The daily gazette., 1879-06-12
A REMARKABLE CASE
Acres I'm Jersey Free Of Tsxati ion'
Correspondence OF the Times.

~
Acres I'm Jersey Free of Taxation.
Correspondence OF the Times.
MOUNT Holly, N. j., June 10.-One
of the most important and interesting
cases that has arisen in New Jersey tor
many years is now pending before the
Supreme Court of the State. The ques-
ton for adjudication is whether tract
Of 5000 or 1900 acres of land in Bur-
lington county is, on account of its hav-
ing been formerly an Indian reservation,
to be free from the tax-gatherer's annual
raid. Should the Court decide in favor
of the landowners, that the and is free
from tax, it will be beyond the power
even of the Legislature to ever tax any
lane within the tract again. This fact,
the perpetuty Of the decision, together
with the value of the property involved,
makes it an extremely important case
The facts are as follows: Previous to
the year 1853 the remnant Of the old
tribe of Delaware Indians still remain
ing in New Jersey had claims TO con-
siderable portion of the soil of the SOUTH
ern half Of the State and to extinguish
their claims peaceably became an object
Of Importance to the government OF the
colony. On the 9th of August, 1888,
commissioners appointed to effect this
| object entered into an agreement with
the chiefs of the tribe by which the In
dians were to release their title to all
lands in New Jersey south of the Rari-
| tan river in consideration of certain pay
ments to be made and of the govern
ment's s purchasing for them tract of
land on which they might reside free
from molestation by the whites.
To carry out the provisions OF this
agreement the Colonial Legislature on
the 18th of August, 1888, passed an act
purchase of the Indians their title to all
lands lying south Of the Raritan river
for sum not 10 exceed 81 800, rrocla-
matiol money" "and aso to purchase con
venient tract of land for the Indiaus to
reside upon, which tract should not
ther after be subject to any tax,
"sny law, usage or custom to the con-
trary thereof IN any wise notwithstand-
ing" The commissioners appointed by
this act purchased for the Indians tract
of over three thousand acres in Evesham
(now Shamung) township, Burlington
county, by deed beoling date the 29lh
day of August, 1853 THIS tract was call
ed by the Indians edge Pillock To il
they reno vOd from their former settle
| ultut, ucbr OTduDoTI " aliu Ou IL Ci Cooe VI
an Indian town, which they named
"Brotherton." Here they lived in peace
and plenty for well nigh half century
But contentment is not always the lot
of the dusky-faced child of the forest
any more than of his pale-faced brother,
and so the Indians finally became dis.
satisfied with their lot and applied to the
Legisla'u Of New JerseyInow nj nc
longer colony but having arisen to the
new dignity of State-for permission tt
remove to Stockbridge, New York, fol
the purpose of uniting with another por
. ton of the old Delaware tribe that wa
located there. This was in the year 1901
The Legislature, in compliance with thu
! wishes Ut the Indians, passed an act au
4 thorizing a sale of the lands contained
in ths Indian reservatio on and sppointin
commissioners to effect such sac. Thi
act was entirely silent npon the suffice
OF the lands being not taxable.
When these commi sioners sold th
and in 1879 3 the pu chaser to- X 1t "a
least so 1t is claimed by the present own
ers-suhject to all the exemptions tina
joyed. The purchasers of the land nov
objected TO paying ak upon It. To settl'
the question the State Legislature IL
1904, passed an act repeating so much o
The act of 1903 as exempted the 1ndiar
Reservation fiom taxation. 1t was sup
posed that this act had finally settled thu
dispute, and the assessor of the township
proceeded to a, sess the land as Ill othel
cases. But the owners still objected t6
the tax. saying that the Legislature hac
! no authority to take from them vestet
j., right, to alter the contract under which
the, had purchased, and, to enforce theil
/ m, lrried the matter by certiorari tt
the Supreme Court OF the state for adju
= dlcation The State court decided agains
| Tho 1anicinn uyaS ANNA lad from
to the Supreme Court OF the United
. States, AMI here the decision was re
a versed. This was in Chief ustice Mar
shalrs time, al that able jurist, az tn
mouth-piece Of the court, rendered al
: exhaustive opinion upon the subject. ID
i; said: "The purchaser succeeds, witt
r the assent of the State, to all the rights o
q tue indians, he stands with this land t.
this land ln their place, aud claims tb'
benefit of their contract. This contrac
= is certainly impaired by y law whic
| would annu the essential part of it. TIL
t act repeating the clause exenpting th
a lands from taxation was, therefore, 4
, violation Of the provision of the CohsJ
tuition of thu United States whic pre-
viies that no State shai.pass any law in
pairing the obligation Of contracts, an
c, is void and the lands still not taxable"
l. Shortly after the decision the owner
either died OF conveyed away their in
n terest in the land, and those who cam
~ into possession of 1t, not knowing of th
decision or not caring to Claim the es
at emption, the assessors continued I
assess and the collectors to collect th
tax, and their successors in office hav
'e so continued to do through all thes
ct years, from 1904 to the present. Th
,e right of exemption was lost sight of an
forgotten, and the present owners ha
l, no idea whatever that they were EMIT
h led to enjoy right that few indeed
Il. the people of civilized country ca
;e boast of freedom from taxation, unit
about year ago, when the old decisio
st of the United States Supreme Court wa
III accidentally discovered. The questio
~ has again been carried to the Suprem
Court of New Jersey by certiorarl an
I'd was argued yesterday by G. E. Hen'
rickson, of Mount Holly, and Attorne
ia General Stockton on the part of IL
10 - State, and by Frederick Voorhees,, I
- Mount Holly, and Peter l.. Voorhees,,
II, Camden, on the part of the owners. I'll
p courts decision has not yet been give
n