Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

taised in any court for the oolk of any internal taxes alleged to been erroneously or illegal y ase ?-*Hir collected, or for any penalty c e? to have been collected wi thoa thoiity, or of any sum alleged to been excessive, or in any roa iV wrongfully collected, until an a; shall have been duly made to the avssioner of Internal Revenue." Sfcx months must elapse before can be brought sh*uld the commis er refuse to hear the appeal. On the other hand, the pi incl pie [0 property in the possession of a re er, and thus virtually in the posse, at the court, should not be levie v ar* taken from such" possession, ? - aH matters connected with the b O' rapt estate have been adjudicated assets marshalled and the right the creditors determined, is. eqi r atroiag and Just. Otherwise the creditor who might seize the b . rcpt estate might get it all, or wr^ / .I and other claims of equal justice v./ barred, erita?ing loss and inequj of distribution. But under the law tJt?s State and of the Unitoti St taxes-are a 4'preferred and prior li \'\,> .to be paid always next to expense tile litigation. They do not come "w ..f ; *? the category of ordinary debts ?H. and haye been characterized being "as remorseless as fate and ' pertain as death." ;- In the conflict which has occurred tte State between thse two well fte ed and acknowledged principles of 1 the Question naturally presents ifc '-K.'i?xy the lesser, the comparatively n jr '-era, the doubtful right of the recei which rests on nothing but judicial cisions and assumption, should h " > ; \ l?e? given precedence over thfe ol ?nd hitherto undisputed right of .State to collect its taxes in its c -way. " 1 THE IxAW OF RECEIVERS IS j TOGETHER MODERN. It rests-ahnost wholly on judicial 3 istation. It took its rise in the Cour Equity in England some hundred ye ago,-and up to 1866 the powers end tfcs of receivers a"ad the control ^bankrupt estates by judges tarot them, were of small importance ? . v. caused no disquiet. The receiver h the trust estate pending the ?itigat? took care .of it,-paid the taxes; wi necessary kept things in repair-a that was about all. But buring 1 last thirty-five years this small, ins <l?rj??cent power has spread and gro -with the rapidity of .a banyan tree Use tropic jungles of Asia, until now overshadows the land and blights t sovereignty of the State, becoming veritable Upas tree, which threat? the existence of local self-governme \ The development has been owing and has kept pace* with the constri ? ' tloii of -railroads and the numero cases of bankruptcy in which they a iavoived by reason of bad manai ment, watering of stock or wrecka wrought by a bare majority of stoc holders, who seize a railroad and n it ia their own interest, with a view % defrauding the minority stockholde and stealing their property. Too oft? alas! the courts are instruments . carry out the robbery. But while the powers of receive and the rapidly increasing latitude pe rairted thenVby the courts have reste '1 . .. m. the main, on right principles ai . the sound policy of preser i, lug the property, many abusi - , have grown up with them. I can fir no warrant in law and no ground i -equity for the decision of the Circu and Supreme Courts in the cases r-:. ' are considering. .It is not disputed b critter of these tribunals that tax-: are a preferred lien on the property and the CHIEF JUSTICE .essreases himself very emphatically a to the duty of the Circuit Cpurt H says: "No doubt property so situate is iwfc thereby rendered ' exempt fror the imposition cf taxes by the govern zueat within whose jurisdiction the pro porty is, and the. lien for taxes is su perior. to all other Hens whatsoever.' . In order to get an excuse, however, fo allowing the receiver to resist the pay ment, and to paralyze the State gov eminent in its effort to collect taxes, h< continued: "The levy of a tax war Taut, like the levy, of an'ordinary fier tactea, sequestrates the property to answer an exigency writ, but prop erty in possession of the receiver ii already in sequestration, held in equit able execution, and. while the lien foj taxes must be recognized and enforced the orderly administration of justice requires ibis to be done by and undei .t?te sanction of the court. It is the duty of the court to see that it is dene and a seizure of the property against its will can only be predicated upon the assumption that the court will fail o the discharge of its duty." When it does fail, what then? Con? tinuing he says: "Whether the sheriff