Saint Paul weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1858-1859, 1858-08-28
Taxation of Lands before U. 5. Patent
Issues.

There would appear from the following
communication in the st. Anthony .News of
the Dist, evidently from some legal gentle.
man, that the Supreme Court of the United
States has really in effect affirmed the principle
that ''no land purchased of the United
States can be ta.ced by Territorial or State
authority, until the Patent shall have been
issued therefor" The communication is as
follows
After Divers rumorS of decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States, to the
effect that lands purchased of the U. S. are
are not taxable by the authority of the State
or Territory in which such lands lie, until the
patent therefor shall issue from the U. S. to
the purchaser and after divers authentic con-
trad'ctions of the making of such decision,
we have at last the published opinion of the
Court, delivered by Daniel j., in the case
wherein such decision was supposed to
be made. 1t has first fallen under nv own
eye in the st. Anthony Express of August IA,
1858, the case being
John r. Irvine-Appelant.
William r. Marshall, }
Thomas Berton, Respondents.
Although the direct point raised in this
case was not that Of taration of lands held
under duplicate certificate of U. S. Office.
still 1T seems to me that the principle decided
therein, establishes beyond doubt. that no land
purchased Of the United States can be taued Jy
Territorial or State authority until tile patent
shall haze issued therefore.
The points leading to this result which
are made in the case alluded to, are
lst. That Congress alone has power to
make rules and regulations concerning the
land owned BY the United States, wherever
located.
ID. That by the U. S. Statutes the title to
such land does not pass from the United States
to the purchaser, until the patent issues there
for.
Sd. That the true principle in such ca.
ses is Gas laid down by the U. S. Supreme
Court. in "Wilcox VS. Jackson"-l3 Petas
1881 that whenever the question in any
court, State or Federal, is whether title to
land which was once the property of the U.
5. has passed, that question must be reso' we'd
by the laws of the United States.
Now apply these principles to the question
OF taxation above suggested. By the Organ
ic Act OF our Territory, and the Constitution
of our State, lands within our limits belong
ing to the United States cannot be taxed
The only question then is, Has the title to
the lands pre-empted or entered, and held
under the Receivers certificate duplicated
the patent for which has not issued, passed
from the United States to the purchaser2 If
yea, then such lands are taxable; not other
WISE
Now our Territorial NOW State) law pro-
vides, that such duplicate shall be deemed
prima-facie evidence of title in the party to
whom it is issued. But now comes the prin-
ciple established in the cases above cited, and
says the question whether the title to such
lands has passed from the U. S., to the pur-
chaser, is to be decided under United States
lars alone. By those laws no title passes
until the patent issues. Therefore such land
still belongs to the United States, and con-
sequently is not taxable"
Whatever our opinions to the effect of such
ruling, We apprehend that it is too clearly laao,
to be disputed by any court Or lawyer. The
only remedy for the evil effect it may have
upon our revenues, township, county and
state for the future, seems to be to chang
up the patents. The past cannot be rene
died.