University of South Carolina Libraries
$l)c Union ?imcs UNION, 8. O. THK WILKKS RESOLUTIONS. The Reserves Reserved No Longer-* A Suggestion of a Change In the Law. At a meeting the other night of the late Charlotte Division Naval Reserves, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted, viz: '"Resolved, first, That, having a high regard for the courts of our country, civil, criminal and military, we have refrained from oxpressiutr to the Dublic our unhminri?< sonttdence and respect in our commanding nflleer, Lieut. J. Frank Wilkes, beforo a decision was rendered in tho court martial wrought against him. "Resolved, second, That wo hoartily concur in the finding of our Commander-in-Chief His Excellency, Qovornor Eliaa Carr, in which ho says: "In the opinion of the Commander-in-chief the charges and specifications aro not sustained by tho evidence.' Resolved, third, That no member of this division hud tho slightest bolief that the charges and specifications were true, and take occasion now to express to the public our high regard for Lieut. Wilkes as a gentleman and a inan of honor and integrity. ^Resolved, fourth. That, at the bowing to the decision of our Commander-in-Chief and tho learned Judge-Advocate of the State, Gen. Thos. F. Strange, we would respectfully suggest that if it be the military law of North Carolina that a witness against the accused can be a judge on the court that tries tho accused, thnt, in the interest of justice, tho next Legislature should amend tho law. "Resolved, fifth. That wo thank thecitizens >f Wilmington for the courtesies shown the iccused, Lieut. Wilkes, and his counsel and witnesses during his long trial, and especially the Wilmington papers for their fair, impartial and accurate report of the proceedngs. "Resolved, sixth, That we request the papers of the State to publish theso proceed?i?. A CRAZY MAN'S CRIME. >!?? Y? ii.ii His Wife anil Four Children. Insanity the Only Explanation. At Chicago on Friday night, Froderiok Hellmau, a mason contractor, 36 years old. murdered his wife aud four children by as.phyxiatiou, aud died with them. The victims were: Ida Hellmau, 34 years old; Fritz Hellman. 12 years o!d; Ida Hvliui.iu. ii years old; Willie Hellman, 3 years old; Hedwig Hellman, 4 years. That the murder was deliberately planned by the father of the family during the past few weeks, seems beyond doubt. Several weeks ago Hellman had his pipes connected and fixture* put in the family bedroom ouly, ,the entire family sleeping in one small room, jit seems uow certain that Hellman hail the gas put in lor the express purpose of using it in the murder of nis family. There is ouly oue explanation and that is that Hellman was crazy. He is -aid to have been fairly provided with worldly goods mid ,4o have had no family dissensions. He left a note for his broiber, in which lie gives instructions regarding the disposition of iii3 property. He says that he will not be living whan the note is received, but says in it nothingfot the premeditated desthof the rest pf th? "a lnily. \ ? ? CYCLONK IN KANSAS. YTlve Persons Killed and Many Buildings Wrecked. A cyclone which Baxter Springs, Kan., on Friday night, killed five people outright and injured two others so badly that they are not expected to live. A dry goods store and the Methodist, Christian and colored Methodist churches were blown down and dozens of residences and barns totally wreck ed. The dead are: Sadie Webster, Florence Webster, Ralph Webster, H. Hibbs, and the infant child of Thomas Shields. W. L. Arelier was found dead on the Noolan farm in Sheridan township. The rain was the most yiolentever known, resembling a oloud burst and the entire country was flooded. Reports of further fatalities snorn almost certain when the roads jjie opened up. TRAGEDY IN A CIIUKCH. The Congregation .lumps from tlie Windows. A special to the Columbia, (8. 