Opinion of the Court. "employed as council to represent him, one P. J. Morris;" that on the same day Morris called at the place of detention and asked permission to see petitioner for consultation, which was refused; that petitioner's preliminary examination was had without the aid or presence of his attorney; and that the district judge and the district attorney told his said attorney that as petitioner's defence was "inconsistent with the defence of others charged at the same time with complicity in the destruction of the vessel Olive Pecker," the court would not permit the same attorney to represent them all. The contention seems to be that petitioner was denied, at any rate in the first instance, the assistance of the attorney he had selected, and that he did not have his attorney with him when he told his story November 8; and that, as he was thereby deprived of fundamental constitutional rights, all subsequent proceedings were void for want of jurisdiction. The papers introduced before the District Court, by consent, tended to show that Morris had not been employed by Andersen prior to November 8; that the five members of the crew other than Andersen authorized Morris on that day to represent them; that the district attorney had had no interview with any of the prisoners up to the morning of November 8, which he informed the attorney it was imperatively necessary in view of future action that he should have, and then if the prisoners employed him they would be at his disposal. Apart from that evidence, however, the record of the trial showed that examination before the United States commissioner was waived by the accused; that the trial lasted several days, during which no other counsel applied to the court for leave to act for Andersen, nor did Andersen request the court to permit any other counsel to conduct or assist in conducting his defence; that Andersen admitted that the statement he made on November 8 was a voluntary one; that no such statement was put in evidence; nor was any objection raised to questions propounded to Andersen when on the stand as to what he had said on that occasion; nor were witnesses called to contradict his answers. Opinion of the Court. The record did not show, nor was there any pretence that the court was requested to assign Morris as counsel for Andersen and denied the request, and if it were true that the district judge or district attorney suggested that it would be objectionable to do so in view of his employment by the other five members of the crew, even though coupled with the intimation that the court would decline on that ground to make such assignment, the fact was not material on this application. In Commonwealth v. Knapp, 9 Pick. 496, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts refused to make a desired assignment because the person designated was not a member of the bar of that court, and also because "a person of more legal experience ought to be assigned, who might render aid to the court as well as to the prisoner;" but the question under what circumstances a court may in a given case decline to assign particular counsel on the request of the accused, was not discussed. In the case of Shibuya Jugiro, 140 U. S. 291, 296, the alleged assignment at Jugiro's trial "of one as his counsel who (although he may have been an attorney at law) had not been admitted or qualified to practise as an attorney or counsellor at law in the courts of New York," was held to be matter of error and not affecting the jurisdiction of the trial court. The general rule is that the judgment of a court having jurisdiction of the offence charged and of the party charged with its commission is not open to collateral attack. The exceptions to this rule when some essential right has been denied need not be considered, for whether this application was tested on the petition alone, treating the record as part thereof, or heard, without objection, as on rule to show cause, the District Court could not have done otherwise than deny the writ. In re Boardman, 169 U. S. 39. Order affirmed. Mandate to issue at once. Statement of the Case. PITTSBURGH &c. RAILWAY v. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF WEST VIRGINIA.1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. No. 8. Submitted January 25, 1898. Decided November 28, 1898. The collection of taxes assessed under the authority of a State is not to be restrained by writ of injunction from a court of the United States, unless it clearly appears, not only that the tax is illegal, but that the owner of the property taxed has no adequate remedy by the ordinary processes of the law, and that there are special circumstances bringing the case within some recognized head of equity jurisdiction. A railroad bridge across a navigable river forming the boundary line between two States is not, by reason of being an instrument of interstate commerce, exempt from taxation by either State upon the part within it. A railroad bridge is taxable under the Code of West Virginia of 1891, c. 29, § 67; and, although the board of public works assesses separately the whole length of the railroad track within the State, and that part of the bridge within the State, yet, if the railroad company does not, as allowed by that section, apply to the auditor to correct any supposed mistake in the assessment, nor appeal, within thirty days after receiving notice of the decision of the board, to the circuit court of the county, and the officers of the State make no attempt to interfere with the company's possession and control of its real estate, nor, until after the expiration of the thirty days, either to impose a penalty for delay in paying the taxes, or to levy on personal property for non-payment of them, the company cannot maintain a bill in equity in a court of the United States to restrain the assessment and collection of any part of the taxes. THE Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company, a corporation of the State of Ohio, owning and operating a railway running through the States of West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Illinois, under the laws of those States, and crossing the Ohio River, a navigable stream, forming the boundary between the States of West Vir 1 The docket title of this case is "The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company v. The Board of Public Works of the State of West Virginia." Statement of the Case. ginia and Ohio, by means of a bridge built, owned and controlled by the plaintiff, filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia a bill in equity against the Board of Public Works of the State of West Virginia, a public corporation, against its members individually, (being the governor, the auditor, the treasurer, the superintendent of free schools and the attorney general of the State,) and against one Cowan, sheriff of Brooke County, all of them citizens of that State, to restrain the assessment and collection of taxes upon the bridge under section 67 of chapter 29 of the Code of West Virginia of 1891. The bill alleged that, under and by virtue of that section of the Code, the plaintiff was required, through its principal officers, to make return in writing, under oath, to the auditor of the State, on or before the 1st of April in each year, and in the manner prescribed by that section, of its property subject to taxation in the State; the auditor was required to bring the return, as soon as practicable, before the board of public works; that board was authorized either to approve the return, or to proceed to assess and fix the fair cash value of all the property of railroad companies which they were so required to return for taxation; and it was further provided that, as soon as possible after the value of any railroad property was fixed for purposes of taxation by one of the several methods designated by that section, the auditor should assess and charge such property with the taxes properly chargeable thereon. The bill also alleged that the plaintiff's main line of railway ran through the State of West Virginia for a distance of 7.11 miles, of which 6.53 miles were in the county of Brooke and 0.58 miles in the county of Hancock; that its bridge across the Ohio River was part of its railway; that the total length of the bridge, including its abutments, was 2044 feet, of which 1518 feet were in West Virginia and 526 feet in Ohio; and that the plaintiff, before April 1, 1894, as required by section 67 of chapter 29 of the Code, made to the auditor of the State of West Virginia a return of its property subject to taxation in the State for the year 1894, (a copy of which was VOL. CLXXII-3 Statement of the Case. annexed to and made part of the bill, and is set out in the margin,1) and, in making that return, included, in the 7.11 miles of its main track, so much of the bridge as lay within the State, amounting to 1518 feet. The bill further alleged that some time in September, 1894, the board of public works, meeting at Charleston in that State, as provided by that section of the Code, to assess and fix the 1 Valuation of P., C., C. & St. L. R'y Main Line in the State of West Virginia as returned for Taxation for the Year 1894. |