The true Democrat., 1855-02-21
Swamp Land Law-Chancerv Court

ndernlll, ueCedSeQ,
 Accounts. DV0'''' The application for the injunction in this cause
 was argued by E. CUMMINs, for the complain
 ants, and $. H. HAMPSTEAD, for the Auditor
 Chancellor FAIRCHILD, in refusing the injunc- ton. delivered the following
 OPINION:
 The bill is to enioin the defendant, as Audi TOT of Public Accounts of this State, from send inc lists of swamp lands owned by the com painants, to the assessors of Lafayette and Se- yer counties, in which the lands lie, that the lands may be assessed and taxed The bill al- leges that the Auditor is preparing the lists, and will send them out to be assessed in obedience to an act of the General Assembly. approved 11th January, 1855, that requires snch lands to be taxed.
 This law is charged to be an interference with right of the complainants to hold such lands free from taxation till 9th January, 1861, and as long after that as the lands may be unre- claimed, which right they claim to have vested in them under the filth section of an act of the General Assembly, approved 9th January, 1851, that provided for reclaiming the lands donated IL. 18th, 1850. And this interference is charged to be violation of contract made between the State and the complainsnts by the State. in the passage of the said l4th section of the act of 9th January, 1851, and by the oom plain ants in taking up and locating the lands men, tioned in the bill and the bill alleges that the act of llth January, 1855, by inpairing the obligation of said contract, is a breach of the constitution of the United States and therefore void.
 It will be seen from this recital, that the ques- tions involved are of the gravest kind that can come under the review of court of civil juris- diction. The act of the defendantthat is sought to be emoined, is one done CT to be done, as an officer under the express direction of sovereign State; t relates te the subject of taxation the distinguishing mark and unquestionable attr- bute of sovereign power; tke relief prayed for is extraordinary, being no less than the stoppaoe of the highest functions of government; but it is asked upon grounds equally important, viz: disregard by the State of its faith solemnly pledged, and disregard of its suberdination to its only superior, the constitution eff the United States.
 The matters of defence are denial Of the right of this court to entertain the suit The conflict of the l4th section of the act of 9th January, 1851, with cur State constitution, and the lmpolicy and illegality Of the application upon general principles of equity jurisdiction.
 Upon thls last and least important head of defence, shall be obliged to refuse an injnnc- tion.
 see nc necessity fer the interference of this court now, to prevent multiplicity of sufts.- The complalnants are not threatened with liti- gatlon more expensive and vexatious than they can bear for If to collect the taxes of which they are apprehenslve. be inoefensible, the cefa mon law has ample remedies and means by winch they cal test the rights of taxation.
 Our statute too, has provided jurisdiction for trial of an Illegal assessment and one that IS cheap easy Of access, regardful of the right of the assessed, and eff the State that is in the way of approach to the highest courts, and in constant common use.
 Even upon the assumption of the alleged uncanSttutlonallty of the ctof 1lth Jan, 1855 1 cannot see that the interference of this court IS needed to prevent oppression. It is not a matter of course, that the complainants Let their lands be sold They may pay the taxes assessed upon them reserving and trying in other ways the taxing right. They need not permit tax title claims and suits to cover their lands, to throng about them to their personal annoyance, or to cause them ruinous expense And except t. preveft a multiplicity of suits, see no grounds OR which thisapplication should be sustained
 Acts done under public authority are to be respected by courts of equity; if obliged to in- tertere by injunction, they will de it sparinglv. and onfy upon great urgency.
 Nor Is the issuance of injunctens to be favor ed, as means CT help to try the validit of 2 law. Any preliminary proceeding is liable tc be taken on too partial and uneonsidered view, 10 determine rightly between an enact ment and the paramount law Though nc oe be given, and both parties be heard, the pro- ceedmg generally bears mark of its introducto- " character counsel, at least counsel resisting the application, cannot usually afford the assis- tance to a court or chancellor in coming to a conclusion, that they can upon final hearing CT after time for deliberate reflection. Nor is a chancellor as well able to exercise. or should he willing to assume the great responsibfity of an- nulllng the act of department coordinate win that to which be belongs of equal authority and acting within its proper sphere, in the ce. lerity that crowds interlocutorv proceedinos te sudden decision, and with the informalty thai must detract from tbe dignity and influence o the adjudication.
 This consideration often induces chancello, not to enioin against legal claim, till the lega right be established by due course of Jaw.
 According to nay understanding of the law can never interfere by injunction, where th, ground of interference is the unconformity of law with the constitution of this State, or O that ot the United States, unless where a fail ure to interfere will manifestly be attended b, great, by incurabe wrong.
 This remedy, extraordinary in its nature sometimes harsh in its mode of operation, abso lute in power, and so liable to abuse. must no be classed with the common remedies against an unconstitutional act or be indifferentlv re- sorted to with an action of trespass a statutory appeal from assessment or other remedy fol committed or apprehended wrong. It is not te be chosen at will as a matter of convenience to try any question upon which constitutions doubt can be raised, but when there is a blair legal right, all entire want of any other ade quate remedy, and just apprehension of grea and certain injury, without the assistance o this remedy.
 Upon the familiar grounds that there is n, such want of other remedy as to require the pre- .f @l,, xlo