0.) State jays that a colored church festival at Hamburg Saturday night, Alexander Rrabham, in the crowded entrance, tread on Adam Ifannabal's toes. The latter drew a revolver and shot Brabham dead. A stampede onsued ami as the murderer held the exit with drawn revolver the assemblage poured out of the windows regardless of shutters or sash. Haiiuabal escaped. WOIiTIIY OK IMITATION. The Manner in Which Mexico Deals with ''ruin Robbers and Highwaymen. A special to die Chrociecj from Negates, .Irizoaa, says- Fourol (I re men who netd up fin? paymaster o> the Ns'-asart Copper Company on June 13 luce liecu raptured by llie authorities oi the H'a'.e of Houo'e, Mi'i,, and on Sunday they whui taken lo the went of iheir crime and shot to death uuderi.be new law providing for the punishae-ei o' train and stage robbers in Mo <u:o. The Importation of Sugar. The imports of sugar at six of the leading port-1 of the Cnited States during the month of June aggregated J3J.567.945 pounds, of I ii " ai I hau I' imih-him Mi" nil' missing port if or,n? I >>?ij11 i :i. a - if liif . if IT.,. V.liin origin. al.i. i:i i I r.:, I! > v u,i not ifTi' t the malt'T of nist "n>. >fr. Ford, hi"! >: (In* |<itr?:"i >C st;iti<li< that J|?m nil j. i'. r* ri i i?i r:i<. ?l:-ri''in it "It ies9 tli.tii tli.it rr.itii i?i :h" r. ?ii? < i Mny. and ii 'ell III.it. Hi i : t - n: :i< t?" in Juno 1* '1 .11 <j i iiitilv ti . t nf- half in A Decrease in (I'rc.i ma Kriorvo. P"? Tr-M-nrv iT'i'i ft' rvt! - Uurday de.-- I SlftH.N 7. -'.i .' ii r .? tin' Jo- of 1 . I III !? |07. ' !< < I *f! :o?">. It is 'im.iv.h ny : vii "f.t- 11 " govern* i:?*:il at-ao'inf ill i >. I JThe village o' Dock, nine miles cist ol Jiwlght, III., - nr!y wiped out l?y flro t'liiirsday nit- rnnon. Loss, $fio.OOO. Tlut iiisuriiurt) will oov'*r about oiic-<tuurtcr of IT WAS DISMISSED. S p ? \? STATK SUPREME COURT AND O THE REGISTRATION LAW. ? si n Majority Dismiss Oen. Butler's Case. v Chief Justice Mclver Holds the H, Court Has Jurisdiction ami That the Law Is Uncon- e stitutlonat. ti _ r< The Supremo Court has dually dis- g missed tho registration law test case entitled Matthew C. Butler against W. gj H. Ellerbe, comptroller general of the State of South Carolina, and W. T. C. ^ Bates, treasurer of tho State of South Carolina. This is tho case brought by ^ General Butler at the November term, 1894,of tho Supreme Court, to test tho y constitutionality of the registration -( laws of the State. The ease was heard on the 3d of last December, and tho ft, people of tho whole State have waited patiently ever since for the decision of e] the Supreme Court. The delay has caused the court to be severely criticized, and it lias been complained that the delay won due to n the political considerations involved. ftl Justices Pope and Gary agree in ?1 is- n niiHsiug the citse, but do ho oil differcut grounds. The decision of Mr. Justice Pope dismisses the proceeding ' on the ground that the petitioner has a plain and adequate remedy at law. Mr. Justice Gary dismisses the pro- ^ ceeding on the ground of the want of equity in th? petition. Justice Mclver dissents from both and holds that the proceedings is a n proper proceeding; that the petitioner C] is entitled to the relief under the pro- ^ ceediugs, which is asked, and declares ^ the whole registration law unconstitu- t) tional law, null aud void. k( Justice Pope wrote the opinion of the court. Justice Gary also filed an opin- j ion of some twentv-one pages of fools- w cap, which in substance agreed with the positions taken by Justice Pope. {)| The dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice is twenty-nine pages in length. ^ The object of the case was to test the constitutionality of the registration law, but it was in the form of a petition asking that the State Treasurer ft' be permanently restrained from apply- p lug funds in the State treasury to the " payment of salaries for the supervisors of registrations. Justice Pope says in his opinion: P1 "The delay in rendering the judgment al of the court is owing to the failure to P1 prepare this separate opinion at an IU earlier day. That when a grave con- I I" stitutional question is to he passed up- 1X1 on, unless it is imperatively necessary b that there shallf be n<y dcl?^r 1 ? ?" posed u? -rio-.v rr as my iluty to hear a< and consider thoroughly what is pre- K1 sented." I He differs with Mr. Gary in the view rt that there is in effect a suit against n the State, and he cites, among other 01 cases, the case of Evans vs. the State tl Treasurer, in .'18 So. Ca., and the case tl of Robertson vs. the State Treasurer, P in regard to the validity of $5,250,000 of State bonds. But he agrees with w Mr. Justice Gary that the proceeding ^ should be dismissed, putting it upon the ground that he had adequate rem- G edv at law, and concludes that the ^ court is without jurisdiction in the premises. P Mr. Gary holds in his opinion that , tl the proceeding is in effect a suit j e; against the State j Second?The State is an indispensa- j 