The New York herald., 1871-03-18


THE INDIAN TERRITORY
Is, as most persons aware, large tract or about
63.6oo square miles 4o.64o,OOO acres In extent,
bounded north by Kansas, south ana west by Texas
and east by Arkansas, and containing, 1t is est-
mated, about 100000 misunderstanding negroes,
Indians and mixed races.
Tns Territory is clearly part and parcel OF the
United States, BUTT would require Philadelphia
lawyer to TX the status of its inhabitants. For
certain purposes, getting claims through Congress,
DC, they are regular citizens Of the United States;
for other purposes. getting appropriations for an
nuities &C., they are wards of the United States;
and finally, when claiming exemption from the
duties ana burdens OF citizenship or wards, they
stOutly maintain they are citlzens Of foreign
nations and not IN any way under the control OF
the United States except SO far as
'.rREArY sTIPULArIoNs"
may require. In other words, they are or are not
cizens, wards or foreigners, as their interest or
the time being moves them.
In the now before the Supreme Court they
appear citizens OF foreign nations claiming ex-
emption from the requirements Of The internal
revenue.
TAX ON TOBACCO.
The tenth article OF the Cherokee Treaty. Of 1865
provides that any Cherokee or freed person resident
In the Cherokee Nation shall have the right to sell
the.products OF his farm, live stock, merchandise
or manufactured products without restraint on pay
ment OF tax. On the other hand the law OF Con.
gress OF July 20, 1868, Is as follows:-
And be fun enacted the internal revenue laws
Imposing eta taxes on distilled spirits fsrmented liquors. To-
TEND % such articles produced sIgeh.re S % ne sc. %
within collection district or not.
Relying upon the '.Lreaty" Of 1865 several capi.
talists established tobacco manufactures few rods
west OF the western boundary OF Arkansas and conf
menced the manufacture of tobacco without the
payment OF internal revenue tax.
Uhtla
and other Eastern States paying millions upon
millions OF dollars taxes into the national Treasury
these border gents arranged TO go tax free.
THIS arrangement did not, however meet the ap-
probation oi Mr. Supervisor John Mcdonald and ne
accordingly seizeo the Offending establishments.
One case was pro pity carried on appeal to Com.
missioner Of Internal Revenue Delano, ana finally
TO Secretary Boutwell,; ana In both cases the de.
CHS Ion OF the supervisor affirmed and his ac on
approved. 1t was then carried to the judiciary Com
mlttee Of the House OF Representatives with no bet
The case now before the Supreme Court was tried
by the United States District Court OF Wes Ar
kansas, and, the Supervisor being sustained an ap-
peal was taken by the would-be manufacturers to
the highest tribunal OF the land where the decision
will be rendered IN the course OF ten days or 60.
INTERESTING ARGUMENTS AND CITATIONS.
The following are the arguments aud citations OF
William J. whipple, United States Attorney for the
western district OF Arkansas. They VIII pc found 10
contain AL the law aud facts Of the case:-
THE QUESTION.
The general question Is whether She government
mas extended the revenue laws relating to the man
nfacture and sale Of tobacco and spirits to the
THE CASE.
The claimants cases manufactured leaf
into smoking and chewing tobacco IN the Cnoctaw
and Cherokee nations OF the Indian Territory, with
cut paying the special tax, giving bond paying
revenue law. In some vi the cases 1t ls claimed
that the manufacturers were white men, In some
Instances residing in that Territory. In all the cases
It Is claimed leaf tobacco grown In the States was
introduced ana manufactured In the Nation.
FIRST PROPOSITION
Il Ia main aimed that Congress and the President
have the power 10 apply the revenue system to the
nation The general power OF the United States 70
govern the organized and unorganized Territories
cannot be denied The power 10 govern necessarily
results from the right to acquire teirtory-Ameri-
can Insurance Company VS.. Carter, Peters, 542.
THE INDIAN TREATIES.
Wherever any stipuations OF an Indian treaty
conflicts with provision OF act Of Congress the
net is paramount TO the treaty. Congress and the
President are the repeating power as 10 treaties, al
tiating power. These Two powers are not neces-
sary, and are not in fact Identical. The Queen OF
England makes laws for the colonies which parlla-
ing treaties with any given nation by declaration
Of war against i. In 1898 Congress abrogated all
treaties. In It's relation to the national conscience,
is one thing; the legal power TO annul is another
thing We repeal q treaty with foreign Power at
our peril. II Congress could not repeal, no treaty
though by our constitution operative a. mu.
negotiating ANOTHER treaty with the same Power
IN other words, part OF our municipal law woula be
beyond our CONTROL and could not be repealed ex-
Oept WIN the consent OF a foreign nation. This
would be an intoerable infringement OF our inde.
pendenSe nc as haon rs Is Il pos Was ~
2Curtis, G. C. B., 464. In that case the Russian
treaty guaranteed that Russian hemp should be ad-
mlttcd with duty OF twenty-five dollars per ton,
aud the act of 1872 provided that it should pay
forty dsllars, and that distinguished Judge held
the same point, story on the Constitution, seclion
l,sss Kent 1885, Sergeant, Constitutional Law, 4l2,
ser vs. Re SoTrs s a. and ass recent
opinisn Of Justice Miller in the Gray vs.. Clinton
% & o Il S
these authorities that an act Of Congress Is para
made even with the rrst Power or earth.
AJorttsrt, no provision contained In any Indian
treaty can be SET up against tue laws Of Congress.
RELATIONS OF INDIANS TO THE UNITKD STATES.
These relations arc peculiar aud sui gene1ts. The
Indian tribe, are subjects Of tho United states.
crnment and under Its pupilagc. In ne sense are
they foreign States or Independent people The In
tons TO the government analogous 10 those Of states
or Territories or more closely like those OF Terrific
rtes Of the second grade under the Northwestern
ordinance. They are permitted to make and exe-
cute their own local laws, but have simply the right
Of occupancy to sne @ sou they nnao THIS right s
jurisdiction. Although the earlier decisions
made In cases arising between the tribes
and States OF the Union went further towards hold
which they derived from their original Condition
anterior to the union yet such has net been the
recent iegsa: Of "S the fispsoa inaans nas
been radically affected by the fourteenth amend
ment BY Its terms ''al persons born In the United
States" and 'suuect to its jurisdictonn are made
.'citzens.n This certainly includes ali our Indians
and was adopted July 13 1868, seven days before
the passage OF the 1O7th section OF the law OF July
90 1865, extending the Internal Revenue laws into
the Indian nation 4Cnerokee Nation VS.. Georgia.
s Peter, l. Unit I'd States vs. Rogers Howard 57l;
Wheaton International Law, sec. 40, note; bred.
Scott vs Sanford 10 Howard, 395; United States VI.
Core, IL howard, 1901
SECOND PROPOSITION.
Congress has extended the Internal Revenue laws
feafng TO the manufacture and sale VI tobacco ana
spirits IN the Indian nations the seres oil Internal
Revenue laws reach from July, 1862, 70 APRIL 1862
The first act passed applies in express terms TO
see second section OF said act. The word state"
~ defined to include "Territsries'' In game act.
But the l07h section OF act OF july 1885, s decisive
OF this question This applies to laws relating to
Tobacco, TO those articles produced anywhere There
San W no uncertainty as 10 Inc territorial range
intended. The lanpuaUd