a were armed with a writ from the State court or with a distress warrant from the county treasurer, this propery was as much withdrawn from his reach as H it were beyond the territoral limits ot the State. The Inevitable conclusion from this must be so if constitutional pridpies are to be respected in govern? mental administration It does not in? volve interruption in the payment cf taxes or displacement or impairment of the Men therefor, but, on the contrary, lt makes it the imperative duty of the court to recognize as paramount, and to enforce with promptness and vigor the just claims of the authorities Tor the presoribed contribution to the State ?nd municipal revenues. And when .coBtroversies arise as to the legality of the tax claims, there ought to be no serious difficulty in adjusting such controverfcies upon proper suggestion." The Chief Justice here emphasizes the question of constitutional right*, meaning, of cornie, the prohibition for? bidding interference with each other &y the judicial, ex--x:ut*ve and legis? lative branches. Dut it is a monstrous 1 and tyrannical stretch of authority to claim that tho celie;ton of taxes on property in the hands of a receiver ip an- interference by the executive with the judiciary, and th ?refore unconstitu? tional. The levying of State taxes, wnich in done every year under th* direction of the legislative oranch and by fixed ?aws, carries with it the right to collect if the levy is made according ?.o law: and if it is an interference to collect, it is an interference to levy. It is as much a contempt of court t F levy without leave of the court as tc collet without teave. It is I rjDiCIAL TYRANNY . j la the face, of the plain provisions ofl the federal and State laws, lx>t* ing alike upon the judge, to i taxes in the same catagory with debts and claim jurisdiction to mine their legality under the i of a receivership alone. To support this claim of the h bility of the receiver's trust ai immunity from molestation cf ar ail kinds, it is everywhere ass* iterated and reiterated until we weary of tho falsehood-that t.3 ceiver is the servant of the cou eye and hand, a mere automaton its will. If such intimacy really < if the judge is the receiver, an receiver the judge, coes it not : that the judge will be biased aga claim which the receiver censida: just or illegal, and that he is n< proper person to pass upon it? he have the light to judge Iiis case? Does it ever occur that the is the servant and the receive master; that the 1 TAIL WAGS THE DOG. so to speak, and the unholy ail claiming and exercising undis control and. surveillance over mi and hundreds of millions, has wr< injustice and wrong, and is a s in the nostrils and cries aloud lo: rection? We will see later on. At the inception of this ?itgatio junctions were granted out of against every treasurer in the ? without regard to the amount invc At the hearing, the plea of the St counsel that the jurisdiction of court did not extend to those < where the amount involved jvas than $2,000, and that thc amoum the different 'counties could noi lumped, was sneeringly denied, court knew bette?. but was resolv? protect the railroads. Judge J would hardly hear counsel at ail; injunctions were made permanent; it is begging the question-a i dodge-to say that the constituti prohibition of interference by the executive with the judiciary reqt; that leave must be obtained of court to levy on the property T? the amount involved pearly left judge without jurisdiction. The verse of the proposition is true lacking jurisdiction, save through receivership, the injunction was a against the State and an :nterfer< by the judiciary with ?.he execui lt. is technical construction run n and the Supreme Court warps ou all reason the general prohib? against the interference with prop< in the hands of the court, which intended to apply to ordinary d< and ordinary occasions, when it eludes therein? taxes legally levied This assumption can only be ba on the hypothesis that it is the nat of power to' seek its own aggrand ment, and that a Federal judge do no wnpng. Why should the ca obtain jurisdiction in the matter taxes, which. it could not otherv pass upon, simply be reason of receivership? Why should a bankr corporation obtain immunity from State law when a solvent one can: obtain it? Why should a Federal ju< throw the protecting arm of his gr power around this class of proper and give receivers special privilei which no other taxpayers can dal If lt is law, it is n3t right, and I thi I can show that it is neither. I have already pointed out the p hibltion In the statutes. State a Federal, against interference by t judiciary ii; any way with the coi!