Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-05-12
south CaroIinn-Again.

In the celebrated Ayers case which origi-
mated In Virginia. the Supreme Court OF
the United States held that although the
suit in the United States Court did not
in terms make the State party. yet that
1t was In effect a suit against the State.
inasmuch as II attempted TO interfere
with the government OF the State itself
b. controlling or forbiddlng the acts OF
officers OF the State charged With
discretionary powers. We use the words
OF the Charleston News and Courier in
thus citing the Ayers case. That paper
then proceeds to say that It would be
difficult to zee why. under Judge COTS
reasoning. suit could not be brought
10 enJoin the Governor OF South Carolina
from making further appointments Of
supervisors OF registration under the law
which he has decided to be unconsitution-
al: nor why. IN case the Governor attempts
TO appoint managers Of elections TO carry
out the election-laws founded upon this
registration. he should not be restrained
from appointing them. And what a farce
was the repeal Of all the Federal election
laws II Judge GSif may re-enact them
md enact worse ones?
Our Charleston contemporary uses no
harsh words. but after naming certain
State laws which Judge COTS decision
would seem TO reach adds:
"All Of those acts are but part Of a
single piece OF election machinery.
pnd n the United States Court
possesses the power 10 forbid one
81 possesses also the power 10 for
bid all. We do not believe for moment
that such power is lodged in any court
holding commission under the authority
Of the United States. and this not be-
cause the United states Court is foreign
court or any other court except court
administering the laws OF South Carolina
as well as the laws Of the United States.
but because such action Is forbidden
ly the Constitution OF the United States,
which alike controls the action Of the
courts OF the United States and the acts
Of all citizens Of the United States where
ever these reside"
Judge Con stretches the United States
Constitution until II covers the ground
which all the State laws and consutu-
tons were intended 10 cover. Practically.
there would be no limit 10 the powers
Of the Federal judges. The Walton law
in Virginia may be held by Judge Golf
90 be in violation of the fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments 10 the National
Constitution. By the same token. a State
law or State constitutional provision
making the payment Of a capitaton tax
g prerequisite 10 voting would be I'M
constitutional. SO also would be a State
constitutional provision requiring every
voter to be able 10 read and write. In
q word Judge Gon has rendered a de-
c!s.on which, II It is sustained. will con-
vert the several States into satrapies
ruled from Washington.
How Judge Golf attempted to explain
away the Ayers case appears in the fol-
lowing extract from his opinion In the
South Carolina case. lie said:
The case of In re Ayers. 123 United
States @sS relied on by defendants coun-
sci. does not in my judgment sustain the
position taken by them. In that case
the jurisdiction OF the Circuit Court was
denied, not because the ofhcers OF the
State were sued, but because the court
found that the act OF the Legislature
compiained OF did not violate any con-
tract. and because the bill did not aliege
any eround OF equitable Keller against
the Individual defendants for any per-
Sonal wrong committed or threatened ny
them: because 1t did not charge against
them in their individual character any
ching done or threatened which constitu-
ted In contemplation OF law u violation
OF personal or property rights or a breach
OF contract to which they were parties.
In these particulars the Ayers case dit-
fers materially from tho case now before
me- In tina, case the Supreme Court
says: But this is not intended In any
way to infringe upon the principle which
tustifies suits against individual defend
ants. who. under color of authority Of
unconstitutional legislation by the State.
are guilty OF personal trespasses
and wrongs not TO forbid SUITS
AGAINST officers IN their oinciai
capacity either TO arrest or direct their
oiiicial action by injunction or mandamus.
where such suits are authorized by law,
And the act TO he done or omitted Ii
purely ministerial In the performance
or omission OF which the plaintln has
legal interest,"
This is all that he said touching the
Ayers case.
OF course we expect the Supreme Court
OF the United States TO correct Judge
Cons decision.