The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1893-03-02
TIE STATE INUNDATED.
what the Charleston Sun Says About tho
Late Decision. ...

| Late Decision. ...
ohoer the above caption the Char
lesion Sun published an excellent ,di-
IIp.iai ~. iai vi Cne recent decision of the
| Unlted states Court in the rntIrn. n
cases. The editor thinks that the adj
| minlStratlOn made 4 fundamental mis-
| take when it attempted to discriminate
against any species OF property and to
| levy an unequal tax thereon, but. he
claims, that two wrongs does not make
| a right. That question was not under
discussion. The United States Su-
preme Court had declared the Circnit
Court without jurisdiction to enter in
TO the merits of The question. whose
of the corporations which were solvent,
were debarred by its decision Of Gurth.
er stay OF the States hand Not so the
lnSolycnt corporations. The very court
whose jurisdiction to pass On the OuPs-
ton was oVGrrIled declared that its in
Strnment and Organ-the receiver who
held the property Of the insolvent cor.
pOratiOn which bad been committed TO
It's chargt--HhS competent Judge to
decide upon the merits of the question
which Ii, the principal, had been de-
mcd the right to itqulre into, ;md that
IN this Indirect and scarcely merit |
worthy way 1t crull amt dil obtain
that jurisdiction over the subject mat
ter which it had been denied the right
to come by directly. This may I've law,
| it can scarcely be equity.
"One would naturally think that in
passing upon Il question ST. iar-reach-
| lrg and vast in It's results; so utterly
| reversing all ideas of common Justice
and equity, ANA opening the door to
such Il train Of ABUSES as may readily
he conceived vi, the august and learned
court would have laid down some un-
qucsti oned and salutary principle Of
law tn warrant It's policy; that it would
at least produce clear and uuamb;gu-
Gus precchentS compelling its action.
| lhere IS, however, l'c adequate princi-
pie Statcd--Only the assertion that re.
celVerS are not bound 20 pay Il tax in
their judgment Unlawful. without the
order OF the court; no preceCents quot
ed which are Ol conclusive author
lty'-'all Of them of persuasive author
ity,' merely.
ut does not become us to question
the stern, unbending integrity and inn
parlla!ltY OF the honorable and unim-
peachaole judges, but maywe not, with
, all due respect, ask if it would not have
been the part OF human wisdom, in
view of the UrivprsalNy of human
, weakness. for them to hpve viewed
WIN Suspicion precedentS, which, to
them, were merely 'perSuaSivp,' con-
, Slderlng, as they were unaVOl daEly
: compelled to do, That they were sitting
l in review Of Il matter in which, as they
| construed II, the very authority which
3 they exercised had been set aside and
: delied, ITS process had been ignored, and
: It's jurisdiction DOL only Questioned af.
= ter being asserted, hut overrulcI AMI
= reversed by a higher courL?
'N hat have thrn aSt N II h1l u q
q these persuasive ur1ce tents aud this
. faulty logic on uncertain principles ut
law Whlct defeat equity and Justice
= We have tie assertion tnat the recpiv.
. er OF an inSUlvrlit corporation can
/ question tn" legality of Il tax assess
3 nent, and deny the sovereign and sum.
l mary power Of the State to collect ITS
| revenue, where not Only the private
+ citizen and the solvent corporation eau
= not, but where the court itself. Of when
3 the receiver is the mere agent. is de
) MED the jurisdiction to question such
legality, except. us now ncld, in this
Indirect manner.
'But II the court is right III its Yir-
= tual decision that the statutory right
. OF receiver under the Federal law to
question the legality Of tax assess
ment at his dis cretiOu and to ObStruct
It's collection is paramount to the hith-
\ erto generally accepted doctrine Of the
sovereign ana essential right OF the
State to exercise its taxing preroga-
7 tive without outside interference. we
, are sure we are not eXtraYagant in
l. thinking that this principle in law has
| not been so well established and unde
| stood in the past that it should have
obtained universal acceptance without
, possibility or question on the pain Of
severe punishment to those who should
so lar presume upon the patti cnrc of
the court.
"On what principal or policy not too
DracOnlc Tor this mO'lern age does the
court, then. IN thIS case ignore the adj
monltlon OF great laW-givcr, whose
. preccptS though not in the books are
: sometimes little less than divine, to
| season Justice with mercy in the case
OF the SherllfS who believed, however
mistakenly. that they were performing
their duty IN carrying out their instruc-
tlOn3? W us IL a case and crcunStau-
ceS under which such severe penalties
could be WISELY imposed on them, con-
SldernR that their crime was merely
constructive at the worst?
us 1t not enough that the State is
enlightened with regard to the crrOne-
BUSINESS OF IFS f0rmer views. but the
necessity is also found 10 Impress il on
IVA W o'Nli pVNNlt 'tltt IltiltlS uIStl-
pine Ol her executive agents and in
StrumentS? Has it come to that pass
where aSLtte cann Vt test her sovereign
rights by effeciual--nay. aggressive -
action without having before her eyes
the unworthy fear and threat OF pun
iShment?
"As We have said before, we regard
the outcome OF these cases as very un-
fortunate, even if t. was the only legal
solution. 1t is unfortunate, we think
for the railroads, masmuch as it is es.
Sontial for them to have the good will
Of the people, and the impolcy Of an
tagonlZlng them, aS they must stand by
the State, would seem apparent, as sug-
gested in his speech by the able and jll-
dicial-minded counsel Of the respOn-
dents, Mr.. Samuel Lord, whose digest
Of the points presented in behalf of the
sheritfs is reproduced elsewhere in this
paper to-day.
"It is unfO,tunate to see some Of our
,Nn la 1lNx 81,