< rion of taxes. Sec. 721, JJ. S. Rev. ? declares: "The laws of the sevei States, except where the Const:ot?? treaties or statutes, of the Unit Stales otherwise require or prov? shall be regarded as rules of decisl in trials at common law :n the covi of the United States in cases who they apply/' What right, then, did the Feder Court have to begin a suit against ti Stale through its officers u. stay tl collection cf :these taxes, when it expressly forbidden by the 2 amendment * tb the United Stat Constitutor: to do so? Simp because thc- property was in the ham of a receiver. "Only this and nothir. more." The State's sovereignty. : laws, the laws of Congress governir. the csurt, were all made to stand ask and the State officers imprison ?pd; a1.: for what? To create inequality b< tween taxpayers and maintain tl .VJgr.:ty" of the Circuit Court Th levy without the gracious permissio of the judge and the refusal to releas? notwithstanding that the judge had n jurisdiction other than through th receivership, the amount involved bc lng less than $2,000, w-re sufficient t make the Supreme Court sustain thi groat wror.g, and ali upon the mer pretext that the taxes maj- be illegal Nay! that even is not necessary now But why should a judge have the righ to pass upon the legaity or the Hie gality of a tax in this tlMDEIlHAND AND ILLEGAL WAY And then, after reciting the provis ?' <ns of cur State law, which forbad* this usurpation, we are tauntingly tol< by Chief Justice Fuller that "the Leg .slature of a State cannot detcrmim the jurisdiction of the Courts of th< United State?, and the action of sud .:?-ur;s in according a remedy denied to the courts of the State does noi involve a question of power." Pray, :h*-n, what does it involve other than a question of the most arbitrary and tyrannical exercise of power? Had the State laws provided no remedy there might be some excuse for this stretch of authority, but under the cir? cumstances I soe none Whatever. rt has not been shown and cannot shown that the assessments arc "renter than the "actual ea i.-<-" pro? vided for in Section S3. Article Z. of "he State Constitution, or that there is <*? 2'/ greater lack of a "uniform and aqua! rate" of assessments as required ;:nd^r Article i?. Section 1, thar, exists ar::e:;g other classes of property. Most of the railroads are stili assessed much below their value. "Uniform and equal taxation" is impossible under any sjvs tem of assessment that can be devised. ?:n<: thc Supreme Court of ihe United States ha? decided that mere inequality is 7)'..t trround for relief so long as the ?tssessment is not claimed to be above the actual value lixoii its proscribed by law. The claim by the railroads that i heir property Js assessed higher than some other property must of necessity bo true. This would be so even upon the basis of their own returns. It was always so and will continue so. At he same time lt is lower. But, that the ; ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OUR LAWS should be upset and the collection j thc taxes stopped rill the matter be passed upon by the courts is < trary to all precedent T?ie d fference between the valua of tiie property by the roads th selves and that ?xed by the State i road board of equalization is at SS 1-3 per cent; but if the mere cl that this excess is illegal is made excuse to res. st payment, what wc hinder the roads from returning tl property at one-half or one-fourth what they new acknowledge to be value, or even at $100 a mile, and sist the payment of the balance u; the same ground? If the mere opir of the receiver that the property worth thus-and-so is sufficient, r.i all other taxpayers submit to State's assessment and property in har1 s of a receiver only be asses by- the United States judge? This what it amounts to. The judge v is willing to. claim and exercise jui diction by reason of the receivers would just as readily sustain this b tention until he had passed upon and no stronger argument is noet to * show that the claim of the coi to pass upon the legality of thc i before it is collected, carries a train consequences that are exceedingly di gerous and contrary to the genius our institutions. ALEXANDER HAMILTON, in the Federalist; page 249, discuss: the scope and power of the States ; der the Constitution with regard taxation, says: '{Although I am of t opinion- that there would be no r? danger o? consequences 'to the St* governments, which seems to be s pre h ended from a power in tho Uni to control them in the levies of mon? because I am persuaded that rhe ser of the people, the extreme hazard provoking the* resentments of the Stn governments and a conviction of t utility and necessity of local admm tration, for local purposes, would a complete barrier against the ?oppr? sive use of such a power. Yet I a willing here to allow in its full exte the justice of the reasoning, which r quires that the individual State? shou possess an independent and uncontrol hie authority to raise their own re enues for the supply of their ov wants, and ? in making th's co cession I affirm that (with the s:>Ie e ception of duties on exports and ir ports) they would, under the plan the convention, retain that author* .in the most absolute and unqualify sense; and that an attempt cn the pa of the national government to abridj them in trie exercise of it would 1 a violent assumption of power, unwa ranted by any article or clause of 1 Constitution." I may remark in passing that who this was written. the Constituton ha been ratified by only four States, ar Hamilton was. trying to allay the di; trust of the States. Had such elah been made then the Constitution woul ne vor have been ratified.' In the celebrated case ot "McCu lough vs. the Stale of Maryland," ease which deals exhaustive-v wi: .SK- question of taxation by V~? *t-iu and the power of the United States i connection therewith. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL said, -Uh Wheaten, page 42S: "lt i admitted that the power of taxing t"; p?opj? and their property is es^enus io the very existence of government and may be legitimately exorcised r: the objects to which it is a pp icu ble t the utmost extent to which the gov eminent may choose to carry it. Th only security against the abuse of thi power is found in the structure of th government itself. In imposing a ta: the Legislature acts upon its constit uents. This i's in general a suffieien security against erroneous and eppres sive taxation. The people of a State therefore, give to their government th< ricrh: Of taxing themselves and the!: property, and as tho exigencies of prov ern nie;-: cannot be lim t?d, they pre i scribe no limit to the{ exercise cf thi: right, resting confidently on the In? terest of the legislator and on the In ?i?ence of the constituents over the': representative to guard them agairisl its abuse." Further on he says: "All subjects over which tho powe: of a S rate extends ave objects of tax? ation." Attd again: ."Tho sovereignty of a State extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its per I mission." Continuing, on page 429, he says: .*?f we measure the power of taxation residing in a Slate by tho extent of sovereignty which the people of a sin? gle State possess and can confer on its government, wo have an intelligible standard applicable to every case to which the power may be applied. We have a principle which leaves the power of taxing the people and prop? erty cf the State unimpaired; which leaves to the State the command of all its resources, and which places beyond its reach all those powers which are . enferred by the people of the United Stares on tho government of the Union, and all those means which are given for tho purpose of carrying those pow? ers into execution. We have a principle which is safe for the State and safe for the Union. We are rel'eved, as we ought to be. from clashing sovereignty; from interfering powers; from a repug? nancy between a right In one govern? ment to pull down what there is au acknowledged r'ght in another to b?;t.d up: from the incompatibility of the right of one government to destroy what there ls a right In another to preserve.*' On pago f,?.t n>? says: "That th*? v ?wer ! to tax involves tho power t<> doecroy; that the power to destroy may defeat , and render useless the r>ow?r to create; ' that thtve is a plain repugnance in conferring on on?- government a power ce control tho constitutional measures j: of anther, which other, vi th respeci to th oso very measures, is i; iclored to be supreme over that whirl) exorcises the control, ar? PROPOSITIONS NOT TO IJE DE? NIED." It may be paid that wc are not argu? ing the r'ght of the State to levy taxes, and that those quotations from Chief J:i?* .