The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-06-12

fected, nor does II show that the laws
complained Of in discriminating between
classes as to the privilege of registering
granted by them. violate the clause in the
fourteenth amendment. which forbids a
state to deny TO any person within 1t the
equal protection of the laws
II confounds privilege with protection.
Ine Dill has no reference to a federal cleo
ton in setting out the complainant's case.
The gravamen of the bill cOntemplates only
state election to be held for members of
the state convention TO convene in August
next 1t is not shown that any federal cleo
ton is to be held in the state of South
carolina before November, 1895.
To the bill thus described and to the or
uers OF injunction granted by the court be-
low, in pursuance of its prayers, several
objections are urged in behalf of the state
OF South Carolina. In what follows ! shall
consider but one of these In the ruling of
the circuit court, rendered on circuit in
this case, IL was held that the court had
jurisdiction to restrain a county supervisor
OF registration in the performance of his
duties under the election laws OF South
Carolina.
The division of our government into
the legislative, executive and judicial de-
partments is a distinguishing feature of
our American polity, and it is essential
10 It's existence that each of these de-
partments shall be independent of the
other The division is fundamental and
organic. 1t would be just as dangerous to
It's stability for the juuicial department to
override the others as for the executive
or legislative departments to do so. Hence,
while the right of the judiciary to pass
upon the cOnstitutionality of the law is
undoubted. it has the right simply as an
incident to its protection of private rights.
1t has not that right as a mere means of
setting abstract questions; and even in
the enforcement of private rights, it has
not the power to interfere with the dis
cretion vested in other departments or
with the exercise of the political powers
of those departments 1t seems to me that
II Is dangerous encroachment upon the
prerogations of the other departments of
the government, if the judiciary be en-
trusted to exercise the power of interfer-
Ing with the holding of an election in a
state. If the supervisor of one county
can be enjoined from the performance OF
duties imposed upon him by the election
laws of the state from whom he holds
his commission. those of the other coun-
ties can be also.
Thus a single citizen in each county
(and in the case at bar, he is not even a
qualified voter can enjoin an election
throughout the entire state and thus de-
prive thousands of their right to vote.
If court has power to do this, free
elections are at an end. If elections are
improperly held, there are appropriate
means provided by law for questioning
their results and remedying wrongs with
out the exercise of this dangerous power
by the courts. A candidate who has been
defeated may contest; a voter whose right
to register has been denied may proceed
to compel the enforcement of that right.
and these privileges give what the leg
islature deems sufficient protection to the
injured; but in my judgment, one citi-
zen cannot, under pretense of righting
his own wrongs, disfranchise others. l
do not think that a court has jurisdic-
ton to interfere by injunction or other
wise with the enforcement of laws by
officers holding and deriving their powers
from these laws; certainly not to the
extent in which il is ATTEMPTED
to be done by this bill. In arriving at this
conclusion have not considered the ques-
tion whether or not the registration laws
of South Carolina violate the federal con-
stitution or laws. prefer to rest my opin-
ion upon the ground of the independence of
the different departments of the govern
ment; upon the impolicy of interference by
the coutts in questions which will result
in dragging them constantly into the arena
of party politics, and upon the general
principle that each department of the gov
ernment and each officer thereof, high or
low has the right to administer, according
to his best judgment, the duties imposed
upon him by the laws creating his Office.
AS illustrating these general principles, l
refer to the following decisions: Mississippi
VS.. johnson, Wall, 475: Gaines VS.. Thomp-
son, Wall, 347; Louisiana VS.. Jumel, 107
United States, III; Hagood VS.. Southern,
III United States. 50; Ayers in re, 1923 Unit
ed States. 44S; in re Sawyer, 124, United
States, 2O9
1T is useless to cite the many cases
which bear on the questions arising in this
case and so prOfusely at the bar.
80 far as the rights of the individual
complainant in the bill were concerned, it
may have been competent for the court to
grant individual relief The supreme court
of the United States, the other day, grant
ed relief from the payment of an income
tax to- the individual complainant in the
suit before it; but it went no far
ther. On the authority of
Mississippi VS. Johnson, supra, we may
assume that it would not have enter
tanned a bill for enjoining internal
revenue officers of the government from
collecting income takes generally. The
judicial power covered the right to grant
Individual relief, but did not extend to
the general power of repeating the law i'm
posing the tax as to the entire public.
| repeat that in the case at bar it may
have been competent for the court to
grant individual relief. But the bill asked
more. 1t asked similar relief for all cit
iZens of the county situated like the COM
plainant. 1t practically asked relief for
a numerous of a political party forming
a portion of that people to whom the
legislature was solely responsible for its
laws and to whom alone the genius of our
institutions makes the legislature respon-
sible Moreover it brought the court into
immediate and active contact with party
contestation. 1t made the court a con-
trolling factor in party strife.
Il can imagine nothing more pernicious
than a direct participation by the judi
ciary. by judicial action, in the politics
of the people. The bill asked practically
that the process of registration under the
laws of the state should be suspended
in an entire county during the pleasure
of the court and that all the citizens of
county, not then registered as voters
should be denied the right of suffrage
during that pleasure. 1t seems to me
that the mere statement or this view of
the case shows that the injunction was
improvidently granted. l think the bill
should be dismissed"
ANOTHER CASE PENDING.
If Aims at Shutting Out the COnstl-