468 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Dennis, supra, but they cannot prevail in this court over the views expressed by the supreme court of the United States. �This attitude of the case renders it unnecessary to consider the other points so much argued ariaing out of the failure to act before resignation, when there was an opportunity to obey the writ and the effeet of the negotiations with the relator's attorney to excuse obedi- ence. It may be said, however, that several of the reapondents show no excuse, except the pendency of negotiations for a compromise; and it is doubtful if the attorney' s action, taking it for all that can be claimed, afforded any justification. The magistrates certainly .'icted in bad faith to him in conspiring to defeat a levy by resigna- tions after his indulgence. There was an implied understanding that if the compromise failed the writ woald be obeyed, and it was a fraud on the relator to act otherwise. The whole case shows a deliberate intention on the part of these officers, no doubt in obedience to pop- ular sentiment, to circumvent the obligation imposed by law to levy the tax to pay these bonds. I have'been inclined to at once impose as a penalty for this contempt the whole judgment as a fine, distrib- uting the sum among the respondents according to their respective abilities to pay, and to commit them until the fines and costs were paid and the writ obeyed ; but, on reflection, I have concluded to afford another opportunity for obedience to the writ of mandamus, having received assurances that if the court decides the resignations ineffectuaJ no further resistance will be made to the process. The court therefore adjudges respondents in contempt of its procesB, but for the present withholds sentence, and directs an alias mandamus to issue requiring these respondents, and their successors in office, to levy the tax at the next regular levy in April, as other taxes are lev- ied, and to collect the same as required by law; and until it shall be made known to the court how the writ has been obeyed, all other mat- ters are reserved. �So ordered. �Note. By an able review of this case by Robert W. Haywood, Esq., printed in the Brownsville (Tenn.) Democrat, I am reœinded of an uninten- tional omission to notice an argument, made also at the bar on the trial of this case, that the construction adopted would continue ofTicers removing from the county or state in their offices. Our constitution itself provides that jus- tices of the peace and constables removing from the civil district shall vacate the office, which makes an exception to the general rule of the clause con- strued in the principal case. Article 6, § 15. Perhaps a paramount public poliey analogous to that so declared would nialce an exception in all cases of ��� �
