The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-06-12
THE REGISTRATION LAW.
THE TO DISSOLVE JUDGE
GOeF'S INJUNCTION.

South Carolina's Registration Laws Dis
cussed Before the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals at Richmond--The
Speeches on Each Side.
RICHMOND, Va, June THE South
Carolina registration case came
up here today in the United States
Court of Appeals before Chief Justice
Fuller, and District Judges Hughes
and Seymour. From questions asked
counsel on both sides by Chief Justice
Fuller during the argument it is
thought that the decision of the Court
will be in favor of South Carolina and
that Judge COTS injunction will be
dissolved.
Attorney General Barber, of South
Carolina, opened the aruument for
that State. He began by asking the
Court to suspend the rule by which its
decision would not be rendered until
the following term.
The Court said that it would take its
own course in that matter.
Mr.. Barber then handed a copy of
tie election laws of South Carolina to
the Judges and commenced his argu-
ment. I'VE are here" said he, ito
ask this honorable Court to vacate
this Temporary order of injunction
which operates to arrest the execution
of the State law. 1t was an order made
in chambers. If that order is allowed
to stand it will have all the force and
effect of perpetual injunction grant
ed upou final hearing of the case.
This proceeding is clearly directed
against the State of South Carolina.
He contended that the Federal Courts
did not have jurisdiction in the case in
which this injunction was granted.
THE several States" said he, "have
some rights which the United States as
whole must respect. and which the
Federal Courts should protect rather
than invade. We are seeking at the
hands of this Court what we conceive
to be the sovereign rights of a State.
Here the Attorney General cited cases
which held that the Judiciary could
not interpose in matters political and
that it was not within the power of
the United States Courts to decide
questions as to the rights of voters.
Mr.. Barber continuing, said: with
the voters Of Richland County practi-
calJy disfranchised a very grave ques-
ton arises as to the validity of any
election held for delegates to the Con
stitutional Convention. It cannot be
denied that this is an attempt to stop
an election.
The Attorney General contended
that this suit is in effect one against
the State of South Carolina, and as
such is in violation of the Constitution
of the United States.
Commenting upon the decree Of
Judge Goff, Mr.. Barber said: 'sIt will
be observed that the registration law
Of South Carolina has been declared
unconstitutional because it impedes
the right Of suffrage by the colored
voter and. not because of his race or
color. What has a Federal Court to
do with it if there is no discrimination
on account Of his race, class or color?
His Honor cannot hold that the law
discriminates, for it expressly states
that there shall be no discrimination
and all shall registerin the same man
ner."
Concluding Mr.. Barber declared
that the whole proceedings were in
tended to stop the election of delegates
to a Constitutional Convention, ''and
1 respectfully submit to this Court, "
said he, that it is a sovereign right of
the people to amend their constitution
al government by such principles Of
public policy as they may deem ex-
pedient, and I ask this honorable
Court to vacate the temporary order
OF injunction and thus protect that
sovereign right of sovereign State. ;"
Mr.. G. A. Douglass, Of Washington,
followed Mr.. Barber for the complain
ant. He contended that the registra-
ton law of South Carolina was un-
constitutional, and that it was so cum
bersome that it hinders registration
and that this was the intention of'the
Act. THE scheme of the Act, said
be is to suppress the suffrage at every
turn and point, to abridge and impair
it and render burdensome the duty
O: registering and the right to vote. .
He claimed that the Act of 1882 was
unconstitutional as was also the Act
OF 1894. I'VE submit" said he, that
that section which requires the trans
fer certificates when a voter moves
from one house to anotherin the same
precinct cannot have been intended
for any other purpose but to make it
burdensome for him to vote. ,
Chief Justice Fuller asked Mr.. Doug
las ifall this did not apply to the white
voter as well as the colored to which
the lawyer replied that it did on It's
face.
MIR. Douglas said that the Act of 90
in undertaking to cure the defects in
the one of 50 only made the law more
obnoxious. ''If we were required, ;"
said he, ito show that this Act dis
eliminates against race or color We
would sit here until the end Of time,
because no Legislature would be SO
foolish as to frame such an Act, but
the very purpose of this law was in
tended to disfranchise. It is written
upon every line and between every
line. There is existing now a large
class of one race that it is desired to
Keep from voting
-ir. Douglas held that if the opera
ton of the law tended to disfranchise
the negro the Courtha jurisdiction to
declare it unconstitutional I'VE are
honestly of the opinion, - said he in
conclusion, that these laws are OBJ
noxious from every conceivable stand
point
Mr.. Obear, of Washington, followed
Mr.. Douglas for the complainant. lie
held that Green, the registrator, was
not an officer until this Court pro
nounced the registration law valid.
He contended that the right to vote