^fi Marshall's op-n;on are not rel? evant; that no one disputes tho ri.rht of tho State to tax, ard that rr.:- f?y? preme Court acknowledges that ta-cs ?ire a prior and preferred ber. "Hut of what uso ls tho right to t.._v. without thc right to collect? If the nat'onai ard ?3i?a tp governments are to revo ve in the?r separate orbite without that "c'ash of so vere, gn ty from which we ought ic be relieved," and from "In? te' f erin g powers," the jud- c'ary of the one government should never interfere with the legislat ve and execut ve branches of the other in this delicate matter of taxation, except under eir ctm:?ii TM es where both justice and law clearly confer that power and requ re its exercise. If "the power to tax in? volves tlie power to destroy," thepowe: to prevent the collection of the tax in? volves the power to starve, and there? by destroy-a power denied the na? tional government. But aga'n. it will b<: urged! that the receiver claims that the tax is illegal, and that the juris? diction of the court extends to contro? versies between a State and the citi? zens of another State, thereby involv? ing a Federal question- This is not disputed, but the in just oe of obtaining 'juris?ict on through the recevershp to pass on the legality of the tax and stop its collection when the amount in? volved does not g've jurisdiction other? wise, produces an inequality among citizens and creates a privileged ciass, which is the VERY ESSENCE OF INJUSTICE, IL? LEGALITY AND TYRANNY. But Alexander Hamilton and John j Marshal! are old fogies not to be men- ! t'oned in the same breath with Judges j Strnohton and Goff; and the Supreme | Court, saturated with the idea cf its j own dignity, refused to release the j sheriffs, who were simply the hands of the State, because it felt that the "dignity" of the court below must also be maintained, and contents itself with emphasising "the duty of the I court to recognize as paramount and I to enforce with promptness and vigor ' the just claim of the authorities to tue ! prescribed contribu? on to the State j ind municipal revenue." It is no com? fort to be told what is the duty of the ! court when there is no way to make 1 it discharge that duty without long delay and expensive litigat'on. The State had exercised its sover? eignty to levy taxes in accordance I with its own laws. Its officers, in I compliance with their oaths, proceed ed to obey those laws. Every taxpay- j er, whether an Individual or a corpora- ! tion. should be amenable to these laws alike, and any decision which destroys that equality is an outrage upon justice. If all judges were hon- ! est, or fair, or just, this power of dis- ? crimination could work no wrong; but j a receiver in the matter of taxes should be the same as any other citi? zen or 'corporation. Any favoritism j that is shown him is a premium on fraudulent bankruptcy-' and brings the judiciary into discredit If the court has the discretion and power through its receiver to do all the various acts necessary to run a railroad, and even build additional mileage, as has been j done, and is being done, it could pass on the advisability of paying taxe* I in private, and doubtless does it. When, therefore, a receiver refuses to 1 pay taxes as illegal,- it follows that, the court must think as he does, and it is a mockery to tell us to appeal to j such a tribunal. There is no law for this unwarrant? ed interference on the part of the United States Court; there 5s; nothing in the United States Constitution to warrant it. The authors of that in? strument never dared to set up any such claim, and the court only ob? tains it by a "violent assumption o? power." which ls the essence of tyran-, ny. That it has required a century for JUDICIAL INSOLENCE ' to go so far is sufficient proof that it has no basts in law or justie?. ana could only spring from that perpetual grasping after more power which has characterized the judges of the Uni? ted States Circuit and District Courts One by one thc reserved rights of tho States are being absorbed by the Fed? eral Judiciary, and it is high time for Congress to take the matter in hand j and by express limitations restrain the unlicensed and iniquitous powers1 exercised' by the courts in this matter of receiverships. There is talk in some quarters, and' a growing demand for GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF j RAILROADS. For these corporations whether ? in the hands of receivers pr j of thc owners themselves have found such ready and willing tools among the Federal judges, who are ever ready to stand between them and the people in their efforts to re- j strain them within reasonable bounds j that no other mode of " relief appears possible. This is not a desirable solu- ! tion of the problem, and I do not ad? vocate it; because