The national Republican., 1867-05-10
THE COURTS.
SUPREME CoURr OF THE UNITED sr,

SUPREME OoURr OF THE UNITED STlTKs-
On motion Of Hon. Reverdy John,on inss ~; N
: McCunn, Justics Of the Superior Court Of tb,
city Of New York, was admitted an attorney ~
counsellor Of this court. ~
No. 145. William Woodward, OF ni., piaintiab
In error. vs. The Illinois Central r. r. Co, AM
No. l73. The Illinois Central r. r. o., plain
tiffs in error, vs.. William Woodward, st a. Il
error 10 the Circuit Court Of the United State
for the Southern District Of Illinois. On nnotiol
Of Mr.. johnson, Of counsel these wril Of srro
were dismissed-each party paying heir owr
costs. Per Mr.. Chief Justice Chase. 10 ~
No. 176. John W. and wm. Thompson, plain.
tins in error, Y, George W. Riggs Of al The
Wilson, Of counsel for plaintiffs In error 6y Mr..
Cox and Mr.. Carlisle, Of counsel for the defend
ants in error and by Mr.. Bradley, of counsel for
plaintiffs In error.
Adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock
Tanation Of Indian Lands in hs State of
ReW York BY that Stats-Ths disgAaay aud
Cansrdugms ReseyUationS- -Jossph Fsiiote5a al !,
Plaintiff in Error, vt Robert DsH,uston
Comptrofier Of the State of Neio York-Ths
question In dispute In this case 10 the validity Of
certain taxes on lands embraced within the In
| dian reservations In the State Of New York,
known asthe Buffalo Creek, Cattaraugus and the
Allegheny reservations imposed by the revised
statutes and general laws Of the State Of New
|
imposed on those lands for the years 1870 10
1874, inclusive, by virtue Of acts Of the Legisia.
ture OF New York passed May Q, 1910, and May
4, lSli, which acts and tho taxes assessed there
under, as we'll as the taxes assessed under gen
eral laws Of the State, II Is claimed By the
plaintiff In error. are void In contravsntion Of
tho laws Of the United States and various trea-
ties between the Government Of the United
States and the Senaca Indians. ai
Tho ultimate fee which carries with u the
right OF preemptiou Is in Fellows, the appellant,
under deed Of trust executed between the So
necas and himself and q co.trustee, now de-
ceased the Indians reserving only the right Of
occupancy.
Tho law under which the tar is levied OF.
pressly excepted from Its operation this Indian
right Of occupancy but subjected the ultimate
fec to sale for taxes The question therefore Is,
whether such taxation can subject to legal sale
for taxes tho ultimate fee, subject to the Indian
right of occupancy, without violating tho treaty
obligations Of the Government Of the United
States. The courts Of the State Of New York
held that, inasmuoh as the Indian right Of occu.
pancy-all tho right they had in the lands-was
left undisturbed by tho taxation or the sale for
taxes, there was no violation Of any Of the rights
and immunities guaranteed by the Government,
| and the tax was valid
And II is now urged by tho State in this court
that the very fact that the appellant has q stand
ing In court shows that 1t Is only the interest Of
| the citizen, and not that Of tho Indian, that Ii
taxed. The appellant must frst show that ho
has an interest in tho lands, and then make II
appear that tho State has no right to tax that
interest. The right Of the State to tax, as
against ell but Indian owners, is absolute.
Tho appellants contend that as the lands are
in the actual and exclusive occupancy Of the
Seneca nation, which exclusive possession and
occupancy was secured to thcm by tho Govern.
ment Of the United States and by the State Of
New York as one of tho States, they cannot be
| taxed by New York.
| By this assessment the State assumed the same
right to tax these lands 10 tax any other lands
| within the State; and unless this assumption be
we'll founded, tho proceeding cannot be sus'
tained. The Indian occupancy Is disturbed BY
the operation Of the law.
1 II provides for the appointment Of commission
ers to lay out, open and construct roads on the
| lands to construct and repair bridges, to levy
| and assess taxes, and to sell tho lands assessed
| for their payment. All this cannot be done and
| tho object OF the law accomplished without q con-
hict with the rights of the Indians, and disturb.
anoe of their possession. 1t Is an unwarrantable
and illegal assumption Of sovereign Jurisdiction
on the part Of the State to legislato over Indian
territory while rightfuly occupied by them as q
nation. 1t is an essential element In the exist
enco Of the power to tax lands, that 1t be as.
sumed that there was ability In the taxing power
to sell 1t and give rightful possession in default
| Of payment. This power does not exist
John A. Reynolds for plaintiff In error. John
r. Porter for respondents.
UNITED STATES CoURT OF CLAIMS
THURSDAY, May o, 1857.
On motion Of Mr.. Weed. tho Assistant Solicitor,
Augustus r. Smith, esq, and Aaron ]. Wander
poel, esq, both Of the city and State Of New
York, were admitted attorneys and counsellors
of this court.
Joseph Merteas VS.. Tho United States,
Joshua d. Geddings VS. The United States
John Deghen vs.. The United States
Chas. J. Quinby VS.. The United Statesj
Samuel Courteney VS.. The United Statesi
Jos. Purcell vs.. Tho United States.
These causes were argued by Mr.. Cooley for
the claimants, and by Mr.. Cowan for the United
| States.
George ]. Cunningham vs.. Tho United statesi
p. ]. Coogan vs. The Uui:ed Statosi
| p Moran VS. The United Statesi
| N. Culleton VS.. The United States
| J. W. Carmalt VS.. The United States.
The argument Of these causes was opened by
Mr.. Wilson for the claimants.
II Adjourned until tomorrow ut IL o'clock.
EQuITy CoURT.-Judge Olin.-Nationa
Metropolitan Bank VS.. Henry Douglass. Orde
| for publication against absent defendant.
Cooley VS.. Skaggs Decree appointing II
| Morsell trustee to sell.
DISTRICT SUPREME CoURT - GENERAL
| TERM Present: Justices 0lin, Wylie and Fisher
The court met yesterday and adjourned with.
II