11 ble party. Third? The question as to the constitutionality of the acts cannot prop- j 11 erly arise, as there are other grounds al upon which the court can rest itsjudgment. Fourth?If the State could be sued ti she would be estopped from intorpos- <> iug th<- objection that the services ren- si dcred at her instance and for her bene- b fit were illegal. The appropriations tl show that the State desired the pay- ii ment of such services. Equity will o not therefore lend its aid to . compel n the State, indirectly through the de- <> l'endants usher tis?'al officers,to do that a which the State could not be com- p polled to do iii n direct proceeding. f< The rest of the opiuion is devoted g mainly to a support of these four main ii propositions. p Taking these views, he regards it s< unnecessary to discuss the constitution- w ality or unconstitutionality of the act ci itself. st Chief Justice Mclver holds that each ! ti taxpayer has an interest in the mat- m ter, and that the plaintiff has the right l> of action. That he cannot see how the i si plaintiff in this case i-? estopped from : ti bringing the action simply because he | (' has held office while the registration T laws wore in force. This disposes of j tl the two main objections raised by the j ct Attorney General to the petition. is \ Coming to the real question at issue, ! the constitutionality of the laws, the 1 t?, ('hief Justice says: "It seems to be 1 *1 s ttb d that < veu in States whose eon- 1" htitntioiis arc silent upon the subject, a statute requiring the registration of voters, is not per se unconstitutional, j t'1 as such a statute is regarded as a mere r,;;f j,jt, constitutional right *"* to vote and is designed to furnish evi- i denco of the fact that the voter is pos- di I . t ii - n..- l i. - n I ?... . ? iwa <u iuu < j i ui 111 m'iu i ?ri s uacmi uy in#? j romtitutiou. IJut it hophih to !?< woll "> ..I ft. .? It. .. n?|,t af I if 1 )Ct of a registration law is to add to el r take away any of the qualifications pi rescribed by the constitution, or tl here its effect is to obstruct, subvert, ol r even necessarily impede the exor- as ise of the right conferred by the con- w. bitution, it cannot be sustained, but L iust be held an unconstitutional in- st osion of tbe constitutional right of lii lffrage." sn The Chief Justice then takes up sev- tt ral of the provisions of the registra- st .on laws and shows that they are un- sc aaaonable in their demands, and a*-e ft 1 direct conflict with tho constitution bf le adds: "The features of our reg- bi Oration law which have thus been tr iown to be unconstitutional are so in- ce matoly connected with, and so inter- is oven with other provisions that the th hole act must be declared unconati- ol itional." 01 Justice Mclvor continues: "Since le preparation of the foregoing opin- tl >n, which was as usual, submitted to st ly associates for their consideration, te nd they have both prepared separate ct pinions, in which, while not consid- h( ring or declining what 1 regard as tho p> 3al question in the case, they both th oncur in holding, though differing on w ue point, thut the action cannot be .)( laintained on jurisdictional grounds, rid lliMlOA flmu'iir in rpvtdoriiwr indrr- .? ? J e> in lent that the complaint or petitioner, cc i it in called, must be dismissed, ju "Of course, if these jurisdictional ^ rounds are tenable and this court is ithout jurisdiction in the case, that is ^ ti end of the matter; aud any con- <31 deration of the merits of the case ould be, at least superfluous, if not ea bsolutely improper. * * * "But as I do not tlnnk any of these irisdictional grounds are teuablo, and <pj a tho contrary, am entirely Hatisftod w, rat this court has jurisdiction, aud is leroforo bound to decide tho issue ju resented, I must adhere to the views C(l ereiuboforo expressed. ^y "A proper respect, however, for the jjj iews of my associates, which it is al- <j| ays a pleasure for me to pay them, .)C * well as a due regard for the gravity f jj f the issue presented, roepiire that I ^ lould not content myself with a situ- ja le declaration that 1 do not consider 0f le jurisdictional objection tenable, Hll ut should go 011 and cousider the [f round upon which these objections Cll re based, aud this T propose to do as ^h riefly as the importance of' the in- j uiry will permit. tl, "First, it is objected that this is H?' ractically an action against the Htate, or id to which she is an nniisneusable ou iirt. If this bo the true nature of the; rtiou, then it is clear that thin court ?