such control would almost inevitably be used as an en? gine in elections by the use of the em? ployees at the ballot box for the bene? fit pf the party in power; The mere idea i3 repugnant to a republican form of government. But those who manipulate and control these corpo? rations, and who grow rich in robbing the people through them-such men in particular-hold up their hands ir. horror at the mere idea of govern? ment ownership. But what have we in the United States at this time? What is the condition of a large num? ber of these corporations? Upward of thirty three thousand miles of rail? roads, one-fifth of the total mileage in the United States, and represent? ing a capital of more than $1,400,000. 000, are today in the hands of receiv? ers, who are but the servante or part? ners of the judges. We have here great government ownership or con? trol (at least in effect) the most abso? lute and irresponsible that is possible to exist. The Federal judiciary, with? out any statutes on the subject, or comparatively few . limiting or defin? ing the'r powers, control one-fifth of the railroads In the Unite! Statos without responsibility to anybody; without any one to overlook them or their agents, the receivers: without! any accounting to be had for the mil? lions and hundreds of millions of dol? lars of these ' wards in chancery"; isling n vol vor's certificates, which aro preferred li^n^ nn the property; imprisoning the State's officers when they attempt to collect taxes; arrest? ing our constables for the slightest interference even wita freight they haul; bargaining with the receivers TOT the employment of kinspeoplo or fr vori tes; and Congress sits idly by watching 'his more than Russian ab Sv.-.utism rith seemi ig indifference. With this vost amount of property held in absolute possession, wi responsibility to any one, it is wonder that there has been n ministration, peculation, robbery widespread demoralization. One in Vermont has held a railroad a receivership for twenty-seven : Many corporations have found : selves saddled with heavy debt the incompetency or dishonesty c receivers, who. we will see. are : times the servants and at other the masters of the court. Men want to maire money rapidly estly if they can, but who "make money,"-seek the positic a receiver with avidity. The glaring" and remarkable instance this "facilis descensus Averni' curred this year when JUDGE ED. M. PAXON, CHIEF TICE OF THE SUPREME COU1 OF PENNSYLVANIA, with still four years' tenure, res! his high office to accept the rece ship of the Pennsylvania and I ?ng Railroad. How much longer this abuse, which cries aloud to ven, and which is a scandal in land-, corrupting the judiciary by use of unbridled power, be allowe continue? By comparison, gov ment ownership, under strict laws rules such as obtain in the postal vice, would be such an improver that it is bound to come unless abuses of receiverships are stoppi SIMONTON AND SWAN. I have already shown the res to the sheriffs who, in obedieno the State laws, which are eqt binding on the Federal Court, at pted to collect the taxes due. possession by the Court of the "i as the legal phrase goes, since the cisi?n of the Supreme Court can longer be disputed* in any partie whatever. But mark. you. puissant Judge, whose satrapy South Carolina bas gone one further. He not only claims the r to control the railroads held by receiver withottt let or hindera but he attempts, and has exero the power, to protect contrab whisk y in the hands of that rece: as a public carrier, and has imr. oned a State Constable (Swan) i seized a barrel of whiskey in South Carolina depot in Charles . in the face cf the plain prov'slom the Act of Congress, which says: "That all fermented, distilled other intoxicating liquors or Iiqt transported into any State or Te tory, or - remaining therein for ; consumption', sale or storage thor shall, upon the arrival in such Si or Territory, be subject to the c ration and effect of the laws of si State or Territory' enacted in the ex eise of its police powers to the sa extent and In the same manner though such liquids or liquors 1 been produced in such State or 1 ritory, and shall not be exempt the from by reason cf being introdu? therein in original packages or oth wise." To encourage thc smuggling of licit whiskey and protect those w deal in it Judge Simonton says rival" means not only that the wi. key must reach its destination, t must be delivered to tho ccns:gn The law for the control of the liqt traffic, which is an exercise of ? .police power of