The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1893-11-29

reason OF lad management, watering OF stock
or wreckage wrought by bare majority o.
stock holders, who seize q railrond and run II
Ting the minority stockholders and stealing
their property. Too often alas the Conrts
are Instruments 10 carry out the robbery:
/ But while The powers OF receivers and the
rapidly Increasing latitude permitted them
! by the Courts have rested, in The main, on
| right principles and sound policy of preserve
Ing the property: many annses nave e. grown 20 up
4 no ground in equity for the decision OF the
Circuit and Supreme Courts in the cases we
are considering. It Is moi disputed by either
| OF these tribunals that taxes are preferred
lien on the property; and the
= CHEF JUSTICE
expresses himself very emphatIcally as to the
Fduty of the Circuit Court. He says: mo
dered exempt from the imposition of taxes
! by The government within whose Jurisdiction
the property is. and tho lien for lakes Is su-
lperior TO other liens whatsoever" In order
/ TO get an excuse, however, Tor allowing the
receiver to. resist the payment, and 10 para
llyze the State Government ln It's tfforls TO
collect ta1es. he continued: "The levy OF a
tax warrant, like The levy of an ordinary fes1
JuciuS, sequestrates the property TO answer
the exlgency writ, but property In the posses
slou of The receiver Is already In sequestra-
tion, held In equitable execution. and, while
the lien for taxes must be recognized and en-
forced, the orderly adminisl ration of Justice
requires this 10 be done by and under the
sanction OF the Court. II is the duty Of the
Court 10 see that II Is done aud seizure OF
the property against Its will can only be pred
icated upon the assumption that the Court
will fail In the discharge OF lis duty"
When 1t does fall. what then? Continuing
ne. says: whether the Sheriff was armed
with writ from the State Court or with
distress warrant from the County Treasurer,
4his property was as much Withdrawn from
bis reach as If II were beyond the territorial
simils OF the State. The inevitable conciu,
sion from, this must bs go, Il constitutional
principles are to be respected In government
al Standardization. It does not Involve inter-
Eruption In the payment OF taxes or dlsplace-
ment or i'm pairment of the lien therefor, but
on the contrary, 1t makes It the imperative
duty OF the Court to recognize as paramount,
and to enforce With promptness and vlgor,
the just claims Of the authorities for the pre-
pal revenues. And when controversies arise
as to the legality Of the tax claims, there
ought TO be no serious difficulty in adjusting
such controversies upon proper suggestion"
\ The Chief Justice here emphasizes the
| question OF constitutional rights, meaning, OF
course. The prohibition iorbldding interfer-
ence with each other by the Judicial, Execu-
tive and Legislative branches. But IL Is mon-
strous and tyrannical stretch of authority to
claim that the collection Of taxes on proper
~ in The hands OF q receiver Is an interler.
epce BY The Executive with the Judiciary,
and therefore unconstitutional. The levying
lot State taxes, which is done every year under
| the direction Of the Legislative branch and
ty fixed laws, carries with II the right TO col
lect u the levy is made according 70 law; and
if 1t is an interference TO collect, II Is On In.
reference to levy. tis as much contempt
| Of The. Court TO levy without leave OF tho
Court ns tc, collect Without such leave. II Is
Jt.JIc,AL TYRANNY
In the face OF the plain provisions OF the Fell
eral and State laws, both bLG.ng alike upon
| tbe Judge, to include taxes In the.came cnte-
| gbry with other debts and claim jurisdiction
TO determine their legality under the pretext
cf a areceivership alone.
| To support this claim OF the inviolabllity
Of the receivers trust and his immunity from
molestation Of any and all kinds. 1t is every.
where asserled-ilerated aid reiterated until
ceiver ID the servant OF the Court, Its eye and
hand, q mere autonalon doing It's Will. II
such intimacy really exists, II the Judge is
, the receiver, and the receiver the Judge, does
| IL not follow that the Judge will be biased
ngainst claim which the receiver considers
unjust or illegal, and hat he Is not the prop
right to Judge his own case ? Does II ever oc-
cur that the Court is the servant, and the re-
ceiver the master; that the
TAIL WAGs THE DOG,
| 80 10 speak, and the unholy alliance claiming
aud exercising undisruted control and sur
veilancc over millions anu hundreds OF mil.
| lions. has wrought Injustice and wrong, and
is stencil in the noStrils and cries aloud for
correction? We Will see later on.
