Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1878-12-07
MOE JUDICIAL QUESTIONS.
From the ST. Louis Republican.

lFrom the ST. Louis Republican
1hs subject OF the extent of authority of the
United States courts over the ministerial Officers
OF rtste ami county is being narrowed down to
very delicate and critical point in this state.
In tn. case OF a suit against Buchap an county
on its bonds issued to railroads, the United
States court gave Judgment on the unpaid cou-
pons. The county court thcreupon levied
tax to pay this judgment, but after tn. tax
WAS collected it refused to pay it over to the
creditor. A peremptory mandaInus Was issued
from the United States court commanding the
county judges to pay the dem and, but two OF the
three persisted in their refusal, and, through
their counsel. moved to arrest further procec,t-
ings on the ground that there is no authority in
the United States court to maintain them-or. IN
plaih words. that the United States court, hav-
ing given Judgment against the county, is ct the
emu OF it's tether. and cannot go further
lnanother case, ugninst Lafayette county on
its township bonds, theid by the United States
court to be valid, and by the state supreme court
70 oe invalid) Judgment was given anu subse-
quently writ of mandamus was issued reoulr-
Ing the levy of u tax to pay 1t. The county cour,
levied the tax Q0 cents on the 500 but the tax
payers refused to pay it, The collector seized
personal property belonging to delinquent tax
payers; but In some cases the property was re.
pevled under writs issned by the state circuit
court, ana restored to the owners, and in others
the property was exposed TO public sale, but
there were no bdders-ihe community making
common cause, having decided that no one
should bid on an others property. and thus de-
ieat the sale. The facts were reported to the
United States court, and /! declared that the col
Iector should have kept on III iking seizures and
ouering properly for saIe-tilit ne had no right
to assume that because there were no bidders in
3 few Gases, there would be none III auy cas-:
and that he can exhaust his duty only by persi.-
ting In Selling property and exposing il for sal,.
II held, further. that it was tn. duty of the |
county court to contest the replGv suit,, and
thus bring the question involved before the
United States court
lh,re /, Il Case from Galloway county also in |
winch the county JUICES declined to l.vya tax
10 pay n judgment, "A, ordered by th. United
States court, on the ground that the assessment
books iad passed out of their control, and they
hE1e no authority, under the stale laws TO re-
Call them and make the special tax levy. There
are other Gases beside these. but all tend to the
same POint-the authority of the United 5 tai,s
court 10 make use OF county Judges, collectors |
anu trsasureIs, who are all governed hy strict
state laws, TO go beyond these state laws in Il e
execution OF the process of the federal court |
Inc question ID interesting enough, even where
mere Is no Conflict between the federal aui the |
state courts; but 1t becomes dOubiy so when the |
federal courts command Ministerial Office of |
Tie county to do u thing which the state Courts |
declare TO be unlawful and forbid him to do |
inns Stage has not been reached yet, but II IS not
easy u sec how II can be avoided much longer if |
Tue proceedings go on in the present direction