The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-08-07
CAROLINA REGISTRATION LAW.
JUDGE GOFF's DECISION A VICTORY
FOR THE STATE.


He DismisscS the ComDIafnant's Dill
for an IniuncfiOn-He Ayers. How
ever, Tint lie Il Unable 90 Find
the Authority for the Dissolution
of the Injunction and the Dis
missaI of the BiII In the Mills Case.
thOrity In Ills Decision.
Richmond. Aug Sin the United states
circuit court here this morning Judge Goff
handed down a brief In the South Carolina
registration cases, dismissing the COM
plainant's bin for an injunction. Only
the attorneys IN the case and a few 9TH
ers were present when the opinion was de-
Hverd,
Tho courts opinion IS as follows: When
the bin In this case was presented for my
consideration l deemed It my duty to
give the complainant an opportunity to
demonstrate that he was entitled, as he
claimed. to the relief ne prayed for and to
the jurisdiction of this court in order to
secure g. My views upon the questions
presented by this case were fully ex-
prssed IN the opinion ] fled In the case
OF Mills VS.. Green. ! have given the
opinion filed In said cause by the circuit
court Of appeals for this circuit for the
May term. 1885, and all the cases cited
therein. my careful consideration and
thorough examination. and must be per-
mltted to say. with all due respect that
I am unable to find the reason or the
authority for and by which the Injunction
granted In that case was dissolved and the
bill dismissed. I think that In the Mills
case, as well as In this. the rights claimed
by the respective plaintiffs az citizens OF
the United States and OF the state OF
South Carolina have a property value OF
the highest and most sacred character
of far greater value and Importance than
have commodities the values OF which
are measured by the number of pounds
they weigh OF the number Of goods they
contain These rights. II Is admitted. said
plaintiffs are deprived Of but II Is in
sisted that they have adequate remedies
at law and that equity, therefore, cannot
entertain their complaints.
II very much regret that the circuit
court Of appeals did not indicate the char
acter OF the remedy at law alluded to in
such opinion And I also regret that I
am unable after thorough investigation,
to ind H. / will not concede that II ~
proper 10 close the doors of the courts
OF the United States 10 their citizens who
are complaining that they are deprived by
the states OF rights and privileges guar
anteed TO them by the constitution OF the
United States. and TO advise them that
they must seek the jurisdiction OF tho
courts OF the states for relief from the
outrages imposed by the unconstitutional
enactments Of such states. i am advised
that the full and complete opinion Of the
circuit court Of appeals is yet to be nled
4 ha "a afra
point 1t viii not leave us in doubt. In
my Judgment Of such cases-under the
rules distinguishing equity and law cases
applicable TO the courts of the United
States-should be especially heard on the
equity side of such courts, for the rea-
son that said courts are among other
things. established TO determine contro-
versies involving conflicts between the
state and federal constitutions and en-
actments and for the further reason that
IN such cases there is no full and adequate
remedy at law. II has been repeatedly
held by the courts of the United States
that equity will interfere when the in
jury complained of is such that II cam
not be fairly compensated for by damages.
or II II is continuing or permanent in char
acter. Qlere the court cites various opin-
ions TO sustain that point)
The fact that there is a remedy at law
Is not Of itself sufficient to define equity
or jurisdiction until IL also appears that
the former is as complete and effectual as
the latter. lother cases here citeG.)
Nevertheless, while I entertain these
views my great respect for the circuit
court of appeals. my desire to properly
regard the judicial proprieties, and my
duty 10 give due weight and authority to-
the decisions and opinions Of the appel
late courts OF the United States. compel
me. finding as ! do, that this case, in it's
material allegations, its true scope, and
aaf &c fF, aaf 81 fIar to hnN lie
to which I have referred. to refuse the in
junction asked and to dismiss the COM
plaintant's bill. and such a decree will
now be entered"
This is Of course. complete victory for
the state of South Carolina, but Attorney
O'Bear, who represents the plaintiff, will
take an appeal direct to the supreme court
Of the United States, and thinks he can
get an early hearing as a privilege case.
He left for Washington, and the South
Carolina attorneys will return home this
evening.