The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1893-04-26
VICTORY FOR TIE RAILROADS.
The Tax Cases Decided Against the State
The Federal Supreme Court Declares
the Seizure of the Railroads. Pro-
perty Upjustiiable and the Tax
IayieS E1cessfye
Especial to The State. I

prelne Court or the UnlteQ STATES mas
passed final judgment upon the South
Carolina railroad tax cases, and the
decision is against the State authori-
ties.
The case came up on the petition of
Sheriff Tyler, of Aiken County, for a
writ Of habeas corpus to release him
from imprisonment under the judg-
ment of the Circuit Court of the United
States, that he be fined $500 for con-
tempt. He had seized a train on the
South Carolina Railroad upon a war
rant issued by the State authorities for
collection of taxes. which were in con-
troversy. The road was in the hands
of a receiver appointed by the United
States Court, and he was adjudged
guilty of contempt for failing to release
the property under the order of the
court. He came to the Supreme Court
for relief.
Chief Justice Fuller delivered the
opinion of the court. After reviewing
the history of the case, which is fully
known to the public, he said that un-
less the order of commitment was utter
ly void for want of power, the app!ica-
ton of the petitioner must be denied.
Continuing he said in substance:
The property in question was in the
custody of the Circuit Court in cause
within its jurisdiction and protected by
an injunction. The power exercised
was to protect the property in the Gus
tody Of the court. No rule is better
settled than that, when court has ap-
pointed receiver, his possession is the
possession Of the court, for the benefit
of the parties to the suit, and cannot
be disturbed without the leave of the
court; and if any person Intentionally
interferes with such possession, he ne
cessarily commits contempt of the
court.
Ordinarily the court will not allow
it's receiver to be sued touching the
property in his charge. In this case,
instead of issuing an attachment
against the petitioner at once for forci-
bly, seizing the rolling stock of this
railroad, the court adopted the course
of serving him with a rule to show
cause and with All order restraining
him from interfering with the prop
erty.
The general doctrine that property
in the possession Of a receiver and that
any one interfering is in contempt is
conceded; but it is contended that this
rule has no application to the collection
of taxes. The maintenance of the sys-
tenn of checks and balances character
istic of republican institutions requires
the coordinate departments of govern
ment, whether Federal or State, to re-
frain from any infringement of the in
dependence of each other, and the pos
session of property by the judicial de-
partment cannot be arbitrarily en-
croached upon.
The levy of tax warrant, like the
levy of an ordinary fieri facias, seques-
trates the property to answer the ext
gency of the writ; but property in the
possession of receiver is already in
sequestration and already held in equi-
table execution, While the lien for
taxes must be recognized and enforced,
it must be done under the sanction Of
the court. 1t is the duty of the court
to see to it that this is done, and seizure
of property against its will is an as
sumption carrying contempt on its
face.
Chief Justice Fuller then cited for
mer decisions in such cases, which he
said were very few. The attempt to
seize property in the court by a foreign
body is futile and void. He continued:
The inevitable conclusion that this is
so, if constitutional principles are to be
respected, does not involve Interrupt
ton in the payment of taxes, but, on
the contrary, it makes the imperative
duty of that court to recognize the just
claims of the authorities for the pre-
-scrihea coctS;;bg:.onssssssSs:c'tss -aadailia-.
nicipal revenue; and when contro-
versy arises as to the legality of the tax
claimed, there ought to be no serious
difficulty in adjusting such controversy.
The Courts of the United States have
always recognized the Importance of
leaving the powers Of the State in re-
spect to taxation unimpaired. Where
the Constitution and laws of the United
States are drawn in question, the Courts
of the United States must determine
the controversy for themselves.
Such was the aspect of this case, pro-
ceeded the Chief Justice. The receiver
had denied the validity of distinctive
portion of the annual taxes, and, under
the direction of the court, had proceed
ed by bill, to test the question in refer
ence to the levy for the previous fiscal
years. Injunction had been granted,
issues made up, and the case stood for
final hearing. The alleged illegality ex-
listed IN the levy for the current year.
The receiver paid the undisputed taxes,
and upon the fol:i. Intervention OF
the collectors to compel payment Of the
balance, brought the controverted point
again to the attention Of the court in
his application for the protection of the
property.
The reasnnableness of the contention
that it would have been wiser in this
Instance, for the Circuit Court TO have
directed the receiver to pay these taxes
and bring suits at law III nine different
courts against The county treasurers of
as many counties, to Recover them back,
need not be passed upon here.
The jurisdiction exercised 10y the Cir
cult Court had r.ll;io,i to The property
in it1 custody, and the proceeding be-
fore US relates only ~ its exercise of
power in the pr,ler' on of that proper
ty from unauthorized seizure.
The stress of the argument Of the pc
tilioner is placed lpm the proposition
that this proceeding is void, becaIse it
is suit against State and forbidden
by the eleventh amendment. But this
begs the question.
The petitioner was either in con-
tempt, or be was not. The property
was in the custody Of the Circuit Court,
aud if such possession could not be
lawfully interfered with; the petitioner
is in contempt.
And, apart from the question of the
validity Of such legislation, we know
of no statute of South Carolina that at
tempts to empower its Officers to seize
property in the possession of the judi
cial department of the State, much less
in that Of the United States.
The levies were, moreover, excessive,
and made in large part ou property
other than that of TIE defendants, and
in such way and on such property as
obstructed the operation Of The railroad.
No leave of court was sou ,nt, and it
was known, moreover, that the legality
of the amount unpaid was disputed by
the receiver, and that the identical tax
alton had been held by the court to be