The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-04-29
WEDNESDAY,, APRIL %, 1908.

IN WEDNESDAY, APRIL q, 1903.
HE SUFFRAGE DECISION.
SF The decision Of the United States Su-
& prone Court announced In yesterdays
548 Times Dispatch in the case Of jackson W,
#8SS Giles VS.. the Board Of Registrars OF Mont
Il gomery county, Alabama, awakened the
Sskeenest interest In Richmond and was
{Sst generally discussed. oIhis man Giles. who
s4Esays that he represents five thousand
other negro adults n Montgomery coun-
~, has brought several actions, the first
having been brought in the Stats courts.
ss5sl Having been unsuccessful there. Giles
4ssB brought An action In the United States
II circuit Court for the Northern District
III Of Alabama. h 4.
The suit was bill in equity by o negro
AZ 4. - I his own behalf and number OF
others 4 It alleged that BY the C2nstitu--5
s flor, OF the State Of Alabama a piclimi-
n nary registration was provided for and
z that those who got on this preliminary
f@list became permanently entitled to vote
s|snnd would not be subject to i property or
N other disqualifcations affecting pernla-
i N nent registration: that although entitled
i to be registered on the preliminary list
The complainant had been refused to
register, and that the effect OF the method
K 81 n conducting the preliminary reglstra-5
Nh lion was virtually to dsqualfy tho coll
ored people In the State Of Alabama, and
that this was to DO effected by keeping
them Off 4 the preliminary list, while all
6Suf the white voters had been put upon
i'll that list. ~ d
Tho court below declined to grant the
injunction asked for, on the ground that
n it had no Jurisdiction. In this the court
was affirmed By the United States 6u-
preme Court. but Justice Holmes. in de-
livering the opinion OF the majority, said
that the court had decided to lay aside
the question OF Jurisdiction and go into
the merits Of the case. because Of Its ex-
5tracrdinary character. He declared It
would be an unheald of thing for court
OF equity to give relief in case nvolY-
Ing purely political question. Accord
N Ing ito one OF the Justices VINO joined IN
the opinion delivered by Justice Holmes.
81 tbs court decided that, whatever might
a Be an Individual right In an action at
98bar to redress political wrongs, there was
mo power in a court Of equity to redress
political wrongs OF this kind; that the le-
gitlmete outcome OF the power would be
S}th 1T the court yof equity would take
charge Of the State government and ad-
minister it. which is an unheard-of pro-
a position. If the remedy at law was not
adequate, the relief must BIO sought at
The hands OF the political department.
The decision does not pass upon the va \
IL lidity Of the Constitution Of Alabama, but
simply, holding It unconstitutional, the
court OF equity was without power.
8g Justice Harlan held that the case should
have been. dismissed purely for want OF
I'll jurisdiction On the other hand, Justices
IS Brewer ard Brown concurred In the dis
lenttng opinion that the Circuit Court
should have been reversed and should be
directed to assume Jurisdiction OF the
case. y
G3t The reports are SO neager that 1t Is
Impossible to know how far the courts
-
sr than has been reported. It Is quite
certain, however. that the Alabama case
5&5,s. us the lawyers SAY, on all tours w'ts
The case lately d(gpqsed Of in this c,Ss
Sy Chief Justice BSliier and Judge Wad-
,1!l. and 1t Is fair to presume that the
$ decision IN tho Virginia case will be up
&5ted by the United States supreme Court
Another case, however, has been brought
and is stil pending in Judge Waddll,s
court al Norfolk, which. 1t Is believed. vii
bring the constitutional question to q d.
4 rect issue, This 10 the case OF u maj
named Brickhouses who brings an actor
for damages. not against the registrars
# Sut against the Judges of election He al
gteges that he was a duly registered vote
III Under the old Constitution and entitled t
vote and that the judges OF electio
III should have permitted him TO vote. dlsre
garding the new registration, which, h
# holds, was void because the new Con
Z stitution, under which It WAS held,
\ void.
It ts believed that this case viii brln
K tes Federal Courts face to face with tn
81 question OF the legality OF the franch!s
Il clause Of the Virginia Constitution. an
y that there win DO definite decision Q
n this point, one ws!y or the other, whe
the case reaches the Supreme Court
8ES ===-==--=T-==
ANATION'S PROSPERITY,
=