the State for the w fare of the public health and mora, is disregarded and the railroads ? couraged to defy the State. T analogous power to establish quara tino for a like purpose exists, and like lucid and reasonable interpret t?cn of the moaning of a plain E giish wcrd would indicate that, if man had yellow fever or cholera a; bought a ticket to Charleston or one of Judge Simon ton's raiircac tho quarantine officers could not st him until ho had got out of 'the c within the city limits. Judge Simo ton would net consider him as havii "arriver!" within the jurisdiction thc State's law until he had coir pl ted his journey. Is this power gone mad? -Is malice incarnate? Or is it a.? SERVILE. CRINGING OBEDISNC to the orders of his so-called "se vant," the receiver? The arguraei tum ad hominem is not one of rr liking, and I would scorn to use it i a personal controversy, but, in tl discharge of my official duties it is legitimate weapon whore I have 1 deal with such men: one a Judge wi sucked State's rights with his mot! or's milk, and nov/ plants his -legge in that mother's breast, the other a ex-carpet bagger, who in days pas did his utmost to throttle Angk Saxon civilization in South Carolin: and who has returned after fi ftee years' absence to gloat over lier ht miliation at the hands of his obedien instrument. This is very strong lar guage, but let us see if I have no warrant for it. On May 1st last, D. H. Cliambcrkii:: receiver of the South Carolina Pall way, and the accredited "servant" o the Federal Court in its management wrote me a personal letter enclc&'nj as authentic an interview with Wm self published :n the News and Cou rier of that date. It was a propos! tion to the State government to corn promise or arbitrate the question 01 taxes In dispute. Here la a quotatior from that interview: "Such being the situation, I say the only sensible course is to settle thv difficulty here and now. It cars be done if both sides will admit indis? putable facts; if some one or more representativos of the State and one or more representatives of the rail? roads were to sit down as business men and confer, they couid reach an easy genera! irround and ono just to both parties. I am only thc- agent of the Court, having no authority of my own, but I wiil ('guarantee) tho most cordial assent of tho court to any rea? sonable efforts to brinp: ab<">ut an end to this i'urht." Further on ho says. "I am not for? mally authorized to speak for anybody but myself, but I will undertake to bring every railroad now in litigation with thi- State into an agreement t"> negotiate or arbitrate their diflfer enci 8." It will be seen that this humble ser- : vant of tile Court, while speaking with all duo humility ami respect un?'Ttakes to "guarantee the cordial assent cf the C-mrt \<> any reasonable efforts to bring about an end to this .ight;" but. cov-tous of tho blobing which is promised to ixvaeemakers. wants to inc'ud?-: till the other rail? roads h\ thj amical io adjustment ;o*? which he ?s so solicitous. He went oa j to say: "The victory is today with 1 the railroads; hut I am none the less ; anxious to stop the quarrel. My anx j iety is in the interest cf the railroads. I am not afraid to cry 'peace' before the war begins or goes further. I shall fight all the better for it, if we cannot have peace." Is this the language of a servant cr of a master? *1 am not afraid," "I shall fight"-"!." Who is I? The humbie receiver and servant of Judge Simonton? Bah! The pretence makes me sick; and that a South Carolinian, who has been honored with the Fed ? eral judicial ermine, should appear in ? so degrading an attitude! If, resum? ing the phraseology once already used, the Judge is the receiver and the re? ceiver the Judge, why did not the judge himself, for the sake of de? cency, make the proposition- to the State government for , peace?? H?? j "dignity," which is so dear that he is ; willing to go any and all lengths in usurpation to vindicate it should at least have demanded this much. We must blush for the attitude in which he has been placed before the public, j But this is not all the proof as to the docility and subservience of this ORNAMENT TO THE FEDERAI* BENCH. Another State Constable found con? traband liquor, shipped as other ! goods, contrary to the Federal and j State law, in the depot at Greenwood. I He obtained a warrant from a Trial Justice and seized the liquor. Here . is the telegram sent to the Constable I bj' the attorney of the Richmond and Danville Railroad: "GREENVILLE, S. C. Nov. 6, ?93. j "To Louis