ARKANSAS. 



either the process or proceeding in the national 

 Courts. Circuit Courts of the United States and 

 State Courts act separately and independently of 

 each other, and in their respective spheres of action 

 the process issued by the one is as far beyond the 

 reach of the other as if the line of division between 

 them ' was traced by landmarks and monuments 

 visible to the eye.' Appellate relations exist in a 

 class of cases between the State Courts and this 

 Court, but there are no such relations between the 

 State Courts and the Circuit Courts of the United 

 States. . . . Tested by these considerations, our con- 

 clusion is," says the United States Supreme Court, 

 " that the propositions of the defendants can not 

 be sustained, and that the Circuit Courts of the 

 United States in the several States may issue the 

 writ of mandamus in a proper case, where it is ne- 

 cessary to the exercise of their respective jurisdic- 

 tions, agreeably to the principles and usages of law. 

 Where such exigencies arise they may issue it, but 

 when so employed it is neither a prerogative writ 

 nor a new suit in the jurisdictional sense. On the 

 contrary, it is a proceeding ancillary to the judg- 

 ment which gives the jurisdiction; and, when is- 

 sued, becomes a substitute for the ordinary process 

 of execution to enforce the payment of the same, as 

 provided in the contract. 



" The next suggestion of the defendants is," con- 

 tinues the United States Supreme Court, u that if 

 the writ is issued and they should obey its com- 

 mands, they may be exposed to a suit for damages 

 or to attachment for contempt, and imprisonment 

 by the State Courts. No such apprehensions are 

 entertained by this Court, as all experience shows 

 that the State Courts at all times have readily acqui- 

 esced in the judgments of this Court, in all cases 

 confided to its determination under the Constitution 

 and laws of Congress. Guided by the experience of 

 the past, our just expectations of the future are that 

 the same just views will prevail. Should it be 

 otherwise, however, the defendants will find the 

 most ample means of protection at hand. The 

 proper course for them to pursue in case they are 

 sued for damages is to plead the commands of the 

 writ in bar of the suit ; and if their defense is over- 

 ruled and judgment is rendered against them, a writ 

 of error from their Court will lie to the judgment 

 under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act. 



" The remedy in case of imprisonment is a very 

 plain one, under the seventh section of the act of 

 the second day of March, 1833, entitled 'An act 

 further to provide for the collection of the duties on 

 imports.' Prisoners in jail or confinement for any 

 act done or omitted to be done, in pursuance of a 

 law of the United States, or any order, process, or 

 decree of any Judge or Court thereof, may apply to 

 either of the Justices of the Supreme, or any Judge 

 of any District Court of the United States, for the 

 writ of habeas corpus, and they are severally author- 

 ized to grant, in addition to fhe authority otherwise 

 conferred by law." 



Such is the law of the land, as declared by the 

 highest tribunal of the country, and all Courts, Fed- 

 eral and State, must accept it and yield obedience to 

 it. The effect of this is, that the action of the Cir- 

 cuit Court of Jefferson County and the action of the 

 County Court in pursuance hereof were nullities. 

 The County Judge has been examined on oath, and 

 he disclaims any intention to disregard the mandate 

 of this Court ; but he has made a mistake which 

 may result to the prejudice of the relator's interests. 

 We will reserve any further action against the Coun- 

 ty Judge, in order to see whether his action shall 

 in the end result injuriously to the parties. 



It is now ordered, that the said rule against said 

 Silverman be reserved for the further action of the 

 Court, and that John M. Clayton, sheriff and ex 

 qfllcio collector of said county, do proceed to collect 

 the taxes levied to pay the relator's judgment, the 

 same as if the said ceVtiorari proceedings had not 



been had, and the judgment orders of the Circuit 

 Court and, of the County Court setting aside said 

 levy had not been made. 



Against Pulaski County a judgment was ren- 

 dered for a very large amount, and an order 

 issued commanding the County Court to levy 

 a tax in United States currency sufficient to 

 pay it. The County Court answered that the 

 State Constitution, which it was sworn to 

 obey, allowed only a certain amount of tax to 

 be levied ; and if it levied the amount the 

 Federal Court required, it would exceed the 

 limit and violate the Constitution of the State. 

 The Judge and Justices were then summoned 

 before the Federal Court and commanded 

 peremptorily to levy the tax, under penalties 

 of contempt of Court. Being powerless and 

 unwilling to encounter fines and imprison- 

 ment, they obeyed. The tax was levied and 

 collected, despite the State Constitution. 



Subsequently in June, in the case of Graham 

 m. Purham, Chief Justice English of the State 

 Supreme Court delivered an opinion in which 

 the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts is re- 

 viewed, and many questions in connection 

 with their powers are discussed. The opinion 

 is a dignified protest against encroachments of 

 the Federal judiciary upon the reserved rights 

 of the States; and, though conceding to the 

 Federal Courts the right to entertain suits 

 against counties, and to enforce their judg- 

 ments by mandamus compelling the proper 

 officials to levy and collect taxes to satisfy 

 such judgments, yet maintains that this juris- 

 diction can be exercised only in pursuance of 

 and accordance with the Constitution and laws 

 of the State ; and that the Supreme Court of 

 the State is the proper tribunal to interpret 

 the Constitution and expound the laws mark- 

 ing and limiting the boundaries in which the 

 Federal as well as State Courts shall exercise 

 their jurisdiction. 



In respect to the right of the Federal Courts 

 to entertain suits against counties, the Supreme 

 Court say that this right is derived solely (in 

 connection with their constitutional jurisdic- 

 tion) from the statutes of the State, which give 

 the counties the right " to sue and be sued " ; 

 and that without such a law a county could 

 not be sued at all in either the Federal or State 

 Courts. 



In respect to the powers of the Federal 

 Courts to compel by mandamus County Courts 

 to levy taxes to pay their judgments, the Su- 

 preme Court say that this jurisdiction has 

 been claimed by virtue of a decision of the 

 Supreme Court of the United States, although 

 the Court was divided on the question; but 

 affirms that no case can be found in which the 

 Supreme Court has decided that a United States 

 Circuit or District Court can compel by man- 

 damus a County Court to levy a tax, or do any 

 other act which it is not empowered by the 

 Constitution and laws of the State to do. 



In respect to the constitutional provision 

 that no county shall levy a tax to exceed one 



