Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/890

 678 FEDERAL BKPOBTER. �on bonds. But as said taxes were ail levîedfor the purpose of paying current expenses and debts, and as the expenses of the city governraeut have been liquidated, it may, I think, be assumed that the taxes remaining unpaid were levied for cred- itors. They were se levied under the power of local taxation conferred by its charter on said city, which power of taxation was a eontract, and the inducement for the credit given by complainants to the city, and by reason of the premises vested equitably in the creditors. If this is true, it seems to me that the well-considered adjudications of the supreme court, here- inbefore quoted, are conclusive in favor of the view I bave taken. The authority of a court of cbancery to collect througb its reoeiyer, and administer the fund for the benefit of the cestuis que trust, bas been demonstrated by Mr. Jus- tice Strong in the liberal extract which I bave quoted from bis opinion. �But, as a last resort in argument, it is said that it is not intended todeprive the creditors of this fund; that the legis- lature bas simply provided for its collection and distribution among creditors, which it is insisted it had the right to do. It is difficult to treat the argument with any degree of gravity. The future will disçlose that the remedy thus provided is but a mockery of justice. �If the legislature has the constutional right to "alter, post- pone, or release" these unpaid taxes at pleasure, it possesses the power to make any disposition of them it ehooses. A bill has been already introduced into the present legislature to divert a portion of the fund from the purposes to which it was dedicated, by the repealing and subsequent acts ; and if the prinoiple contended for is conceded,it is not hazarding much to say that the creditors will not be greatly benefited by the remedy thus provided for them. But before this legislative remedy was provided, a day before the repealing act was passed, this court, upon a bill regularly filed, iii behalf of Garrett & Sons, in exact compliance with the statutory rem- edythen avithori;2ed, took eognizance of their complaint, which impounded the fund. Its jurisdiction was complete; and ^hen the acts which the supreme court held (without any ����