Columbus Democrat. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-18??, 1877-10-19


Sheriff would be relieved from wha
: is more an annoyance than O prof
to him.
We commend the subject 10 Oui
Legislators that are to be, apd hop,
that it will be considered IN "a,
canvass now in prognesas iu' tkil
county.
"The subject Of railroad nxatior
will enter largely inta be discns
sions of the present cinvass. ARD
the people aware that tho Mobile
and Ohio Railroad, being in the
hands of receiver, can take shell
ter under the wings OF the Federal
court, and laugh our tax-colloctors
to scorn ?'-CoLUMBUs DEMOCRAT.
! Not quito so bad as that. The ..
S. District Court in its opinion in
the case OF W. B. Duncan, ct al, re-
coivers, VS.. o. A. Gordon, ct al,
says:
at has been again and again de-
cded that the States can pass no
laws binding upon the United
States controlling the judicial action
Of the Federal Courts, and not
adopted by Congress and made in
pursuance of SAID legislative au>
thority Of the United States.
"That receiver appointed by a
court Of equity to receive, held and
manage property in litigation,
pending litigation, is but the officer
of the court, or as some writers OK
press it, part Of the court it.
self, and as such are not sub
ject to suit without leave Of the
court first obtained, and especially
are they not subject to suit in any
other court than that by which they
are appointed. Such is The English
rule, and the rule in the Federal
Courts without exception.
1t seems from this that the tax
collectors are only required to OBJ
tain permission from Judge Hill to
follow the receivers of the road TO
their "shelter under the wings of
the Federal court" in order to en-
force their claims The question
to be decided is as to the legality of
the assessment, and il that is estab
lished, Judge Hill will neqer de
dine tG .aifoYi thg cygise<Ssf sf3csrs
the means Of collection -ABcrdssn
Examiner
Our State laws give a summary
process for the collection Of taxes
without the tedious process Of liti-
cation in the courts. In the case of
a raiIroad in the hands of receiver,
it appears from the above decision,
that this summary process is inoper
ative; that the State can collect taxes
on property within its limits-an
essential prerogative Of sovereignty
only by the Cat of a Federal
Judge; and that this Judge must
decide as to the legality OF the as
sessment, and, incidentally, as to
the power Of the State to impose
the tax.
Can not the Receiver appeal from
an adverse decision of the District
Judge to the Supreme Court of the
United States, and thereby delay
the collection Of the taxes several
years?
But that to which we desire to
cal! special attention, is, the en-
croachmenr of the Federal Govern
ment on the rights of the States
through the medium of its inferior
courts. Only a few weeks ago citi-
zeus Of Illinois and New York
("railroad rioters') were sentenced
to fine and Imprisonment without
indictment or trial by jury, by
Federal Judge for acts which were
crimes against the laws Of their re
spective States, on the ground that
these acts injuriously Affected fFop>
erty in the hands of receivers ap.
pointed by the Federal Courts.
We are not prepared to deny that
Judge Hills decision is good law.
That it is consonant with the Eng
lish decisions and practice there is
no doubt. There is but one SOW
ereignty in England from which
all the courts derive their powers.
In Mississippi, there IS dual SOW
ereignty, represented by dual ju-
dietary, We fear that the Federal
Courts ignore this consideration,
when they look to English decisions
for precedents in matters that so
radically affect tho sovereignty of
the States, as that under eonsidcra-
ton Judge Hill has, therefore, We
doubt not, American as well as
English precedents for his decision.
How completely it emasculates the
State, will appear to every one who
will give the subject due consid-
Grafton.
Query. Would it not be better
to stop building railroads, than to
build up a property and an interest
that may, by an event so very
probable in the life Of q railroad