AT the inception OF thls litigation iniune-
Lions Were granted out or hand ugainst every
Treasurer In the State. Without regard TO the
| lamounLinvOlved. AT the hearing, the plea
of the States counsel that The Jurisdiction Oi
! the Court did not extend to those cases where
| The amount involved was less than 1000, and
that the amounts In The different counties
could not be Jumped. was sIieeringly denied.
| rhe court knew beiLer hut was resolved to
mr. rpilrOudg lutlpa ROu1 yVDnld
hardly hear counsel Ut nil; the injunctions
| were made permanent; ANA II is begging the
question: mere dodse-to say that The Con.
stitutiOnal prohibition of interference by The
Executive; with the Judiciary required that
lenve must be obtained uf The Court TO levy
ON thepruperty when t:,e amount involved
rhe converse or the lirnls'xltlon is true that
lack lug jurisdiction, save through the receiv.
erAh1p, tile Injunction was IL suit against the
the State and an Inter ference by The Judicia-
| ry with the Executive. IL Is techulcal con.
Struction run mad, and Tire Supreme Court
warps out 0f all reas,,m the general prohi6i-
! tiOn against interference With property in the
hands of'the Court, Waiich was Intended TO
. apply 10 ordinary delE and ordinary occa-
| sions, whs n 1t Includes therein taxes legally
levied.
This assumption can only te bnsed on the
the bypothetis thai II Is The nature OF power
To seek It's own aggiHndiscment and that
Federal Judge can do no wrong Why should
the court obtain Jurisdiction In the matter OF
taxes, which 1t could not otherwise pass upon,
simply by reason OF the receiveIship? Why
should a bankrupt corporation obtain ininu-
nifty from the Suite law when O solvent one
caiinot obtain It? Why should q Federal
Judge throw the protecting arm Of his great
power uruund this class Of property, and give
4 receivers special privileges which no other
| taxpayers ran claim? III II Is law, 1t is not
rir ht. and think can show that 1t sneither.
have ALREADY pointed oRt % the prohIOa,itTn tn.
terence by the judiciary In any way With the
collection of taxes. Sec. 72l, U. s. Rev. ST.,
declsr,s: "The laws Of the several States.
Statutes uf The United States otherwise re.
qu!re or provide, shall be resurted as rules Of
decision IN trials at common law IN the
Courts Of the United States In cases where
| they apply"
! What right then did the Fedetal Court have
10 begin suit against the State through It's
officers to stay the co lection OF these taxes,
when IL Is expressly forbidden by the NJ
amendment 10 the United States Constitu-
lIun 10 do SO? Simply because the properly
WAS In the hands Of u receiver. "Ouly this
aud nothing more" The StateD sovereignty,
It's laws, the laws of Congress governing the
Court, were all mnde to stand aside aud the
States officers lmpris0ned; and for what? TO
! crcu!e inequality between taxpayers and
:, lIiuintain the "dignity" or the Circuit Court:
| lhe levy without the gracious permission or
the Judge and The rriu al TO release, notw ith-
standing that The Judge had no jurisdictlon
other than through the receirership, the
amount involved being less than $1,000, were
sufficient to make the Supreme Court sustain
this great wrong, and all upon the mere pre-
/ text that the taxes may be Illegal. Nay ! That
even Is not necessary now. But why should
a Judge have the right To pass upon the le-
gality or the illcgalily of It tax iu this
7, UNDERHAND AND ILLEGAL. WAY?
And then, after recliing the provisions, of our
State law, which forbade This usurpatinn, we
are tanniingy told By Chief Justice Fuller
that "the Legislature OF State cannot de-