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

s 70 1867 81 SIS Is ios 90 ll s.
ss7 81 4sl IS 4ir,238 81 sI9s6os So 259.ssl 90
bankruptcy In which they are Involved by
reason Of bad management, watering OF stocA
or wreckage wrought by a bare minority Q
in their own interests. with view Of defraud
ing the minority stockholders and stealing
their property. Too often alas the Conrts
are Instruments to carry ont the robbery; ,,e
rapidly increasing latitude permitted them
by the Courts have rested, In The main. on
| right principles and sound policy OF preserv-
the aonses have row
no ground in equity for the decision OF the
Circuit and Supreme Courts In the cases we
are considering. It Ia moi disputed by either
OF these tribunals that taxes are preferred
lien OH the property; and the
CHIEF JUSTICE
expresses himself very emphatically as TO the
duty of the Circuit Court. He says: "No
doubt property 30 situated is not thereby rem. q.
by The government within whose jurisdiction
the property is. and the lien for taxes Ia su-
perlor to other liens whatsoever" In order
10 get an excuse. however, for allowing the
receiver 10 resistthe payment. and 70 para
lyze the State Government in Its efforts To
collect taxes. he continued: '.The levy Of q
tax warrant, like the levy Of an ordinary fei1
Gcts segneslrstes the property 10 10 ans%er nossss
sion OK The receiver Is already IN sequestra'
tIon. held In equitable execution: and, while
the lien for taxes must be recognized ana en-
forced, the orderly administration Of justice
requires this TO be done by and under the
sanction OF the Court. II Is tue duty of the
Court To ace that IL ls done aud q seizure OF
the property against Its VIII can only be pred pred,
lcated upon the assumption that the Court
will fail In the discharge OF It's duly"
When 1t does fail. what then Continuing
he says: aWhether the Sheriff was armed
with writ from the State Court or with
this property was ns much Withdrawn from
bis reach as If It wore beyond the territorial!
Limits OF the State. The inevitable concln.
sion from this must be 80. if constitutional
principles are to be respected in government.
al administration. It does not inv volve inter-
rnption In the payment OF taxes or disp'ace.
ment or impairment OF the Hen lhereIor, put
on the contrary, IT. makes II the imperative
duty OF the Court 70 recognize as paramount,
and to enforce with prcmptness and vigor,
the Just claims Of the authorities for the pre-
scribed contribution to the State and lnunlci.
pal revenues. AND when controversies arIse
rs 10 the legality Of the tax claims, there
ought TO be no serious difficulty in adjusting
such controvel sIes upon proper suggestion"
question Of Constitutional rights, meaning. Of
course. the prohibition forbidding interfer-
ence with each other by the Judicial Execu-
tive and Legislative branches. But u Is mon
claim that the collection sSef.taxcs- On proper
ty in The sn6a q receiver Is All interfer-
fs6cs 5y the Executive with the Judiciary,
and therefore Unconstitutional. The levying
OF State taxes, which Is done every year under
the direction OF the Legislative branch and
by dxed laws, carries with II the right TO col.
lect II the leVy is made according TO law; and
if It Is an interference TO collect, II is an In.
farforanHQ n q q q fnntQm
Of the Court 70 levy without leave OF the
Court as 10 collect without such leave. 1t Is
JUDICIAL TYRANNY
In the face OF the plain provisions OF the Fed
eral and State laws both binding alike upon
the Judge. to include taxes In the same cate
CORY with other debts and claim jurisdiction
10 determine their legality under the pretext
OF receivershlp alone.
To support this claim OF the invlolabillty
Of the receivers trust and his immunity from
molestation Of any and all kinds. It ts every
where asseried-1teraied and reiterated until
we grow weary OF the falsehood-lhat The re:
ceive- is the servant OF the Court, its eye and
hand mere .automaton doing Its will. II
suchi. macy really exists, II the Judge is
the re er, and the receiver the Judge, does
IL. follow that the Judge will be biassed
agai lst claim which ths receiver considers
uujus or illegal, and that he Is mol the prop
or person to pass upon II? Shall he have the
right tu Judge bis own case? Does II ever oc.
ceiver the master; thatt the
TAIL wAGs THE DOG,
so TO speak, and the unholy alliance claiming
and exercising undlsputed control and sur
veillance over millions nn,l hundreds of>inil-
lions. has wrought Injustice aud wrong, and
Ia stencil In the nostrllS and cries aloud for
correction? We Will yce later on,
AT the Inception of this litigation inlune-
Iions were granted out OF tnnd against every
Fro fIH<rS ffn rnrdt
amount involved. AT the hearing, the plea
of the States counsel that the Jurisdiction Of
the Court did not extend 10 those cases where
the amount In volvcd was less than - 900. and
that the amounts in the different counties
could not be Jumped, WINS sneerngly denied.
The court knew better hut was resolved 10
protect tho RAILROADS.. Judge Bond would
hardly hear counsel at all; the injunctions
| were made permanent; nn,l II Is begging the
question: mere d0ise-lO ray that the Con.
stitutiOnal prohibition 0f interference by the
Executive with the Judiciary required that
leave must be obtained uf tho Court TO levy
on The property when TIE amount involved
clearly lett the Judge Without jurisdiction.
the converse or the proposition Is true that
lacking gurlsdictlnn, save through The recelV.
ersbip, The injunction was u suit against the
the State and Nh interference by the Judicial
ry with the Executive. IL ls technical con.
struction run mad, und tfe Supreme Court
warps out OF all reasnn tile general prohibi-
tion agnlnst interference with property In the
apply 10 ordinary dects and ordinary Occa-
sions, when 1t includes therein taxes legally
levied.
This assumption c,ln only be based on the
the hypothesis that II ia the nature Of power
To seek its own ACKNOWLEDGEMENT and that Q
Federal Judge can hU no wrong. Why should
the Court 0btain Jurisdiction In the matter OF
taxes, which 1t could not otherwise pass upon,
should bankrupt corporation obtain imin u
nifty from the Sintel law when q solvent one
cannot obtain It? Why should a Federal
Judge throw the protecting arm o! bis great
power around this class OF property, and give
receivers special privileges which no other
taxpayers can claim {? II II Is law, 1t Is not
ripht and think can show that It is neither.
on 1ae
terence by the Judiciary In any wny With the
collection OF taxes, Sec. 721, u. s. Rev. ST.,
tlecInr,s: "The laws of the several States,
except where the Consultation, treaties or
quire or provide, shall be regarded as rules ol
decision In trials at common law In the
Courts of the Uuited States In cases where
they apply"
TO hegln sIlt against the State through its
officers TO stay the collection OF these taxea,
when II Is expressly forbidden by the Xl
Amendment 10 the United States Constitu.
lion 10 do so9 Simply because the property
was in tho hands Of u receiver. "Only this
und I.othing more" The States sovereignty.
Court. were all made to stand aside aud the
States officers imprisoned; and for what? TO
! crcale inequality between taxpayers and
mnIntain tie "dign!ty" oi Lhe Circuit Court:
The levy without The gracious permission OF
the Judge and the refusal to release, notwith'
standing that the Judge had no Jurisdiction
other than through the reccivership, the
amount involved being less than $1,000, were
this great wrong, and all upon the mere pre-
text that the taxes may be Illegal. Nay TINT
even IL not necessary now. But why should
! q Judge have the right To- pass upon the le-
gaity or the illegality OF IL tax In this
UNDERHAND AND ILLEGAL WAY?