Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/754

 742 FEDERAL REPORTER. �the maintenance of their individual rights, wliy should the same power not be exerted in behalf of the public ? la the state, which representa the body politic, entitled to leas con- sideration than its humblest citizen ? No state ean maintain its existence without revenue — a burden imposed by law on every one for the benefit of ail. This burden ought to be equal and uniform, and the legislature requires the officers chargea with the duty of making assessments for the purpose of taxation to enforce this just and beneficent rule. AuH among other powers conf erred to enable them to do so, auditors are authorized to summon witnesses and examine them on oath. These enactments are reasonable, necessary, and just. The auditors, selected for their supposed intelligence and im- partiality, act officially in the execution of these laws, and it is the duty of every citizen, when summoned, to respond and freely communicate ail the information he may possess nec- ecsary to a fuU and impartial assessment of property for tax- ation. �But it is not incumbent on us to define the duty of the wit- ness in the premises. When he ref used to obey the auditor's snbpœna, jurisdiction of the controversy — on the auditor's application to the probate judge to issue his subpœna com- manding the witness to appear and give evidence before him — passed to and veste d in the probate court, and hence, if the witness bas any valid and suffieient excuse for his alleged contumacy, he must present and insist upon it before that tribunal. But the complainant replies for the witness, that, while the probate court haa jurisdiction generally of contro- versies of this character, it bas not such jurisdiction in cases in which national banks are parties, because, as it contends, the proceeding contemplated is in violation of their chartered rights. This objection bas been disposed of. But if we con- cede complainant's claim of exemption, etc., the responsibil- ity of deciding the question is with the probate court, and not with us. �The plain meaning of the bill, however, is that the probat« court will make an erroneous decision. Possibly it may. AU courts are liable to err. But the possibility that it may 6rr ��� �