UNITED STATES V. LABETTB COUNTT. 321 �not competent for the court to devolve upon the respondents any officiai duty whatever; it was only competent to bring into action — to compel the exercise of powers and duties con- ferred upon the respondents by law. It is said that this rule will operate oppressively upon the relator by requiring him to institute a separate proceeding in mandamus against each of the oificers of the county charged with the performance of any duty in connection with levying, collecting, and paying over the taxes necessary for the satisfaction of his judgment. The court cannot presume that the oificers of a county, sworn to perform these ojfficial duties, -will so conduct themselves as tp make this necessary, especially in view of thp fact that the only possible resuit of such action would be to accumulate costs, to be paid in the end by their constituents. If, how- ever, the apprehensions of counsel . for relator in this regard should all be realized, it would still be our duty to declare and enforce the law as it is, regardless of consequences. The courts do not make the law, and they cannot change it to suit the convenience of litigants. The remedy by mandamus is appropriate and adequate. It may be repeated as often as the occasion requires ; and, although the debtor corporation or its oificers may delay the enforcement and final collection of a judgment by refusing to act, except under compulsion, the court rendering the judgment is clothed with ample power to enforce it. If the respondents, or the other county officiais, 80 act as to make it necessary to multiply writs and add costs to the already heavy burdens of the debtor cor- poration, I see no way in which this court can prevent it. In the case of Rees v. City of Watertown, 19 Wall. 107, the supreme court of the United States was asked to sanction a departure from the usual course of proceedings in cases of this character, upon the ground that the municipality had dis- regarded the mandate of a mandamus, alias mandamus, and pluries mandamus, commanding it to levy a tax to pay the relator's judgment, and the officers, to avoid obedience, had resigned their offices, so that there seemed to be better pros- pect of enforcing the judgment by the ordinary means. Nevertheless the court said: v.7,no.3— 21 ��� �
