Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1893-02-16
A Question Of State Sovereignty.
fColumbia Journal, February o.

| tue TdlIOdO COlupdulCS alleA VIC A1ce'0o VI
South Carolina the issues involved arc of
too serious character and consequence,
the law on the subject too elaborate and
the plain plan for the assessment and
collection of taxes too clear to conclude
that in this instance it is passion and not
judgment that prompts the unusual. and
summary action emanating from the
Executive.
A question of State sovereignty is
involved. a position is taken on the one
hand, which, if maintained, will paralyze
the arm of our State in the ecfo rcement
of her laws We are fairly facing a
grave question and a serious situation,
the result of which will make its impress
a,ld materially affect the administration
and enforcement of our laws in the
future. Entirely irrespective Of party
factions, with the present Governor Of
the State entirely eliminated in his per-
sonality, from the matter. we must con-
slider this question with care and sin
cerity.
1t is to be deeply deplored that trains
chained to the tack in different parts Of
the State are causing temporary cessa-
ton of traffic and corresponding suffer
ing and injury to consignees of freight.
To say the least of it, the State has a
lrima tacie case, and it is only demon
stration of partisanship and prejudice to
hold the State. through her officers,
entirely responsible for the unfortunate
condition of affairs.
Our morning contemporary, the state,
in an effort to dismiss this feature of the
case from the pending controversy and
relieve the railroads from any portion
of blame. says that sit is not the ~ish
of the railroads that their trains are
chained to the tracks and prevented from
performing their functions, and, there
fore. they cannot be held responsible
Far. indeed, is it from their wish that
they should be thus dealt with, but it is
a primary principle of justice that those
who ask equity must do equity. One
cannot take advantage of his own wrong,
nor can the plea of self-defense be COM
pletcly established unless the party max
ing such claim can come into court with
clean hands and evidence of not having
provoked the difficulty.
In the matter under consideration it is
a pertinent question to ask the railroad
companies if they come within the scope
of these we'll defined principles.
South Carolina as a sovereign State has
an undisputed right TO enact laws for
the levy and collection of her taxes and
through her officers has the highest and
most solemn right to enforce the co'ec-
ton of those taxes as prescribed by her
legally existing and duly enacted laws.
In the matters at issue the questions
OF jurisdiction and reccivership enter,
and. it is claimed by the railroad COM
panies. to such an extent as to qualify
the exercise of the States rights and
procedure as now legally prescribed.
As the agents OF the Federal Court and
its appointces receivers are practically
running many of the railroads traversing
our State, ard the position taken by
their officials at this time is that the
State cannot. even in enforcing the COZ
lection of her taxes, take any action
against them which would prevent or
curtail the administration of their affairs
by the duly appointed receivers. and if
sucli action is taken it must be by reSu-
lar petition to, and permission of, the
Federal Court from which emanated the
and powers of the said
receivers.
They claim. further, that it is in con-
tempt of this Federal Court for Sheriff
to levy upon property that IS in its quasi
possession.
We have not the time nor space to go
into an elaborate refutation OF these posi-
tons nor into voluminous citation OF
standing squarely in support
of the State in her position that she can
enact and enforce her own laws in ner
own sovereign Wa
The highest authorities on this ques-
ton, which has really never been fully
settled in the Supreme Court. support
The position that property in the hands
of receivers is not exempt from seizure
and sale for the collection of taxes. and
that in levying and collecting taxes
state is exercising her sovereign power.
In more than one case reported Judge
Brewer now on the Supreme Bench,
held this position, and we quote his
words here.
In the matter where Sheriff is claimed
to be in contempt in levying upon prop
erty in the hands of receivers the posi-
ton of the State. if true in any instance.
is equally so in the position that such
receivers go beyond their powers IN
to exercise authority which !
would result ii an estoppel of the States
officers in collecting, in the legally pre-
scribed way. the taxes lawfully due. and !
the matter of contempt is effectually dis
posed of by the late Justice Matthews,
Of the United States Supreme Court, in
his following language upon case lnvolv-
ing the same question. He says:
when court of the United States |
by It. process of contempt to
punish a man for refusing to comply I
with an order which that court had no
authority to make, the order itself being
without jurisdiction. is void, and the
order Furnishing for contempt is equally
void, and when the proceedings for con-
tempt in such case results in imprison-
q mt this court will, by its writ OF hateoS
corpus, discharge the prisoner.
If there is anything in State sover
eignty-anythins in her power and posi-
ton to regulate her own affairs-it is of
peculiar significance in this matter of
,he collection of her taxes. This same
eminent jurist says, in commenting on
.he case just referred to:
THE very object and purpose of the
eleventh amendment of the constitution
vas to prevent the indignity of subject
ne State to the coercive process of
judicial tribunals at the instance of pri-
,ate parties. 1t was thought to be nei-