The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1895-08-13

opportunity EFf demOnStFAts he
was entitled, as he claimed, to the RE-
lief he prayed for, and o the jutisdi :
tion OF this court Ia order 70 ~st.rereit.
My views upon eql$sI0 aS prt-
scented by this case were miIy express
ed in the opinion / Ii ed in the ase (
Mills vs.. Green. 1 have given tbt oph,-
ion filed in said cause ny the Ctrcuit
Court of Appeals for this circuit Tor
MAY term, 1895, and all { o ases
cited therin my careful consideration
and Thorough examination, and | must
be permitted To say with all due re-
spect that | am unable 10 find the rea-
son or the authority for and by which
the injunction granted in that case was
dissolved and the bill dismissed. [
think that in the Mills case, as III
as in this, the rights claimed by the
respective plaintiffs as citizens of the
United States and of the Stale OF Sou,h
Carolina have - property value of the
highest and most sacred character of
FAR greater value and Importance than
have commodities. the li.ues OF which
are measured by the humber of pounds
they weigh, or the number Of goods
which they contain. These rights, it is
admltted, said plaintiffs are deprived
OF, but it is insisted that they have
adequate remedies at law and that
equity, therefore. cannot entertain
their complaint.
~ very much regret that tho Circuit
Court of Appeals did not Indicate the
character OF the remedy at law alluded
to in such opinion. And | also regret
that am unable, after thorough inv $
tigation, y find it. | will not 1ouc,d.
that 1T Is proper to Close the .uors Oi
the courts ofthe 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 ot the United St,tcs
and to advise them that they must seek
the jurisdiction OF the courts of the
States Tor the outrages imposed by the
unconstitutional enactment of sucn
States. | am advised that the full and
complete opinion of the Circuit Court
= OF Appeals is yet to be filed, and | ip-
duige the hope that upon this point it
will not leave us in doubt. In my judg-
ment such cases-under the rules dis.
tlnguishing equity and law cases :tp
pllcho.e to the courts OF the United
States-shouid be especially heard On
the equity side of such courts, for the
reason that said courts are amcng
other things established to determine
controversies involving conflicts b,-
tween State and Federal constitutions
and enactments, and for the further
reason tina in such cases there is nc
tul and adequate remedy at all. 1t las
been repeatedly he'd by the courts o
the United States that equity will in,
tertere when the injury complained oI
Is such that II cannot bc fairly cOmp"n'
stated Tor by damages. or il 1T is rrr. u
ulng or permanent IN c,.oi L:tCr. Her,
the court citeS ruriOnS opinions To sus
tain tt.tv point.
The Il that thcrN IS a remedy q
law is not Of itself sufficient to deiin,
equity Of jurisdiction un,css it also up
pears that the former is as complat,
and etfcctual "a the latter. (Othcrca e
here citcd.)
Nevertheless, while | cntcrtni,
these views. my great respect for TIL,
Circuit Court"f Appeals. my desire Il
properly regard the official prophecies
aid my duty 10 give due weight an,
authority to tho decisions and opinion
of the Appellate Courts Of the United
States compel me, finding Is | do, tia
this case in its material allegations
IT'S true scope and effect, is IN fact IN
liar to the Mills case, to which | h,&v,
referred, to refuse the injunction
asked OR and dismiss the complain
ants bill, aud such ~ decree will nov
be entered"
This Is. of course, a complete victor.
for the State of South Carolina. bu
Attorney Obear, whit represents III
plointiif, will take an appeal direct t
the Supreme Court Of the Unite,
States, and THINKS re can get an earl,
hearing as II privilege case.