The New York herald., 1871-03-22
HE COUR T S.
Another Erie Litigation The Witnesses in the
Case Of tho chip Old Co,ouy-Tho Broadway
wiaening Sultan Old Divorce Case
Tho Business in the Court Of
General Sessions Decisions
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Government Taxes ON Manufactures Of the
Cherokee Nation.

Government Taxes Manufactures Of tho
Cherokee Nation.
WASHINGTON, March 81, 1871.
No. 253. Elias c. BGudinot and Stand Waite us.
The United States-Er0r to the District Court for
the Western district OF Arkansas.-Tnis suit was
commenced by information tled against quantity
Of manufactured tobacco, apparatus and implements
Tor manufacturing, &c, on land OF the Cherokee
Nation, in the Indian country, belonging to the
plaintiffs IN error, the allegation being that the
owners were disregarding the internal revenue
laws of the United States. The charge
was admitted to be true In the court below.
the plaintiffs In error claiming to be Cherokecs,
and as such not liable to the operation
OF those laws. The Court was requested to
charge that the revenue act Of 1853, extending the
jurisdiction OF those laws to certain articles pro-
duced anywhere within the exterior boundaries
OF the United States, whether wItnn collection
district or not, was not IN force any part or the
Indian Territory: and that by the tenth article OF
the treaty OF Ist6 the Cherokee Nation were exempt
from the operation OF the revenue aws tnat articles
prOviued that every Cherokee residing within the
nation should have the right TO sell within tue Terri
tory my products OF his farm, including live stock
or any merchandise or manulactu.ed ed products.
The Court refused these instructions, and the
verdict was Tor the United Stases The case
comes here Tor review, the paintTs IN error
@ SSntendng tnat the provisions OF the treaty WIN
aud that II Congress can repeal compact con-
tanned In treaty Of any KIND II can repeal OF annul
II the United States can by Statute annul exemption
from taxailOn OF articles manufactured In the
Cherokee country and sold within the Indian Terri-
tory, 1t can extend all other laws OF the country
over the Cnerokeas. destroy their guaranteed rights
AND their nationality, and make them In their des-
ptc citizens OF the United States II Is also main
taned that the Indians cannot be taxed by the
United States without their consent, their nations
being also sovereign. The government contends
that II has been held Taylor va Morton. COURT Q.
G. r., ASA that where the subject matter OF treaty
falls within the legislative power OF Congress that
body may repeal 1t SO far as 1t Is municipal law.
II. therefore, lne treaty Ovsion in this case Is to
be understood as exempting IRON taxation articles
manu- actured IN the Indlan Territory. while the
within the Territory, the subject Of taX
alton being within the legislative power, 1t was un-
donbtedly competent for Congress by subsequent
law to modify or repeal that provision by making
labie to taxation all such articles, Irrespective OF
their locality; and the rule must be applied In the
case before the court. The theory OF the sove.
regnty OF the Indian nations and OF their exemp-
tton from taxation within their country 1t Is sub
mtted, on the part OF the government Is not within
the rule oil decided cases IUulted States vs. Rogers
HOW, 667. The case is still on argument.