Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1893-02-23
Jurisdiction Of the court, and, its

Jurisdiction Of the court, and its
right to protect the property.
By the case Of Bound VS.. the
Railway Company, as we have
seen, all the property of the South
Carolina Railway within!this State
came under the jurisiction Of this
court. 1t assumed possession of
this property and it thus has
jurisdiction over the entire sub
iect matter, every part and par
eel thereof. All property in the
hands of a receiver is in the custody
of the court. No one, whoever ne
may, be can intesfere. with IT.
without the sanction or permission
of the Court. Wiswrlt vs.. Sampson,
IA How. 50.
The learned counsel who replied
for the sherifs, with frankness
which does him great credit, ad-
mitted the general rule as to the
sanctity of property in the hands
of n court. And that when jurls-
diction has once attached III this
Circuit Court in the original case,
Il can extend it's protection to
property even if its value be less
than $4,000. He contends that to
this general proposition there is
one exception, when the officers OF
a State come in and take, the prop
erty for taxation. He argues that
the taxing power isa high exercise
of sovereignty, and that to permit
a court to interfere with the col
lection of tax is to invade the
sovereign right and to embarras'
the government.
But we have seen that courts all
ever this country have entertained
cases involving tho validity OF a
State tax. in many cases imposed
by the Legislature. and. in very
many instances have declared 1ne
tax invalid, of State Legislatures
IN whom are vested more OF tine
attributes of sovereignty than any
other departments Of the stare
governments. !.
There are many cases OF this
kind in the reports of the courts
Of South Carolina. In Hand VS.
Railroad Company, II Sc, 22l'
upon a claim mad" by the State
for taxes upol. property in ah;
hands of a receiver, the court ex-
amined into the validity OF the
claim and rejected if. In the very
recent cases of National Bank VS.
cromer, So S. c., 23o; the State
~ rol Va. Aoyd, 35S. c., 233;; the
supreme Court of South Carolina
examined into the validity OF the
action of the Comptroller General
in a matter of the assessment OF
property for taxation, and aI.el
examination set it aside. The
court quotes with approval the
language of Moses, CD, Y sne 2.
State VS.. County Treasurers' - :;
The power to tax is the most ex-
tensive and unlimited Of all the
powers which a Legislative body
can exert. 1t is without restraint.
except by constitutional restric-
tions. TO tie up the hand OF the
court) that can alone resist its un,
lawful encroachment would not
only render uncertain the. tenure
by which the citizen holds his
property, but makes it tributary to
the unrestrained demands of the
Legislature. it,
in United States VS.. Lee, 106 U. s.,
22o, is not inappropriate: The
defense stands here solely upon
the absolute immunity from judi
cial inquiry of every one who as as
serts authority from the executive
branch Of the government, how
ever clear it may be made that the
executive possessed no such power.
Not only no such power is given,
but it is absolutely prohibited, both
to the executive and the leglsla-
tive"
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 been said
the paramount right OF the state
has always been acknowledged
recognized and faithfully Preser-
we'd. Without any interferece
whatever on her part her priority
is maintained ard observed. But
when persons assuming to act IN
the name of the State seize upon,
without notice, and assert essdslve
possession of property in the
hands of the receiver and under the
protection of this court, and
whilst so assuming to act take pro-