Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1893-03-02
Charleston Daily Sun.

the Supreme Court of the United states
in such cases.
charleston Daily Sum-
We are bound to say that we consider
as most unfortunate the result OF the
preliminary sk;rmish between the State
and the United States Courts on the
question of the liability and status of
insolvent corporations in the hands of
receivers as regards their relations to the
sovereign power Of the State and its
hitherto scarcely disputed prerogative OF
assessing and collecting the taxes 1t
deems necessary for the Purposes OF COW
ernment, for this was the issue which
was really passed upon by Judges Goff
and Simonton in the United States Cir
cult Court yesterday. no matter upon
what side issues the question was
branched off through the ramifcat;ons
of legal technicality and the application
of inconclus:ve precedents.
We reitera.e what we have said before,
that we deem the administration to have
made fundamental mistake when it
attempted to discriminate against any
species of property and to levy an
unequal tax thereon. But two wrongs
DO not make right. This question
c;,mittedly was not under discussion.
The Supreme Court had, after due pro-
cess, declared this court without juris-
diction to enter into the merits OF that
question. Those of the corporations
which were solvent were debarred by its
decision of further stay of the States
hand. Not so the inSolvent corporations.
The very court whose jurisdiction to
pass on the question was overruled
declared that its instrument and organ
the receiver who held the property of the
insolvent corporation which Lad been
committed to its charge-waS compe-
tent judge to decide upon the merits of
the question which it, the principal, had
been denied the right to inquire into,
and that in this indirect and scarcely
merit worthy way it could and did obtain
that jurisdiction over the subject matter
which it had been denied the right to
come by directly. This may be law; 1t
can scarcely De equity.
One would naturally think that in
passing upon question so far-reaching
and vast in is results, so utterly revers-
ing all ideas of comman justice and
equity. and opening the door to such a
train of abuses as may readily be con-
ceived of, the august and learned court
would have lid down some unQuestioned
and salutary principle of law to warrant
its policy; that it would at least produce
clear and unambiguous precedents COM
pelling its action.
There is, however, no adequate priaci-
pie stated-only the assertion that ''re
ceivers are not bound to pay a tax in
their Judgment unlawful. without the
order Of the court no precedents quoted
which are OF Conclusive authority
'.all OF them of persuasive authority,
merely.
1t does not become US TO question the
stern, unbending integrity and impair
tiality of the honorable aud unimpeacha-
bic judges. bnt may we not, with all .e
respect, ask if it would not have been
the pars of human wisdom. in view Of the
universality of human weakness, for them
to have viewed with suspicion prece-
dents. which, TO them, were merely per
suasive,' considering, as they were una
voidably compelled to do, that they were
sitting in review OF a matter in which. as
thev construed it, the very authority
which they exercised had been set aside
and defed, its process had been ignored,
and its jurisdiction not only questioned
after being asserted, but overruled and
reversed by a aigher court?
What have we, then, established by
these persuasive precedents and this
faulty logic On uncertain principles Of
law. which defeat equity and justice?
We have the assertion that the receiver
of an insolvent corporation can question
the legality of tax assessment, and
deny the sovereign and summary power
of the State to collect its revenue, where
not only the private citizen and the sol
vent corporation cannot, but where the
court itself. of which the receiver is the
mere agent, is denied the jurisdiction to
question such legality, except, as now
held, in this indirect manner.
But if the court is right in its virtual
decision that the statutory right OF a
receiver. undey the Federal law, to qucs-
ton the legality of tax assessment at
his discretion and to obstruct its colec-
ton is paramount to the hitherto gene
rally accepted doctrine Of the sovereign
and essential right of the State to exer-
else it's taxing prerogative without out
side interference. we are sure we are not
extravagant in thinking that this prin-
chile in law has not been so well estab-
lished and understood in the past that
it should have obtained universal accept
ance without possibility If question on
the pain OF severe punishment to those
who should so far presume upon the
patience of the court.
On what principle or policy, not too
Draconic for this modern age, does the
court. then, in this case ignore the admo-
milton of great law-giver, whose pre-
cepts, though not in the books, are some
times little less than divine, to season JUS
ticewith mercy in the case of the Sheriffs,
who believed, howe er mistakenly, that
they were performing their duty IN carry
ing out their instructions?
Was it case and circumstances under
which such severe penalties could be
wisely imposed on them, considering
that their crime was merely constructive
at the worst? :
Is it not enough that the State is
enlightened with regard to the erroneous
ness of its former views? But the neces-
sity is also fouad to impress it on her by