* is no jurisdiction, in the absence of ay consent of which there is no pre use on the part of the State. The lunu U'pt io<itherefore. is if this '?\ ition can lu sKy *pr<j>er sense t?e re- ?' urded an an action auiinst the State. ov' do not think so, f<r the following masons: The object f this action is ^hi ot to affect injurious^ any property r rights of property if the State. If Pr' ic plaintiff should ofcain judgment in le case no interests (' the Stato could I,n ossibly be affected inj riously thoreby. ii this respect the piMent case differs idely from the caar of Lowry vs. nP' hompson, supra; L? vs. Jumnel, 107 *hc f. S., and the Columia Water Powor ompany vs. Coluinlit Electric Street ailroad, Light and Liver Compauy, rt!" 0 S. C. Rop., 1,002,/hicli seoni to be HU< rincipally relied upc, for in each of ? lese cases some iute-st of the prop- ?(,,> rty right of the Sta was sought to the e effected, while su<^ is not the case Ki(p a the present actio, I think it is ?p, lear, therefore, witliit going further t,,r rto the authorities, tit this ease can- , ot possibly be regard as an action H{?, rraiust the State to wich she is an in- ,?((( ispensble paartv. UH f "While it is<(uite he that the ques- tha on of the constitutiiality of an act plai f the Legislature sluld not be con- oth idered in a case who such case can prh e decided upon uer grounds, as son aut is in fact notliin|uiore than say- tioi ig that the constitutiiality of an act fori f the Legislature buld not be un- | tint ecessarily assailed 1 considerations i act. f comity and respei which should ' imp 1 ways exist among e different de- j Stat artinents of the gornment, would suff >rbid the judiciary partmrntof tin* sucl ovornmeut from uueessarily assail- ! regi if? the action of itsb-ordinato do- ceiv artmont. But wlioq cuse is pre- sue nteil to a canjrt. tends -4loeision, in wro liicli it is necessary [r u proj or do- ofTic ision that the qu^on of the con- pros itutionality of an iut>f the Legisla- tiou ire should be considhd and deter- oust lined, then it is uhnly the right, renu lit the duty of the <|<lt to consider gal < ich questions, nnd ifiie act in ques- the | on is found to bo inluflict with the be li onstitution the cot must sav so. ; broil hat, in my judging. is precisely and ic attitude of the iso now under ly qi uisideration. The olijt of the action cms, to restrain and enjol-ertain public why beers of the State, w arc the ens taxpi idians of the public Ids from up | er hi lying any part then to an illegal 1 actio irpose, to-wit, t\ie paj -lit. of the sal- <Ii\ el ies of certain so-callj public ofli- , all tl rs, supervisors of renrat ion, upon j not, ie ground that there |o valid law I "I r the appoint meat In , o'ojec > that the vital que at*)} a the case, j basei id the one tluit lies afjf|> very foun- flint i itioii of it, in whotj.jthoro is any jurim iliil lnw providing he appoint- plain ( nt of supervisors of [ration; for ody i there is no such vali l\ then it in tlio <1 A 4 oar that the public funds cannot roporly be applied to the payment of te salaries of persons claiming to hold Bees not established by law. Now, i there is no doubt of the fact that hat purports to bo an act of the egislaturo has been spread upon the atute books providing for the estabshment of such officers and fixing the d&ries thereof, and the only claim is tat such so-callod act is without oonitutional authority, and for that resin only has not the force of law, it >llows conclusively that the question i to the constitutionality of what has sen termed for convenience the regisation law, necessarily arises in this ise, and the solution of that question absolutelv essential to the decision of te case, tndeod, outsido of questions I jurisdiction and procedure, it is the ily question in the case. "Another objection is stated in iese words: 'If the State could bo led she would bo estopped from inr posing the objection that the servi?s rendorod at her instance aud for 3r benefit were illegal, The approbation shows that the State desires te payment of such sorvicos. Equity ill not therefore lend its aid to cornel Mw? inilirnnllu >* ? ?vu.uugu xuu ifcudants as her fiscal officers to do nit which the Stato could not l>e impelled to do iu n direct proceedg.' It seems to me that this objecon ignores the important and vital stiuction between