The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-06-20

oughness of observation and research, and pertinency of comment the contri- button of MT. Cooper. It compares well | with the best of them. The President g address bore evidence of the thorough efforts of a trained mind. MT. Cooper read his address from the manuscript, its req ding consuming about one hour and a half.
 N Address of the President In opening his address President Coop CT referred to events of the past twelve morths and to the last meeting of the Association at Monte Sano near Hunts vile. He dwelt upon the progress of the country and discussed economic prob lems. r3 .,N "-,' !. He spoke at some length of the great Pennsylvania coal strike, touched upon the Venezuelan imbroglio. the Panama Canal treaty the Cuban treaty and urged the necessity of the Vice-President being a member of the Presidential Cabinet. Mr. Cooper discussed at some length the Federal courts and paid high trib- ute to the Judiciary of the Government. He said no lawyer was ever disappointed in Federal Judge before whom he ap- peared, and expressed his approval of the appn.ntive rather than the elective system of choosing judges.
 The various bankruptcy acts of Con- gross were treated lucidly and at great length by Mir. Cooper He touched upon numerous opinions by the courts upon this subject. and explained clearly the operation of the amendEents of April 27, 1903
 The Northern Securities Company case was discussed by MT. Cooper from legal viewpoint and he took occasion to advert to combinations of capital and of merg- CTS which have attracted attention in re- cent years
 Taking up the new Constitution of Ala bama with especial reference to the suf- ffage clauses, MT. Cooper continued as follows :
 The people of this State, conceived that they possessed the legal right. and were charged with the duty, as conservators of the best interests of the country, to regu- late the elective franchise. subject to the Federal Constitutional amendment pro- viding The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.'
 Article was formulated upon this idea, after mature deliberatlon. Soon, it became the subject of attack as viola tive of the Fifteenth Amendment A bill in equity was filed in the Circuit Court of the limited States for the Middle Dis trict of Alabama by Jackson w. Giles against the Registrars of Montgomery County, praying that the defendants be required to enroll his name upon the vot- ing lists.
 Tn the majority and dissenting opin- ions (2S Supreme Court Rep. 639). we find a number of surprising propositions. Just how it coud be imagined that a bill in equity was a proper remedial proce- cure, it is difficult to imagine.
 Section 1879 of the Revised Statutes relative to the Jurisdiction of the court In the protection of the civil rights of the citizens, employs the language, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at n cttft in nnIIitV nF nthAr proceedings for redress If this provis- ion does not furnish the equitable juris- diction, it does not exist.
 Supreme Court Opinion.
 "The court very properly holds, that the sphere of equitable jurisdiction is not extended, recognizing the true boundary between actions at law and suits in equity. Reaching this conclusion, it would seem that the bill should have been peremptorily dismissed; but the court, after holding that 1t has jurisdic- ton, and this conclusion seems to have been attained without regard to the char acter of the action, or the method of pro- cedure, says: We cannot forget that we are dealing with a new and extraordinary situation, and we are unwilling to stop short of the final considerations which seem to us to dispose of the case
 "The plaintiff seeking the establishment of an alleged right, under an alleged fraudulent scheme, and invoking the kings conscience to afford him relief, presents a novel feature in equity plead ing
 Justice Holmes aptly expresses the averment ,as a declaration in the air presumably balloon or other floating receptacle for gaseous matter. The court does not cite the case of White vs. Berry Ill U. s., S66. wherein 1t is held that un- der the Constitution and jaws of the United States the distinction between common law and equity. as existing in England at tho time of the separat tion of the two countries, has been maintained although both jurisdictions were vested in the same courts and approving the rule laid down. In Re Sawyer 120 r. s. 200. that a court of equity had no juris- diction over the appointment and removal of public officers, and that to sustain bill in equity to restrain or relieve against proceedings for the removal of public o. ficers, would invade the domain of the courts of common law.
 Limited to questions of equitable cog nizance, Is there any appreciable differ ence between the cases?
 The petitioners right if any he has, must be formulated upon the theory, that the constitutional provision, requiring the registry or the name on the voting list, Is fraudulent or void; and, the action of the court if obtained, would be in aid os the fraud. Therefore, the court has very properly held that it could not sanction bis demand.
 Opinions of Justices.
 Justice Harlan writes a strong dissent ing opinion on the question of jurisdic- tion holding that the averments of the bill. If true, entitled the plaintiff to re- lief, provided the record showed sui ficient value in dispute The value of each of the votes of the five thousand ne- groes, on behalf of whom the bill was fled, Is so easily estimated, that we could not. in Alabama, in connection with 1t, think of the Federal jurisdictional amount. Under dedlmus potestatem. an examination of the various petitioners. would leave the learned justice in no doubt of the fact that the court did not have the requisite jurisdiction.
 Justice Brewer disposes of the ques- tion of jurisdiction, holding that a Fed eral question is involved. We are startled at the announcement made by the dis tinguished jurist whether the plaintiffs remedy was at law, or in equity. cannot be considered on this appeal Why this is so in the opinion af the judge, may be found in the further announcement. Every case coming up on certificate of Jurisdiction may be held to present constitutional question. and be open for full inquiry in respect to all matters in volved'
 I've glean from the dissenting opinion AE,t