The national Republican., 1867-04-05
THI COURTS.

SUPREME EoURT OF THE UNITED SrATgs.-
IA THURSDAY, April q lss7.'
% motionof NJ. Granti Henry Strong osd, Of
ievs, vas admitted an sttOrn.y and counsellor Of
FkOli ysms, D. au5 j oss Niohol, appellants,
v Lyon j. Lacy tal. The argument Of this cause
was eoncluded BY Mr.. oaflisle Of counsel for tho
appellants
No. 1877 The steamer wm. Basalsy and cargo
Joshua Bragdon, intervenor and appellant, vs. The
United States and eaptors. The Argument Of this
cause was commenced by Mr.. Crawford and con.
tinuod BY Mr. 8, 8. Cox Of counsel for the appel.
lants, and by Mr.. Ashton, assistant attorney gen
eral, Of counsel for tho appelless 49,. rs.-r :
Adjourned until tO-morrow at IL o'clock
Another Indian Tar Ca0-Ersmption from
SiLe or BnrfaioN cf Jndlida Rehabilitation Ttls
--Wdu.zopeah a al rs. Ths Board Of Commis.
'ioRos Of Mann County, KaAsag. This is an.
other Of the Indian tar cases from Kansas There
h but one point OF difference between this ease aud
the case OF Bluejaoket and others, reported on
Tuesday. In that case which was under the
Shawnee treaty, the treaty provides that Congress
may authorize the issnihg Of patents for the 90.
lsoted lands under restrictions and the restriction
adopted under the treaty was that the lands should
never be sold or alisned by the grantees or their
heirs without the consent Of the Secretary Of the
Interior. Tho trosty with the Miamies, after a
similar clause, provides that tho lands go granted
should not be liable TO levy SALE execution or for.
fsiture. The decision ip that case was that the
restriction in the patent did not operate 10 exempt
the lands from taxation. In this case Il IL con.
tended that the provision above quoted has that
| effect. -.r r .r- ,a. ia. a... Tr..
The sourt below said Whether these lands ar.
taxable depends upon the construction to be given
tho phrases levy, sale, execution, or forfeiture.
They would ordinarily be held to refsr to judicial
| proceedings yet the first two might be appropri.
ntely used with references 10 TAXATION
the sense In which they were intended TO be under.
stood cannot be satisfactorily determined from the
words alone Other iightl must, II accessible, be
made available to that end. The treaty with the
Mapies was executed January 8, 1854, . little
prior to those made with tho Chippewas. Wyan.
dottes, and Winnsbagoes. "A comparison Of the
language used in those treaties shows provisions In
each, In this respect, almost precisely alike and
that the only difference between the others and the
Miami treaty is that in the latter the word "sxe-
euton" Is omitted and the word "taxaton" Is used.
That this was the result Of accident or nadvertence
certainly ought no. TO be presuued nor win II be
so presumed, ...- ,r,i .l'',.,sr ..,.rs... ID.
Whom used in reference 10 Judicial proceeding
in civil matters, the words '9evy and sale" are
equivalent to the word execution Each expires.
sion means the subjectng Of the property to the
satisfaction Of q Judgment, and the use Of both
would be tautology. In the formation Of the lnsI
Of these treaties It cannot be doubted that the In
tentiou was to exempt the lands from Judgment
sale, aud not from sale for taxes. . y
l. The same conclusion Is arrived at In respect "a
tho provision in this case, the use Of the words
levy sale, and forfeiture having been used In al
alike, and II being held that in each case thes,
words referred to Judicial proceedings.
The appellant insists that the use Of the WORD
| taxation exempts the land therefrOm. o. O..
7. A, Hendricks and r. Breckenridge for appel
lhnts; T. b. Stanton oppoSed. --F