the legislature and 10 State. The legislature is not the Hite, but is simply one of the ageues or departments of the government, Hod into existence by the voice of ie people, who are the source of all >wer, as expressed in tho constitution, lio legislature can only act lawfully ithin the limits prescribed in tlioeonitutiou, and any action on their part conflict with the provisions of the institution is without lawful authori, and therefore null and void, not tiding ou tho organic body, so-called lie State,' or upon tho people corn sing such organic body. Hence e inquiry inevitably comes back to o question whether tho registration iv establishing tlieoflieo of supervisor registration and providing for the lary of such office is constitutional, it is, then clearly the present aetiou 11 not be maintained, but it it is not, en it necessarily follows that the pub: funds cannot bo lawfully applied to e payment of such salaries, and it ems to me that nothing can be clearthau that any taxpayer, whether e or tnore, may invoke the aid of o court to prevent the fiscal officers the State from applying the funds iu o treasury to any purpose not auurizod by law, for, besides tho fact lit such funds ar?- derived fifom taxeB ded and collected from the people the tttate, and in which, therefore, erv taxpayer is more or lossinterest, tho conKtitution expressly provides it no money shall be drawn from the lasury but in pursuance of an approlation made by law,' Art. II., Sec. And this prohibition is repeated ictically in the same terms in Art. Sec. 12. It is not correct to say it the State has expressed anv desire on the subject until it is shown that sre is some valid act of the law makt department of the government esilishing the office of supervisor of [istration and fixing tho salary of ih office. 'Fourth, All the other objections to jurisdiction of this court, except last, which will be presently eouereil, are based, as it seems to me, m a misconception of the true nae and real object, of tho action. This lot an action by which the plaintiff Us to obtain relief against a wrong ler done or threatened against hi in in elector or voter, and tho fact t there is no allegation in the com int that cither the plaintiff or any er citizen of the Stale has been do red of the right of suffrage by reaof the provisions of the registrai law, is a matter of no consequence, such an allegation would not bo per- ' nt to the issue presented by this 1 (loueedinur. for the miriiosenf Miin liry only, that no citizen of this U> entitled to exercise the right of 1 rage has over yet been deprived of ' i right by the operation of the titration law, I am unable to per- * 0 how that could afTeut tho real is- 1 presented by this case. The 1 ng complained of is that the fiscal ' ers of the government have ex- * sod their purpose to apply a por- N of the public funds under their L rxly to an illegal purpose, and the ' >dy sought is to prevent such a le- * liversion of the public funds from ^ purposes to which they can alone iwfully applied. The action is ght by the plaintiff as a taxpayer, the allegation that he is also a dulalified elector is wholly supcrflufor I am unable to see any reason any citizen of the State, who is a lyer, a female for example, whetli1 elector or not, may not bring an ^ n like this to prevent any illegal | sioii of the public funds in which I retaxpayers, whether electors <>r j] arc interested. I only remains to the !..d v tion i<> tin- jurisdiction which is ,, I upon the well-settled doctrine (l i court oi? e(|iiity will not take ,| liction of the same ease where the > tiff has a plain and adequate re runt law. The hare statement of octriuo in auflioieut to ehow that, n I in order to sustain this objection it must uppear that the plaintiff has a plain uud adequate remedy At law; aud in my fudgment this has not heeu aud oaunot be uiAde to appear. What other "remedy a taxpayer has to provent au illegal diversion of the public funds by the fiscal officers of the government than that adopted in the present case lias not been suggested, and I am at a loss to conceive of auy. It will be observed that the fund here in question was derived from taxes levied under and bv virtue of the act to raise supplies for the fiscal year commencing November 1, 181)3, 'for the purpose of meeting appropriations U> defray the curreut expenses of the government' for that fiscal year, and, so far ns I am informed, there never was any