The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1903-05-01
WILL CRY FRAUD"

| lngs for redress ,Fhey allow SuIt
IN equity only when that is the proper
proceeding for redress, and they refer
to existing standards to determine
what is a proper proceeding. The ira
! ditlonal limits of proceedings in
equity have not embraced a remedy
for political wrongs. Remembering,
however, the Importance of the case,
the court had found itself unwilling to
stop short of the final considerations
to be, taken into account in disposing
of it. These We're summarized as fol-
| lows:
The plaintiff alleges that the whole
registration scheme OF the Alabama
constitution is a fraud upon the con-
stitution of the United States and asks
us to declare it void. But of course
he could not maintain a bill for a mere
| declaration in the air. He does not
try to do so, but asks to be registered
| as a party under the void instrument.
If then we accept the conclusion
which it is the chief purpose of the bill
to maintain, how can we make the
court a party to the unlawful scheme
by accepting it and adding another
vote to it's fraudulent lists? If a
white man came here on the same
| general allegations, admitting his SYM
pathy with the plan, but alleging some
| special prejudice that had kept him
off the list, we hardly should think 1t
necessary to meet him with a reason
ed answer. But, the relief cannot be
varied because we think that in the
future the particular plaintiff is likely
to try to overthrow the scheme.
Would Not Cure, If n Fraud.
IF we accept the plaintiffs allega-
lions for the purpose of his case, he
cannot complain. 1t seems to us that
unless we are prepared to say that 1t
is wrong, that all it's principal allega-
lions are immaterial and that the reg
istration plan of the Alabama consti-
tuition is valid, we cannot order the
plaintiffs name to be registered. 1T
is not an answer to say that if all the
blacks who are qualified according to
the letter of the instrument were regis
tered the fraud would be cured. In
the first place there is no probability
that any way now is open by which
more than few could be registered,
not be overcome.
IF the sections of the constitution
concerning registration were Illegal in
their inception, it would be new
doctrine in constitutional law that the
original invalidity could be cured by
an administration which defeated their
intent. We express no opinion as to
the alleged fact of their unconstitu-
tionality, beyond saying that we are
not willing to assume that they are
valid in the face of the allegations and
main object of the bill for the purpose
of granting the relief which it was
necessary to pray in order that the OBJ
ject should be secured.
THE other difficulty is of a different
sort and strikingly reinforces the ar
gument that equity cannot undertake
the ct
to enforce political rights and also the
suggestion that state constitutions
were left unmentioned in paragraph
1897 by accident In determining
whether a court of equity can take
jurisdiction, one of the first questions
is what it can do to enforce any order
that it may make. This is alleged to
be the conspiracy of the state, al
though the state is not and could not
be made a party to the bill. The Cir
cult Court has no constitutional power
to control it's action by any direct
means, and if we leave the state out
of consideration, the court has as little
practical power to deal with the people
of the state in body.
Mere Registration Not Enough.
THE bill imports that the great mass
of the population intended to keep the
blacks from voting. To meet such IN
tent something more than ordering the
plaintiffs name inscribed upon the lists
of 1902 will be needed. If the conspir-
acy and the intent exist a name on
a piece of paper will not defeat them.
Unless we are prepared to supervise
the voting in that state by officers
of this court, it seems to US that all
the plaintiff could get from equity
would be an empty form. Apart from
damages to the individual, relief from
done
legged by the people of a state and the
state itself. must be given by them
or by the legislative and political de-
partment of the government OF the
United States"
Three Justices Dissent.
Justice Harlan's dissent from the
courts opinion was based on the
ground that as an amount exceeding
S., COO was not involved, the circuit
court had no original jurisdiction OF
this case and that the Supreme Court
had no right where this want OF
Jurisdiction appeared to go into the
merits. He said he agreed with Justice
Brewer that the courts were entitled
to give relief in such cases as this.
Justices Brewer and Brown, in
dissenting opinion written by the for
mer. held that as there was con-
stitutional question involved, the court
should look beyond the certEhcate or
the lower court that the bill had oeen
dismissed for want of jurisdiction and
open the case for full inquiryf1 The dis
senting opinion added:
Neither can 1 assent to the propo-
sition that the case presented by the
plaintiffs bill is not strictly a legal one
and emitting a party to judicial hear
ing and decision. He alleges that he
is a citizen of Alabama, entitled to
vote; that he desired to vote at an
election for representative in Con-
gress; that without registration he
could not vote, and that registration
was wrongfully denied him by the de-
| PENDANTS That many others were
similarly treated does not destroy his
rights or deprive him of relief in the
courts. That such relief will be given
has been again and again affirmed
m both national and state courts"