Opinion of the Court.

coupons were refused when tendered for taxes, but was intended solely to afford a remedy in case bills of the bank of the State were refused when tendered for taxes. But even if it should be conceded that the terms of the act to facilitate the collection of taxes were broad enough to cover a case in which coupons of bonds purporting to be bonds of the State are refused when tendered for taxes, as well as a case in which taxes are tendered and refused in other funds and moneys' than the collecting officers are authorized by the act levying such taxes to receive, we do not see how these actions can be maintained. By the express terms of the act it must be made to appear that the county treasurer has illegally and wrongfully refused to receive payment of the taxes assessed against the plaintiff in anything else but gold and silver coin, United States currency, national bank notes, and coupons which shall become payable during the year 1882 on the valid consolidation bonds of this State, known as 'brown bonds,' as required to do by the 7th section of the Act to raise supplies and make appropriations for the fiscal year commencing November 1, 1881,' approved February 9, 1882, 17 Stats. South Carolina, 1070. Practically this last mentioned act forbids county treasurers from receiving in payment of taxes any coupons of bonds which have not been ascertained in the manner prescribed by the legislation herein before mentioned to be valid obligations of the State. Now, if, as we have seen, the State had the right to prescribe the mode by which the validity of any bond purporting to be an obligation of the State should be tested and determined, and if, as we have also seen, such mode was prescribed, and the validity of all the various classes of bonds purporting to be obligations of the State was passed upon and finally determined, it would seem to follow necessarily that the State had a perfect right to forbid its officers charged with the collection of its revenue from receiving in payment of taxes any coupons or other form of obligation which had not only not been adjudged to be a valid obligation of the State, but which, on the contrary, had been expressly adjudged to be invalid. There certainly can be notning illegal or wrongful in an officer of the State

Opinion of the Court.

yielding obedience to a law of the State passed in the usual form, in pursuance of a judgment of its highest judicial tribunal, from which there had been no appeal to the tribunal of last resort, though express provision had been made for such appeal."

After having thus decided that the present action was not maintainable under the provisions of the act of December 24, 1878, the Supreme Court of South Carolina proceeds to review the grounds of its prior decisions in the Bond Debt Cases, 12 South Carolina, 200, 263, 294, and restates and reaffirms the same, going at large into the question of the validity of the bonds held by the plaintiff as obligations of the State, adjudging them to be invalid. The conclusion follows and is declared that the act of the General Assembly entitled "An act to raise supplies and make appropriations for the fiscal year commencing November 1, 1881," approved February 9, 1882, alleged by the plaintiff to be void as impairing the obligation of the State contained in the bonds and coupons, is a valid and constitutional law, and justified the defendant, as county treasurer, in refusing to receive the coupons in payment of taxes when tendered.

It thus appears that in point of fact the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina in its opinion in this case passed upon the federal question sought to be raised by the plaintiff as the foundation of his case, and decided it adversely to him; but the analysis of the case which we have made shows clearly that the decision of that question was not necessary to the judgment. Before reaching that question, the Supreme Court had already decided that the action of the plaintiff could not be sustained, according to the meaning of the provisions of the statute under which it was brought. The decision of that point was final, and was fatal to the plaintiff's right of recovery. That question is not a federal question; it does not arise under the Constitution of the United States, or of any law or treaty made in pursuance thereof. It is not a question, therefore, which, under this writ of error, we have a right to review. We are not authorized to inquire into the grounds and reasons upon which the Supreme Court proceeded in its construction

Opinion of the Court.

of that statute. It is a state statute conferring certain rights upon suitors choosing to avail themselves of its provisions upon certain conditions in certain cases. Who may sue under it, and when, and under what circumstances, are questions for the exclusive determination of the state tribunals, whose judg ment thereon is not subject to review by this court. It was competent for the State of South Carolina either to grant or withhold the right to bring suits against the officers of the State for the recovery of money alleged to have been illegally exacted and wrongfully paid. If granted, the action is in substance, though not in name, an action against the State itself, just as an action permitted by the acts of Congress on the subject against a collector of customs, for the recovery of duties alleged to have been illegally exacted, and paid under protest, is an action against the United States, though nominally against the collector. In such cases, as the State may withhold all remedy, it may attach to the remedy it actually gives whatever conditions and limitations it chooses; and its own interpretation and application of its statutes on that subject, given by its own judicial tribunals, are conclusive upon the parties seeking the benefit of them. No right secured by the Constitution of the United States to any citizen is affected by them unless they are framed or administered so as, in some particular case, to deprive the party of his property without due process of law, or to deprive him of the equal protection of the laws. No such question is or can be made in reference to the statute of South Carolina under consideration. It authorizes. in certain enumerated cases, parties found to be within its terms to bring a prescribed action against the State in the name of one of its officers. According to the decision of its highest tribunal, the plaintiff in this action is not within the class entitled to sue. To review that judgment is not within the province of this court, because it does not deny or injuriously affect any right claimed by the plaintiff under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

It is a well-settled rule, limiting the jurisdiction of this court in such cases, that "where it appears by the record that the judgment of the state court might have been based either

Opinion of the Court.

upon a law which would raise a question of repugnancy to the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, or upon some other independent ground; and it appears that the court did, in fact, base its judgment on such independent ground, and not on the law raising the federal question, this court will not take jurisdiction of the case, even though it might think the position of the state court an unsound one." Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 257, 263, per Mr. Justice Bradley. And it has been repeatedly decided, under § 709 of the Revised Statutes, that to give this court jurisdiction of a writ of error to a state court, it must appear affirmatively, not only that a federal question was presented for decision to the highest court of the State having jurisdiction, but that its decision was necessary to the determination of the cause, and that it was actually decided, or that the judgment as rendered could not have been given without deciding it. Brown v. Atwell, 92 U. S. 327; Citizens' Bank v. Board of Liquidation, 98 U. S. 140; Chouteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200; Adams County v. Burlington & Missouri Railroad, 112 U. S. 123; Detroit City Railway v. Guthard, 114 U. S. 133; New Orleans Water Works Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 18.

Inasmuch, therefore, as the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina, sought to be brought in review by this writ of error, does not involve any question necessarily arising under the Constitution of the United States, or the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof, we must refuse to take jurisdiction in the case.

The writ of error is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion of the Court.

PORTER v. WHITE.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 221. Argued April 12, 1888. - Decided April 30, 1888.

In this case it was held, on the facts, that the plaintiff in a suit in equity had not established his right to a decree that he is entitled to the one-half of the attorney's fees in an award against Mexico by the joint United States and Mexican commission, which fees had been collected by the defendant.

The plaintiff failed to establish any equitable lien on the award, by showing a distinct appropriation of a part of it in his favor, or any agreement for his payment out of it.

IN EQUITY. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. S. S. Henkle and Mr. J. J. Johnson for appellant. Mr. William E. Earle was with them on the brief.

Mr. S. V. White, appellee, in person.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill in equity, filed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, by Richard H. Porter against Stephen V. White. The case arises as follows: On the 4th of July, 1868, a convention was concluded between the United States and Mexico, 15 Stat. 679, providing for the adjustment of the claims of citizens of either country against the other, under which all claims on the part of citizens of either country upon the other, arising from injuries to their persons or property by the authorities of the other, which might have been presented to either government for its interposition with the other, since the signature of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, of 1848, and which yet remained unsettled, as well as any other such claims which might be presented within the time specified in the convention, (but not covering any claim arising out of a transaction of a date prior to February 2, 1848,) were referred to two