The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1895-06-18
REGIsTRATION LAW STANDS.
JUDGE GoFFs DECREE is SET
ASIDE.
The State Wins the Fight-The Fed
eral Court OF Appeals Decides Unan-
imOusly I'm Its Favor.

The State Wins the Fight-The Fed
eral Court of Appeals Decides Unan-
imously I'm Its Favor.
The United States Court of Appeals
In session at Richmond has dissolved
the injunction granted by Judge Goff
In the famous registration cases from
South Carolina. Judge Hughes an
nounced the decision, and in the course
OF II careful review of the record, he
says,
There is nothing in the record to
show that the complainant is man OF
color or that those for whom he sues
no allegation that the parts of the law
complained OF were devised against
the complainant or those for whom he
sues on account of their race, color or
previous condition OF servitude. There
is nothing in the avermcnts of the bill
from which 1T may naturally, or must
necessarily he inferred that the com
panant and those for whom he sues
ar5 citizens 81 81 -GolOr. There are no
averments in the bill which show tnat
the case falls within the purview of the
Fifteenth amendment to the constitu-
tion of the United States. Nor does
the bill contain any allegations which
raise Federal question under the
clause ofthe Fourteenth amendment
which forbidS State to deny any per-
son the equal protection of the laws.
1t charges that the provisions of the
registration act complained OF is to
give unequal facilities of registration
to different classes Of citizens, but it |
does not point out how this is so. 1t |
leaves the dissemination as to the priv
ilege of registering, if there be dis
crimination, to inference and research |
in sources other than it's own aver
ments. 1t charges that the provisions
ot law complained of fdlscriminates, but |
does not describe the manner of discrim- |
nation, or define the classes affected,
pro or con, nor does it show that the |
avs cOmplained of in discriminating
between classes as to the privilege Of
registering granted by them, violate
the clause in the Fourteenth amend
nent which forbids State to deny to
my person within it, the equal protec-
lion Of the laws. 1t confounds privilege
With protection.
The bill has no reference to d Fed
sral election in setting out complain
ants case. The gravamen of the bill
only State election to be
leld for members of the State cOnven-
lot shown that any Federal election is
20 be held in South Carolina before
1896.
To the bill thus described and to the
order of injunction granted by the
court below in pursuance of its prayers,
several objections are urged in behalf
)f the State of South Carolina. In
What follows L shall consider but one
If these. In the ruling of the Circuit
Jonrt in this case, it 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
livision of our government into the leg /
slative, executive and judicial depar6-
nents is q distinguishing feature Of our
is existence that each OF these depart
ncnts shall be independent of the 9TH
'r. The division is fundamental and
1t would be just as dangerous
20 its stability for the judicial depart
nent to override the others as for ex-
.cutive or legislative departments to
10 so. Hence, while the right of the
judiciary to pass upon the constitutions
slity of the laws is undoubted, it has
hat right simply as an incident to it's
protection of private rights. 1t has not
hat right as mere means of settling
abstract questions and even in the en-
oTCclhcuI vi private rlBnCS III mas nOL
,he power to interfere with the discre-
ion vested in the other departments
,r with the exercise'of political powers
)f this department. 1t seems to me
hat 1T is u dangerous encroachment
lpon the prerOgations of the oJher de-
oartments of the government, If the
judiciary be entrusted to exercise the
power OF interfering with the holding
)f an election in State. If the SUPER
visor of one county can be enjoined
rom the performance of the duties
imposed upon him by the election laws
)f the State from whom he holds his
commission, those OF the other counties
,an be also: thus a single citizen in
each county, aud If he 10 not even
qualified voter, can enjoin an election
the entire State, and thus
deprive thousands of their right to
vote. If a court has power to do this,
free elections are at an end. If cleo
lions are improperly held there are
means provided by law for
questioning their methods and relle-
20 Al r