The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1895-06-18

equal facilities of registration to differ
ent classes of citizens; but it does not
point how this is so. 1t leaves the dis
crimination, as to the privilege of regis
tering, if there be discrimination, to In
ference and research in sources other
than it's own avermentS. at charges
that the provisions of law complained
of discriminates; but does not describe
the manner of discrimination, or define
the classes affected, pro or con; nor does
tshow that the laws complained Of in
discriminating between classes as to the
privilege of registering granted oy
them, violate the clause IN the four
teenth amendment, which forblds a
State ''to deny to any person within II,
the equal protection Of the laws 1t
copfounds privilege with protection.
The bill has no reference to Federal
election in setting out complalnantS
case. The gravamen of the bill, con-
templates only State election TO be
held for members Of the State conven-
tion to convene in August next. 1t IS
not shown that any Federal election is
to be held in the State of South Caro-
lima before November, 1895.
"To the bill, thus described and to
the orders of injunction granted by the
court below, in pursuance of its prayers,
several objections are urged in behalf
Of the State of South Carolina. In what
follows l shall consider but one of
these. In the ruling of the Circuit
Court, rendered on circuit in this case,
it was held that the court had Jurlsdlc-
tion to restrain county supervisor of
registration in the performance of his
duties under the election laws Of South
Carolina.
The division Of our government
into legislative, executive and jddicial
departments. is distinguishing feature
of our American policy, and it is essen
tal to its existence that each of these
departments shall be independent Of
the other. The division is fundamen-
tai and organic. 1t would be just as
dangerous to its stability for the
judicial department to override
the others as for the legislative or
executive departments to do so. Hence,
lie the right of the judiciary to pass
upon the constitutionality Of the laws
is undoubted, it has that right simply
as an incident to its protection of prl-
vate rights. 1t has not that right as
mere means Of settling abstract ques-
tions; and even in the enforce
ment of private rights, it has not
the power to interfere with the discre-
tion vested in the other departments or
with the exercise Of the political powers
of those departments. 1t seems to me
that it is 3 dangerous encroachment
upon the prerogatives of the other de
partments of the government, if the
Judiciary be entrusted to exercise the
power of interfering with the holding
of an election in State. If the super
visor OF one county can be enjoined
from the performance Of the duties i'm
posed upon him by the election laws of
the State from whom he holds his COM
mission, those of the other counties can
be also. Thus single citizen in each
county (and in the case at bar he is not
even qualified voter) can enJoln an
election throughout the entire State,
and thus deprive thousands of their
rights to vote. 1f-a court has power to
do this, free elections are at an end. If
elections are Improperly held, there are
means provided by law for
questioning their results and remedying
wrongs without the exercise of this
dangerous power by the courts. A can
dicate who has been defeated may con.
test; a voter whose right to register
has been denied may proceed to compel
the enforcement of that right and
these privileges give what the Legisla-
ture deems sufficient protection to the
injured: but in my judgment, one cltl-
zen cannot, under pretense of righting'
his own wrongs, disfranchise others. |
do not think that court has juriSdic-
ton to interfere by injunction or other
wise with the enforcement OF laws by
officers holding and deriving their pow
ers from these laws; certainly not to
the extent in which it is attempted to
be done by this bill.
I'm arriving at this conclusion | have
not considered the question whether or
not the registration laws of South Caro-
lima violate the Federal constitution Of
laws Iprefer to rest my opinion upon
the ground of the independence Of the
different departments of the govern
ments upon the policy of interference
by the courts in question which will re-
suit in dragging them constantly into
the arena of party politics: and upon
the general principle that each depart
ment of the government and each officer
thereof, high or low, has the right to
according to his best judg-
ment, the duties imposed upon him by
he laws creating his Office. AS Sillustrat-
ing these general principles, I refer to
;he following decisions:
mississippi VS.. Johnson, q Wall,
IT'S; Gaines VS.. Thompson, : Wall. 347;
Louisiana VS.. Jumel, l07 Unned States,
III: Hagood VS.. Southern, III United
States, 50; Ayers in re, 1913 United
States, 443; in re Sawyer, l24 United
States, 209.
''It is useless to cite the many cases
which bear on the questions arising IN
his case and so profusely at the bar.
$50 far as the rights of the individual
in the bill were concerned,
t may have been com petent for the
court to grant individual relief. The
supreme Court OF the Cnlted otaleS
the other day, granted relief from the
payment of an income tax to the in
dividual complainant in the suit before
it; but it went no farther. On the au-
thority of Mississippi VS.. Johnson,
supra, we may assume that it would
not nave entertained a bill for en-
joining internal revenue officers
of the government from collecting in
come taxes generally. The Judicial
power covered the right to grant indi-
vidual 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 citizens of the county situated like
the complainant. Ii practically asked