Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-08-27
the political matters OF us government
its registration and election laws.
THE JUDGE WAXED ELOQUENT.

g..
| held that IL was not a suit against a ota,e
within the meaning OF the bieVe,.'
| Amendment. and that the grounus ioi
| equitable interference were not 10 De ques-
! toned. In the course OF his opinion VIZ
| Judge waxed eloquent over the rights y.
| colored brethren uhe complalnaht penie
colored mani, discoursing at iens.n -,
| the Thirteenth, Fourteenth anu ~
| amendments. Among other Things the
Judga said: 1.-THE question OF jurisdiction
| 10 frst 10 be determined. Defendant IN
| sists that this suit is in effect a proceso-
| ing against the State OF south Cafoiilii
| and n should not be entertained because
nrohibited bv the Eleventh Amendment 10
| the Constitution Of the United STATES II
| Is not my intention at TINS uine 10 SVn,
| slider separately the many questions 0l,eu
| by counsel In argument bearing vi 80
question. After carefully examining them
| ali conclude that ii is the duty OF the
! Circuit Court Of the United states 10 re-
strain an officer from executing an uncoh-
| stitutional statute of the State when the
| execution of IL by him would violate or
| abridge the rights privileges ana iiilnlu-
mites of the complainant that are grant
| cd by the Constitution OF the OHilou
| States. SO far as this question IL Gun
| cerned. IL is immaterial If the oflcer 50
| restrained be the Supervisor OF hesistra-
| fiOn
| troller-GeneraL the Treasurer, the AttoI
new General. or the Governor. We do not
! have in this country any class OF people
State or national officers. or private citl-
zens who are above the law, ana VINO
are not compelled TO respect IL.
! II would be a. strange admission. start
ling decision, that the courts or the
United states cannot open their doors TO
the citizens of the United states, VINO
aIlege that they are by the unconstltu-
tional laws of a State deprived OF the
privilege or immunities as citizens of the
United States. and denied the equal pro-
lection Of the laws within the jurisdiction
of such State / am not aware that any
court of the United States has ever so
held. l trust l will never be ADVISED OF
such decision and / am sure as | now
see the law and my duty. that I will not
so rule. not establish such precedent
HIS DECISION REVERSED.
Had this decision of Judge Golf been
sustained. his 1S-page opinion would.
doubtless. have gone down in history as
the final stroke at the rights of the States
to control and regulate their own regis
tration and election laws; but happily
for the people of the States of the Union,
who love their State governments, and
still believe they have left some rights OF
local self-government independent of Fed
eral authority, this decision was re-
versed. Chief-Justice Fuller saying in the
conclusion of his opinion. Hughes, j.,
concurrng: 1.-THE bill is brought TO re-
strain the registration officer from dis
charging at all duties imposed upon him
by law in respect TO the public, lest COM
plainant and other individuals similarly
situated might thereafter be deprived OF
a political right because of alleged ina
bility TO comply with legislative require
ments which he contends are invalid for
that reason. We repeat that the action
sought to be enjoined is political and gov
ernmental, and il is not pretended that
any right of property or civil right is
threatened with infringement thereby
This being so. we are clearly of opinion
that no ground of equitable cognlzance
exists. and, though the appeal is from
interlocutory orders, yet, as we entertain
no doubt that such bin cannot be main
tanned we are constrained in reversing
these orders TO remand the cause with
direction 10 dismiss the bill"
A VIRGINIA CASE.
Judge Goff, whose name has been men
toned for a Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States, is likely to
become famous as a Federal injunction
judge. On May 1G, 1891, the grand jury
of Wythe county, State Of Virginia, found
"a true bill' against II. G.. Wadley, pres
ident of the Wytheville Insurance and
Banking Company, for a felony committed
by him. in embezzling the assets of the
company. Judge Goff interposed an in
junction in this case, restraining the
officers Of the Commonwealth Of Virginia
from the prosecution Of Wadley for the
criminal violation of its laws The case
is now pending on appeal to the Supreme
Court Of the United States. Whateyer
may be the decision of the Supreme
Court, 1 submit that this is really a suit
or proceeding against the State itself, in
contravention of the Eleventh Amend
States. Qor a full review OF case see
Virginia Law Register June and July,
1880
In our Federal or dual system Of govern
ment. the States are, within certain limi-
tatiOns, Independent sovereignties or COM
munites. but admit this or not as a
general proposition, it is, nevertheless,
true that the people of each State are de-
pendent almost entirely on their State
governments for the protection of life,
liberty, and property; they are, therefore,
compelled in the very nature Of things TO
provide for and maintain their State gov
ernments; it is. therefore, depriving the
people Of the States OF the power and
ability of governmental maintenance 10
allow their duly constituted officers 10 be
restrained or enjoined by any courts other
than their own from the assessment and
collection OF taxes, from the enactment
and regulation of their registration or
election laws, and from the prosecution
of those who have violated their criminal
laws.
WHY THIS INTERFERENCE?
And for what purpose are these essen !
tials to government restrained and nulli- !
fed? In the Tennessee case il was, for
sOoth, because a giant corporation com
planned Of the basis of taxation on its
property subject 10 the tax laws Of the
State; and in the South Carolina case be- !
cause there was a vague idea in the |
Judges mind that the civil rights Of the |
colOred citizen are interfered with; and !
in the Wythe county case because the !
civil affairs Of the criminal were in suit in |
a Federal COURT II is not surprising, |
therefore, that in view Of the cases re-
viewed above, and other cases of more !
or less magnitude. that there should be a |
popular demand for a correction of these |
evils. The judicial Interpretation Of the /
Eleventh Amendment by the Supreme |
Court has put the States back in respect |
10 proceedings against them in the Fede- |
raj courts where they were after the de-
cision Of ChisOm VS.. Georgia, and before /
the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment, |
except where there is a direct demand |
against the State. Whenever there is a.
case for equitable cOgnzance and the |
Federal courts have Jurisdiction because
Of the parties being citizens Of different |
States. the injunction process can be APP
ulgad AGAINST tho State ire onicorz