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

III has always been provided that the payment
OF taxes must first ue made and the question
of their justice or legality adludteated after
following (Gen, Stats, Section l7D: ..The col
lection OF lakes shall not be Stayed or pre-.
vented by any Injunction, writ or order-is'
sued by any Court or Judge thereof" Taxes
nre REQUIRED % bs pad nndsr prtestI pssIoa and ~
legality has been determined in Court. Pro-
vision Is also made By wlich,ahe! Com ptfol.
|ler.G General, Upon q proper sbowInS. may re-
reiurn is rse them % aflerwarda: The National Gov
ernment isislmllarly protected by Seclon
1924. Rev. Stat. u. g., which reads:
mo suit for the purpose OF restraining the
maintained Ia any Court'--the Language here
beIns nearly Identical and even stronger than
that OF our State lew.
IS So Jealous, indeed, is the United states
Goyernmenti.pr It's taxing prerogative that
Section 8226. Rev. Stat. U. S., provides that
'No suit shall be maintained In any Court
for the collection OF any Internal tax alleged
to have. been erroneousiy or lliesaliy assess
ed or collected, or for any penalty claimed TO
have been collected without authority, or
any sum alleged TO. have been excessive. or
In any manner wrongfully collected, until
an appeal shall hags 5eep aSs mage 10 'he
Six inonthsImust elnpse before sult can oe
brought should the Commissioner refuse 10
hear the appeal.
erty In possession Of q receiver, and thus sif.
tuaIy In possession Of the Court. should not
be levied on, Or. taken from such possess. on.
until oil niaiterB connected. With tle nnnK-
rupt estate have; been adJodicated, the ASSETS
marshalled and .he rights OF the creditors de-
Itermined, is equally strong anu inst Other-
wise the first creditor who might seize the
bankrupt estate might get 1t oil, or wreck II,
en,alling loss and inequality of distribution.
But under the laws OF this State and OF the
United states taxes are preferred and
prior lien," 10 be paid always next 10 the ex-
penses OF the litigation. They 10 not come
within the category ofordnary debts at all.
and have been characterized as being "ns re-
morseless as fate and as certain as deaih.'
In tie conflict which has occurred In this
State between these two we'll defined and NC
knowledged principles Of law, the question
naturally presents Itself, why the lesser, ihe
comparatively modern. the doubtful right o
the receiver, which rests On nothing but Ju
dlcial decisions and assumption. should
have been given precedence over the older
and hithertO0ndsputedr right Of the Stale tc
collect its taxes In itR own way.
THE LAW OF RECEIVERS IS ALTOGETHER
MODERN.
It rests almost wholly on judicial legiGla
tion. II took It's rise In the Court OF Equity
lii England some hundred years ago, and UP
to 1850 the powers nnd dulles OF receivers hno
the control OF bankrupt estates by Judges
through th"m were OF small Importance and
caused NO disquiet The receiver held the
trust estate pending the litigation, took care
Of It, paid the taxes when necessary nSa%, knep np
during the last ihirty-ive years this small
insignificant power has spread and grown
with the raLidliy. OF banYau tree In tht
tropic jungles of Asia, until 1T now overshad
ows the land and bights the sovereignty o
| the States, becoming veritable Upas Tree
which threatens the existence of local sell