issue,
the constitutionality of the laws, the
Chief Justice says: ''It seems to be
settled that even in States whose con-
stitutions are silent upon the subject,
statute requiring the registration of
voters, is not per Sc unconstitutional,
as such statute is regarded as mere
regulation of the constitutional right
to vote and is designed to furnish evil
dence of the fact that the voter is pos
sessed Of the qualifications fixed by the
constitution. But it seems to be we'll
settled that where the purport and ef-
feet of a registration law is to add to
or take .awsy acy Of TIE qualifications
prescribed by the constitution, or
where its effect is to obstruot, subvert,
or even necessarily impede the exer-
Else Of the right conferred by the con-
stitution, it cannot be sustained, but
must be held an unconstitutional in
7asion of the constitutional right Of
suffrage"
The Cbief Justice then takes up sew
eral of the provisions of the registra-
ton laws and shows that they are IN
reasonable in their demands, and are
in direct conflict with the constitution
He adds; The features of our reg