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

taxes by these corporations for the three
yeare.
January in regard TO the Jurisdiction Of the
Court, believing that decision would enable
us to collect all taxes due by the railroads
where the amount was less than 5000 M IN m any
troller-G eneral 10 the Treasurers to issue tax
executions and place them In the hands OF
the Sheriffs for collection. These were for the
taxes OF 1s9lt'82, which had mover been the
subject of Injunction or In any wise brought
into Court and the Sheriffs were ordered to
promptly levy and collect the same. But the
Richmond and Danville Railroad and the
South Carolina Railway, both In the hands ol
Injunction against the Snerifs, and an order
was issued for them to show cause why they
should not be attached for contempt: Ihe
Sherifs from the counties OF Abbeviile. An
moned, and ut The same time an order to
"cease from interfering" with the property
was Issued. Feeling that the issue was one OF
vital consequence. and that the State could
matter as 10 The legality Of these proceedings.
the Sheriffs were INSTRUCTED 10 bold the prop
erty, and able coun nsel retained to assist the
Attorney General In presenting the states
favor OF the receivers. or rather Of themselves,
and q decree finipg the Sherits $50 each and
imprlsonlng them until they paid the fines or
puryed thenseivss was lssora; Sa aor Aa ahPpea, ha
corpus proceedings and that Court sustained
this Court below. Having thus exhausted all
means of redress the f1nes were paid, Tor
would not subject the States officers 10 the IN
dignity and humiliation Of apologizing. for
obsying her laws and endeavoring 10 do their
duty. .-..-..
with the lawyer's zee, making "a oO al told; oo
was paid out OF the Governors contingent
fund.
decisiors Of the two Courts-the Supreme
fold purpose in doing so. First: To show the
Injustice and illegality OF their decisluns.
Second: The results that Will follow. Third
The remedy for tho wrong that has been done.
y q OF
ions OF any Judge; but the contention made
here, and the arguments made to sustain that
contention, are so far-fesched, SO unreasona-
the law, that am forced TO pursue this course
in spite OF the criticism which IL Eure to fol-
The FIRST striking fact which presents Itself
rnonls-esissSfswah II lis Elinarea aanssia.psars
since the Constitution OF the. United States
wss adopted, and one hundred and eighteen
when South Carolina became a sovereign
State. During all this time, ~
MORE THAN A CENTURY,
the right OF State to levy on and sell prop.
erty sor taxes, by whomsoeyer held, has never
baen challenged before. and the question mere %
United States Supreme Court. The right OF
the State to levy and collect its taxes in It's
own way is go old, 80 time honored; the
right of q receiver and the power OF the Court
TWO have never before come In conflict. For
The first time then in The history OF Amerl.
can Jurisprudence two great principles OF law,
both based on justice and equity, were face
TO face. The one with the unchalienged sane
tion Of centuries behind IT.; the other q fun
gold growth Of modern Judicial precedent. t..
based on the supposed necessities Of a new
the love OF power, and in this los.ance hav-
ing no other foundation. Ono had 10 give
way: which should II have becn
The right OF the Stale to levy aud collect
lima derived that right from the Kings OF
England. II Is q right which rests at the
root OF government aud without IL govern
ment would cease to exist II has never been
resisted when exercised by sovereign ex-
cept by revolution and an appeal TO arms. In
all frea governments, or Constitutional gov.
ernments, the right Is exercised according TO
law, and ample provisions made for fpJus-
tice or inequality In the fevying OF The taxes.
PARALYSIS OF GOVERNMENT
OF lakes must first be made and the question
OF their Justice or legality adjudicated after
wards. Hence we find in our State laws the
following (Gen. Stats, Section l7D: "rhe col
vented by any Injunction, writ or order Is
sued by any Court or Judge thereof." Taxes
are required 10 be paid under prntest and
the money set aside until the question 0f
legality has betn determined In Gairt. Pro.
vision is also made by which the Colnpirol-
|leRGeneral, upon proper showing, may re-
init unjust taxes before they are COLLECTED, or
return them afterwards. The National Gov
ernmsnt is similarly protected by Section
"No suit for the purpose Of restraining The
assessment: or collection OF taxes shall he
maintained in any Court"-the 'anguage here
being nearly Identical and even. ronger than
that OF our State law.
[ 80 Jealous, indeed, Ia the United States
Government or its taxing prerogntive that
Section 8228, Rev. Stat. q. s., PROVES that :
emo quit shall be maintained in any Court
for the collection OF any internal tax alleged
10 have been erroneously or Illegally ASSESS
ed or collected, or for any penalty claimed 10
have been collected without authority, or
any sum alleged to have been excessive, or
in any manner wrongfully collected, until
an appeal shall have been duly made to the
Comm issioner OF Internal Revenue"
Six months must elapse before stlit can be
brought should the Commissioner refuse 10
hear the appeal.
on the other hand. the principle that prop
erty In possession Of q receiver. and thus vir.
tIally in possession OF the Court. SHOULD NOT
be levied on, or taken from such possession.
until all matters connected with tho bank.
rupt estate have been adjudlcated, The assets
mnrshalled and the rights Of the creditors de-
termlned, is equally strong nnd Just. Olher-
wise the first creditor who might seize the
bankrupt estate might get 1t all. or wreck IT.,
and other claims OF equal tnstice be debarred,
eniuling loss aud Inequality OF distribution.
But under the laws OF this State aud of the
United States taxes are "preferred and
prior lien."' to be paid always next 10 the ex-
within the category Of ordinary debts at AL.
and have been characterized as being "as re-
m0rseiess as fate and as certain es death."
Stale M s between these two we'll defined and nc.
knowledg principles OF law, the Question
naturally presents Itself, why the lesser. me
com paratively modern. the doubtful rlRht ol
the receiver, which rests ON nothing but Ju.
dicinl decisions and assumption, should
have been given precedence over the older
and hitherto undisputed right OF the Stnle 10
collect It's taxes In Its own way.
THU Law OF RECEIVERS IS ALTOGETHER
MODERN.
It rests almost wholly on judicial legisla.
ton. It took Its rise In the Cour, Of Equity
In England some hlndred years ago. and up
To 1860 the powers and duties OF receivers nnd
the control OF bankrupt estates BY Judges
through them we're OF small importance anu
caused no disquiet The receiver held the
trust estate pending the litigation. took care
OF It. paid the taxes. when necessary KEPT
, things In repalr-and that was about all. But
! durlng the last thIrly-tive years this small
insignificant power has spread and grown
with the rapidly of a banyan tree in the
tropic jungles OF Asia, until 1t now overshad
ows the land and blights the sovereignty ol
the States, becoming q veritable Upas tree
which threatens the existence of local self
government. This development has beer
owing to and has kept pace with the. .construc
| tion OF railroads and the numerous cases o