special or separate levy of taxes to pay the salaries of supervisors of registration, j How then was it possible for the taxpayer to raise the issue horo presented ! by refusing to pay his taxes or by J paying tho same undor protest aud bringing an action to rocover them back. "The action does not and should not proceed upou tho ground that any wrong was done to the taxpayer in levying and collecting the taxes upon which the fund in question was de- i rived, for such taxes were levied aud i collected for au entirely lawful and j proper purpose, the payment of the current expenses of the Htato government, and heuce no resistance in any form could have been made to such levy and collection. But the wrong complained of is that after tho fund i dorived from taxation had been properly placed in the treasury, a portion of it is about to be diverted from tho legal purposes to which it is proporly applicable and applied to an illegal purpose, aud how that wrong can be i 1 1: - (Fiuu-mcu uai;u|ji uj iiu lujiiuctiu n iorbidding the officer charged with the cuHtody of the fund froui ho misapplying it, L must confess I am utterly uu?b!c t;; conceive. "I cannot, therefore, concur in the conclusion reached by the majority of the court that the complaiut should bo dismissed for want of jurisdiction. On the contrary. I am satisfied that this court lias jurisdiction and is bound to decide the real question in the case, viz : the question as to the constitutionality of the registration law. Upon that question I have hereinbefore set forth the reason for my conclusion, to which L still adhere that the said law is clearly unconstitutional. "I am therefore of the opiuion that^ the. prayer of the complaint insofar as it seeks to enjoin the Comptroller General from drawing auy warrant on the State treasurer for tho pay of any supervisor of registnatiou and to enjoin the State treasurer from paying any such warrant, should be granted." A. leading attorney, who read the Chief Justice's opinion all the way through, thus summarizes it: "Tho Chief Justice announces tho conclusion that he arrives at on tho merits of the controversy, namely, the constitutionality of the registration laws. He says in substance that those ,v enactments are in violation of sundry provisions of the State constitution, all of which he enumerates. Ho holds that the many provisions and requirements set forth in the registration laws as prerequisites to the right of ballot are burdensome and uneven, and could not have been intended to merely regulate the right of suffrage, but, upon Sll> ..4V-...4 ..C lU.. * ? " %'iiv vwuvimiJi tuu riiUUb U1 till' prUVIH- f ionB of the law in to abridge and im- 1 petto the eiti/.eu in registering and voting. He says that all registration lawc, r to he constitutional, must have for their purpose the regulation of the suffrage, and their province should he to facilitate and not to discourage registration. "He holds that the closing of the hooks on the first of July, and allowing 110 provision for registration, except for minors, between July 1st and election day, is also unconstitutional; ii 1 so, that the scheme of the act, which is to hi?ve hut one general original registration, is contrary to the section of the constitution, which requires the registration from time to time of all doctors iu the State. He also holds that the certificate feature of the act iu effect requires double registration? namely, that the voter must both he registered on the hooks and also have i certificate of registration, and preicnt it to the polls, and that such prorision is in contravention to the State '.{institution. He points out various >ther sections of the act that are contitutionally obnoxious. And he says ! hat there are so many provisions of he registration law that are unconati utional, and that they are so inter oven with the provisions that are not n.?: i ii -i .?i inn ninr VUKI. I lllll UlC W 1IOIC IH'I lllllHt e declared uneoiiHtitutioiial." . <?ol<l Mine in a Well. While digging a well in the heart of lie city of Fort Smith, Ark., gold (caring saud was brought up, and the onnnunity is not a lit tie stirred up at inding that they have been living vcr a gold mine 'Hie propeily ou Inch the tiud was made is tho proprty of the city, and is a part of tho j Id military reservation, which was minted to the city ten years ago.? few Orleans Picayune. At sorno place in tho world wheat ia off sown ovcry month in tho year. i I