Birmingham age-herald., 1895-08-07
A VICTORY FOR THE STATE
IN THE CAROLINA REGISTRATION CASES
Synopsis of the Decision of Judge Shncnton Dismissing Complainant's Bill for an
 Injunctiou-WlIl Appeal.

Richmond Va, Aug. 6.-In the United States circuit court here this morning Judge Golf handed down a brief decision in the South Carolina registration cases, dismssing complanant's bill for an in junction. Only the attorneys in the case and a few others were present when the opinion was delivered. The courts opin-
 ion is as follows:
 "When the bill in this case was pre- sented for my consideration I deemed it my duty to give the complainant an op- portunity to determine that he was enti- tied, as he claimed, to the relief he prayed for and to the jurisdiction to this court in order to secure it. My views upon the question presented by this case were fully expressed in the opinion I filed in the case of Mills vs. Green. I have given the opinion filed in said case by the circuit court of appeals for this cir cult for the May term, 1895, and all the cases cited therein my careful considera- tion and thorough examination and must be permitted to say, with all due respect, that 1 am unable to find the reason or authority by which the injunction grant ed in that case was dissolved and the bill dismissed.
 q think in the Mills case, as well as iru this, the rights claimed by the respective plaintiffs as 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 value of which are measured by the number of pounds they weigh or the num- Der of goods they contain. These rights, it is admitted, said plaintiffs are deprived of, but it is insisted that they have ade- quate remedies at law and that equity, therefore, cannot entertain their com plaints.
 O1l1nh haf nj court of appeals did not indicate the character of the remedy at law alluded to in such an opinion. And I regret that I am unable, after thorough investigation, to find 1t. I will not concede that it is proper to close the doors of the courts of the United States to their citizens, who are complaining that they are deprived by the stats of the rigthS and privileges guaranteed to them by the constitution of the United States. and to advise them that they must seek the jurisdiction of 1 the courts of the states for relief from the outrages imposed by the unconstitution- al enactments of such states. I am ad- vised that the full and complete opinion of the circuit court of appeals is yet to be filed. and I indulge the hope that upon this point 1t will not leave us in doubt. Tn my judgment such cases under the rules distinguishing equity and law casas applicable to the courts of the United States should be especially heard on the equity side of such courts, for the reason that said courts are. among oth- CT things, established to determine con- troversies involving conflicts between state and federal constitution and en- actments, and for the furthe2 fact that in such cases there is no full and ade- quate remedy at law. It has been repeat edly held by the courts of the United States that equity will interfere when the injury complained of is such that it cannot be fairly compensated for by damages, or if it is continuing or per
 manent in character"
 Here the court cites various opinions to sustain that point.
 "The fact that there is a remedy nt
 law is not of itself sufficient to define
 the equity of Jurisdiction unless it also
 appears that the former is as complete
 and effectual as the latter (Other cases
 cited here). Nevertheless, while I enter
 tain these views, my great respect for the
 circuit court of appeals, my desire to
 properly regard the judicial proprieties
 and to give due weight and authority to
 the decisions and opinions of the appel
 late courts of the United States, compel
 me, finding as l do that this case in it's
 material allegiance, it's true scope and
 effect, is in fact similar to the Mills case,
 to which I have referred, to refuse the
 injunction asked for and dismiss the
 complainant's bill, and such a decree will
 now be entered"
 This is, of course a complete victory
 for the state of South Carolina. but At
 torney O'Bear, who represents the plain-
 tiff will take an appeal direct to the su-
 preme court of the United States. and
 thinks he can get an early hearing as
 private case. He left for Washington
 and the South Carolina attorneys will
 return home this evening