H. Perrin: j "You must know that your seizure : I of the box addressed to Miss Jesse James is illegal under Judge Simon ton's decision in the Swan case. Un I less you desire to share Swan's fate I in being brought up before Judge I Slmonton and punished by fine or im j prisonment, you will at once release j tile property and return it to our i agent If I do not hear by 10 o'clock ? tomorrow, a. m., that you have re ! turned the property to our agent I will certainly cake steps to have you brought before the Judge. (Signed) "J. S. COTHRAN." ! Here we have not the receiver, but j the receiver's servant, a corporation j counsel, who so well knows his j honor's mind, or, at least, is so well assured that whatever he is told todo he will obey, that he threatens im? prisonment and fine for the seizure of goods contraband under the - State . and Federal laws, and with a warrant, at that Yet we are told the receiver ; is the servant of the Court! And what are we to do? Are we to tamely submit to these indignities* and. leave this petty tyrant to continue his acts of outrageous interference? The South Carolina Railway has been in the clutches of this par nobile fratrum, Chamberlain and , Simonton? for four years, and there is no know? ing how much longer it is to /remain there. True, an order of Court for its sale has just been filed, but that sort of hocuspocus has been geing on for over a year. The Richmond and Danville Railroad, a corporation un? known to our laws, but which has ' absorbed by lease or purchase seven railroads chartered by the State, has recently gone into the hands of an? other judicial sjmdicate, of which Judge - Simonton is a member. If nothing is done the Judges and their ..servants," the receivers,* are likely to# retain . . POSSESSION OF THAT FAT CAR? CASS for many years, and we may judge the future by the past as to the intoler? able condition to which we shall be subjected by these jud'eial usurpa? tions. These creatures, these corpora? tions, holding their existence from the State's bounty and under its laws, like the monster Frankenstein, have grown greater than their creator. They already owe in the neighborhood of two hundred thousand dollars to the different tax funds of the State. They aro in open rebellion against the Dispensary Law and Railroad Com? mission, and are bending every energy to aid those who would smuggle whiskey into the State and continue its illicit sale. There is nothing left the State, under the circumstances, since the decision of the Supreme Court, but to repeal the charters of every railroad in the hands of a re? ceiver , and destroy these creatures, \ which have grown so insolent that they trample our laws under foot un? der the protection Gf this Federal Judge, and laugh"to scorn the restric- | tion s which all citizens and other cor- * porations must obey. It is a harsh ai d drastic measure, which would be wholly unwarranted under any other . circumstances, but it is the last des? perate remedy. The UNHOLY MARRIAGE between the "dignity" of thc Federal Court and these harlot corporations must bc annulled, and the owners of the bonds made to understand that there is a point beyond which the pa? tience of the State will not permit them to go.. The Federal Court will, of course, claim that thc property is in its possession and attempt to ad? minister lt; but if there is any regard for law left such a course will force ! the property to sale and wind up the existence cf these roads as at present organized and owned. After that is accomplished, or while it is being ac? complished, provisions can be made for giving them a new life upon such conditions as the Legislature may de? termine. Care shouid be taken in granting all future charters to pre? vent the absorption of competing lines by any railroad syndicate in or outside of the State. A law should be passed limiting the life of receiver? ships in the State, and a memorial addressed to the United States Con? gress setting forth the condition ? which exist here, calling attention to the abuses which have arisen, and asking 1 OPT: slation to restore to the State the rights of which the Supreme Court's decision has robbed it, and the enactment of such laws as will v ti: row *he necessary restrictions around receiverships in future. Since the last dix??ion of the Court tho sit? uation lias become intolerable. The Dispensary Law. Tho agitation last year on the sub? ject of prohibition resulted in tne enactment of what is known. as the Dispensary Law. The original ProV * hibitlon B'U Introduced in the Houser