The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1867-04-03
THH Oou9Ta.
surnsnr oOuRr o. Tnsl0si,rp STATES

SUPRsNE CoURr OF THE ,USiTsD STATES
On motion Of Hon A. y. Hsnii,on, Jesse sisncsl,
esq ofI.Iss wss admitted an attorney and oOun.
On motion q Hon Rsvsrdy Johnson, Wilkinson
Call, esq, Of Flodds aud JOSEPH J. Devils, e,q Of
Pennsylvania, were admitted attorneys and coun.
sellors Of this court.
On motion Of L. Sherwood, ESQ.,, Albion W.
Tourgee, esq, and Thomas b. Keogh, esq, Of
rollors Of this court.
On motion Of Mr.. Carlisle, +. @. Bouiinot, esq,
Of Cherokee Nation. and H.-S. Brown, ESQ.,. Of
California sorf admitted attorneys and eOun,'iO
On motion Of Hon. Caleb Cu,hips, Charlss Cow.
ley, osq, Of Massachusetts was admitted an attof-
ney and counsellor Of this court. II
No. w. Charles Bluejaeket, ct al, ofths Swanee
Tribe Of Indians, plaintiff In srror W The Board
Of Commissioners Of johnson County, Kansas;
No, $40. yellow Beaver, ct al ofths Wsa Tribe
Of indians, plaintiffs in error, ys. Tho Board Of
Commissioners Of Miami County, Kansas, and 81
No, 81. Wsutop-e.at, Of al, Of the Miami
Tribe Of indians, plaintiffs in error w. The Board
Of Commissioners 81 Miami County, Kan,as.
Tbs argument Of these oases was commenced by
MT Hendrick, Of counsel for the plaintiff, in error
continued By Mr. F!P. Stanton, OF counsel for tho
defendants in error, and concluded by Mr..
Hendricks. - ~
Adjourned until tomorrow at ii o'clock. ..'
Indian Rs'srcdtto'u IN Ransas-dys tie Lands
TAXABLE BY tie State-TRs Nature Of ths Title
Pay'ed 6y ne Govsrnnasm Potent CharIss Blue.
JACKIE, for Hmse4 aud OtLd Menbps of tie aiaD.
,les IndiGns Residiag an Raasa,, Pl,iatjfs in
Error, Is. The Board Of Comgstsaonsrs Of tie
COhnty Of Johnson, STATE Of aKansas This case,
and others argued with It, come from the Supreme
Court Of the State Of Kansas, and the records
therein present the single question WHISTLER the
State Of Kansas has the right to tax lands hsld 10
severaity BY individual Indians 81 the Shawnee,
Miami, and Wsa tribes, under patents Issued TO
them BY virtue Of the treaties made with those
tribes In 1884 and In pursuance Of the provisions
Of the eleventh section Of the act Of June, 1859. ,
The Supreme Court Of Kansas came to the con.
clusion that those tribes who held their Iands in
severalty under patents from the Government, have
the abstract title therefor that the lnnds are sub.
jet to taxation unless exempted specifcically by
the constitution Of the STATE or by some paramount
law and that they arc not 90 exempted. TSe court
maintained that such n conclusion was sustained
By the decision Of Justice Mclean In the case Of
Lowry vs.. Weaver, which was proceeding to sub.
oet TO sale, for the payment Of his debt the lands
Of an Indian chief, who held them under q patent
containing restriction that they should never DO
asned BY the grantee or his heirs without the con-
sent Of the President Of the United States. Judge
Mclean In that opinion said that by the restriction
'the land was not Withdrawn from the sovereign
action Of the State. Like others, 10 may DO taxed
BY the State. This belongs peculiarly to State
powers Except ~ compact, or the voluntary logis-
iativo action Of the State, lands within It's limits
cannot be withdrawn from its ordinary action.n
The patent, 10 forms, conveys the lands in fee.
simple, and contains restriction that said lands
shall never be sold or conveyed By the grantee or
bis heirs without the consent Of the Secretary Of the
Interior for the time being" and It is contended
BY the plaintiff In error that this gives TO the pat
enteo nothing more than the ordinary Indian title
the right Of perpetual use and possession, the
ultimate fee remaining in the Government Al.
though these lands are held In severalty still there
being restriction upon the power Of alienation by
tho patentee without the assent Of the Government
expressed through the Secretary Of the Interior,
the fee remains In the Government -''ra
To this 1t is answered that II the fact that the
lands are held In severaly cannot affect the ques.
ton, the above proposition would be correct and
invulnerabe. But this would be assuming the very
question in controversy. 49,.
r. Breckenridge and Senator Hendricks for plaip.