The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1893-02-22


to legality of the valuation made in this
case and the discrimination and the
right and duty of the Court to interfere
therein was heard. The excess was
pronounced void. This decision has
not been reversed. It has not been ap-
pealed from. It is an authority of great
weight with us. Indeed, as there is yet
an opportunity of reviewing it III the
Supreme Court, we would at all events
await the result of such all appeal.
When, therefore, the receiver comes
into this Court and asks instructions,
predicating his action on the decision
in this case, we grant him relief by sus-
pending the collection Of the tax until
the presumption of the soundness Of
this case has been overcome. Besides
this, we would not in this collateral
way on rule pass upon the question
either Of the validity or of the invalid
ity Of this tax.
The only remaining question is as to
the jurisdiction of the Court and its
right to protect the property. BY the
case of Bound vs.. the Railway Com
pany, as we have seen, all the property
of the South Carolina Railway within
this State came under the jurisdiction
of this Court. 1t assumed possession
of this property, and it thus has juris-
diction over the entire subject matter,
every part and parcel thereof. All prop
erty in the hands of receiver is in the
custody Of the Court. No one, whaever
he may be, can interfere with it with
out the sanction or permission Of the
Court. Wiswall VS.. Sampson, IA How,
50.
The learned counsel, who replied for
the sheriffs with a frankness which
does him great credit, admitted the
general rule as to the sanctity of prop
erty in the hands Of Court; and that
when jurisdiction has once attached in
this Circuit Court in the original case
| it can extend its protection to property
even if its value be less than 50, 900.
He contends that to this general prop
ositon there is one exception, when the
officers of State come in and take the
property for taxation. He argues that
the taxing power is a high exercise of
sovereignty, and that to permits Court
to interfere with the collection of tax
is to invade the sovereign right and to
embarrass the Government. But we
have seen that Courts all over this
country have entertained cases involv-
ing the validity of a State tax, in many
cases imposed by the Legislature, and
in very many instances have declared
the tax invalid of State Legislatures,
in whom are vested more of the attrib-
utes Of sovereignty than any other de-
partment of the State Governments.
There are many cases Of this kind in
the reports of the Courts of South Caro-
lima. In Hand VS.. Railroad Company,
II South Carolina, 22l, upon claim
made by the State for taxes upon prop
erty in the hands of receiver, the
Court examined into the validity ofthe
claim and rejected it. In the very re-
cent cases of National Bank VS.. Cromer,
35 South Carolina, 230; the State, ex
rel. VS.. Boyd, IS South Carolina, 233,
the Supreme Court of South Carolina
examined into the validity of the ac-
ton of the Comptroller General in
matter of the assessment of property
for taxation, and after examination set
it aside. The Court quotes with ap-
proval, the language of Moses, Cb. j.,
in the State VS.. County Treasurers, 4
South Carolina, 500: "The power to tax
is the most extensive and unlimited of
all the powers which legislative body
can exert. 1t is without restraint ex-
cept by constitutional restrictions. To
tie up the hand (of the Court) that can
alone resist its unlawful encroachment
would not only render uncertain the
tenure by which the citizen holds his
property, but makes it tributary to the
uprestraiDed demands of the Legisla-
ture."
The language of Miller, Justice, in
United States VS.. Lee, l06, y. S. 22O, is
not notinappropriate: "The defense stands
here solely upon the absolute immun-
ity from Judicial inquiry of everyone
who asserts authority from the execu-
tive branch of the Government, how
ever clear it may be made that the
executive possessed no such power. Not
only 70 such power is given, but it is
absolutely prohibited, both to the ex-
ecutive and the legislative"
It is not claimed that the State, in
order to obtain payment of its taxes,
must come into Court by petition and
get an order for it. On the contrary, as
has beeu said, the paramount right of
the State has always been and is ac-
knowledged, recognized and faithfully
preserved. Without any interference
whatever on her part her priority is
maintained and observed. But when
persons assuming TO act in the name of
the State seize upon, without notice,
and assert exclusive possession Of prop
erty in the hands Of the receiver and
under the protection of this Court, and
whilst so assuming to act take property
greatly in excess of the sum claimed,
the Court must and will interfere.
At the hearing number Of afHdavits
were read. Going to the issue was this
legal tax? Upon rule of this kind
it is not competent for us to go into this
question. It must be made in direct
proceeding. Such proceedings are al
| Wo rnooo-