The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-04-25
A SETBACK FOR TILLMAN.
South Cardinals Tax Cases Go
Against Him.

The United states supreme court De
cides That the Sheriffs Had No Right
to Seize the Property in Possession
of the United States Court Text of
the Decision.
Washington, April a The South Car
DINA tax cases were passed upon by the
supreme court Of the United States to-
day. the opinion being delivered by Chief
Justice Fuller. 1t came up on a petition
of sheriff TYLER of Aiken county for a
writ of habeas corpus to release him from
Imprisonment under the judgment Of the
circuit court Of the United States that he
be fined 500 for contempt. He had seized a
train on the South Carolina rail
road upon warrant issued
bv the state authorities for the
collection of taxes, which were
in controversy. The road was in the
hands of a receiver, appointed by the
United States cOurt, and he was adludged
guilty Of contempt for failing 10 release
the property under order of the court
He came to the supreme court for relief
Justice Fuller read an opinion which
contained much stronger language than
is usually found in such documents, deny
inC the application of the petitioner for a
writ. He said the seizure of the prop
erty by force was unluStlhdDle and could
not be defended. The claims Of the state
rule which makes property placed in the
hands of d receiver subject to the orders of
the court; they are to be determined
in the regular way and in the proper
manner The action of the circuit court,
Chief Justice Fuller said, was in no sense
an action against the state Of South Caro-
lima, which, il was concluded, could not
be maintained under the eleventh amend
ment TO the constitution. In conclusion
he said the circuit court was equipped
with the fullest power to protect its dig
nifty and to enforce its mandates, and its
use of these powers in the case in point
could not be reviewed here. Therefore,
the petition for writ of habeas corpus
was denied.
The same Judgment was announced in
the cases of Sheriffs Riser and Gaines,
who came to the supreme court of the
United States with Sheriff Tyler for re
lief.
CUsTODIA LEGIs.
In the course of his opinion Chief Justice
Fuller said;
The general doctrine that the property in
possession Of receiver appointed by the
court is in custOdia legs. and that unauthOr
lied interference with such possession is
punishable as contempt is conceded, hut 1t
is commended that this statutory rule has no
application to the collection of taxes. I'm
doubtedly property so situated is not thereby
rendered exempt from the imposition of taxes
by the government within whose jurisdiction
the property Is, and lien for taxes is
superior to all other liens whatsoever. except
judicial costs, when the property is rightfully
In the custody OF the law. But this does not
justify physical invasion Of such custody and
wantOn disregard OF the orders OF the court
in res ect Of it. The maintenance of the
system Of checks and balances Characteristic |
of republican institutions requires CO-Ordl- !
nate departments OF the government, whether |
federal or state, to refrain from infringement !
of the Independence Of each other and the
g.
ment cannot be arbitrarily encroached upon,
save in violation Of this fundamental princi-
pie
an ordinary heri faCas, sequestrates prop
erty to answer an eXiRenCY of writ; but prop
erty in fht possession Of a receiver is already
in sequestration-alrea held in equitable
execution, and while q lien for taxes must be
recognized and enforced orderly admins
tration OF Justice requires this to be done by
and under the sanction OF the court 1t is
the duty of the court to see to 1t
that this is done. and seizure of prop
erty against its win can only be predicated
upon the assumption that the court will fail
in the discharge Of its duty
II such be the ordinary rule in state courts.
ii is quite apparent thati is the only one that
can be properly applied where property is in
the custody Of courts Of the United States
Their officers are agents of the United States
and, without an order OF the court appointing
them, they are in duty bound TO hold the
property and refer those who would inter
fere with 1t to the court.
These principles are applicable here for
whether the sherlffs were armed with a writ
from the state court or with a distress war
rant from a county treasurer. this property
was as much Withdrawn from his reach as if
il were beyond the territorial limits of the
state
The courts of the United States have al
ways recognized the importance of leaving
the powers of state in respect to taxation
unimpaired. Where decisions involved arise
under the state constitution and laws the de
cisions Of its highest tribunal are accepted
ROLL
laws of the United States are drawn in cues
tion, the courts OF the United States must de
termine the controversy for themselves.
The reasonableness of the contention that
ii would have been wiser, in this instance
for the circuit court TO have directed the re
ceiver to pay these taxes and bring suits
at law in nine different courts against the
county treasurers Of as many counties to re
cover them back, need not be passed upon
The jurisdiction exercised by the circuit
court had fallen on the property in its Gus
fody, and the proceedings before us relate
only to its exercise Of power in the protection
OF that property from unauthorized seizure,
The stress of the argument, however, on be
half OF the petitioner, is placed upon the
proposition that this proceeding is void be
cause II is in fact, a suit against the state
and forbidden by the eleventh amendment:
hut this begs the question under consideration.
The petitioner was either in contempt or was
not This property was in the custody of the
circuit court under possession taken in a
cause confessed within its jurisdi ton II
such possession could not be lawfully inter
Tered with the petitioner was in contempt.
We know of no statute of South Carolina that
attempts to empower its officers to seize prop
erty in possession of the judicial department
OF the state, much less in that Of the United
States.
The levies here were excessive, were made
IN large part on property other than that of
the defendants and in such way and on such
property as INSTRUCTED the operation of the
railroad No leave Of the court was sought,
and 1t was known that the legality of the
amount unpaid was disputed by the receiver
and hat tool - nod
ously held by the court to be illegal. The
sheriff declined upon request. TO release the
property from seizure, or to yield to the order
of the court.
Such conduct was not to be tolerated and
the court was possessed of full power to vim
olcate its dignity and compel restoration to
Its mandate. Its action - that end is not
subject TO review upon this application