The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-07-19
TAXING THE HALFBREEOS
Commissioner Jones Doesn't Full
ly Understand the Case.
IT Is SOMEWHAT MIXED UP
h Status OF the Personal Property of
White Men Married to Indian Women
and Personal Property of Such
Women Still Unsettled.

celNed Dy indian Agent Smead from the
commissioner of his department, re-
garding the disputed tax matter, which
led TO the expulsion OF Deputy Treas
urer Hess from the reserve last month.
The letter deals in detail with certain
phases of the question, but does not
touch upon others. 1t is evident from
portions of the letter that the matter
is not fully understood by the commits
sioner. or else has not been properly
presented to him. From what is said
regarding F1athead halfbreeds, il APP
pears that the commissioner has the
idea that an effort has been made TO
assess the mixed bloods of the Flathead
and allied tribes. This is not the case.
The only mixed bloods that have been
assessed are of the Chippewa nation, or
of some tribe that has no treaty rights
upon the F1athead reservation. While
the letter leaves unsettled the status OF
the personal property of white men
married to Indian women and of the
personal property of these women after
marriage with white men, IL infers that
these women are liable to taxation for
their personal property and that their
husbands cannot evade taxation by
putting their cattle and other proper
ty in their wives names. The text of
the lelItT Is as lollOWS.
wv. II. Smead, Indian agent, Flat
head agency, Montana. Sir-I am in
receipt of your letter of June IL. rela-
tive to the taxation of personal proper
ty of mixed bloods on the reservation.
You state that when the county Off
GERS came upon the reservation recently
TO seize and sell property of whites and
mixed bloods for taxes, you ordered
them to leave the reservation and they
left; that, having good reason to be-
lieve that another attempt will be soon
made to collect these taxes, you request
Instructions.
I'm reply, I have to advise you that
the personal property OF the whites liv-
ing upon the reservation is not exempt
from taxation and the state officers
should not be interefered with in en-
forcing collection of the same. The
property of the mixed blood Members
of the tribe entitled to live upon the
reservation Is exempt and the officers
will not be permitted to enforce collec-
tion. The contention of the county OFF,
Gals that the mixed bloods are not
wards of the government is not ten
able, and with the view to saving these
officials some trouble and expense. as
well as for your own Information. |
shall refer at some length to the law
upon the subject. The latest decision
by the supreme court of the United
States upon the question of taxation on
dia reservations is that of Feb. 20.
1898. in the case of Gay and Reed ct al.
vs.. Thomas and others. commissioners
of Kay county, Oklahoma. The ques-
ton directly involved i'm this case was
the right of the territory of Oklahoma
to tax cattlemen i'm the Usage reserva-
ton, and. deciding IL in the affirmative.
the court held that il is within the
power of the legislative assembly of
Oh, 49,. - A.a. nv~. g., x.,r y,,.r
within the limits of the Indians reser-
vations and belonging to persons not
Indians
This simply follows other decisions
TO the same effect and seems to clear
ly establish the fact that property To-
Gated within a reservation, belonging to
a person other than an Indian is tax
able unless jurisdiction is expressly ex-
cepted by the organic enabling act.
The question that naturally follows is,
what Is an Indian, within the meaning
OF the term used by the supreme court
in connection with the subject. The
United States statutes nowhere define
an ndian There nave been several
decisions by the courts in cases involv-
ing the status of halfbreeds. notably
those of United States VS.. Ward (42
Fed. Rep. 320): United States vs.. San
ders CHemp. 1860; and eX parte Rey-
nolds 60 Dill. 403), and while they may
all affect the status of halfbreeds
charged with crimes under the Indian
crimes act of March 3. 1885, (23 Stats.
$3.50, they cannot, i'm view of subse-
quent legislation, affect his status with
respect to property rights. In deter
mining the attitude of this government
toward the Indians-all Indians-the
courts follow the action of the execu-
tive and other political departments of
the government. whose more speclhc
duty IL is TO determine such affairs
Omitted States VS.. Holiday, 3 Wall. as:
United States vs.. Boyd. 6S Fed. Rep.
579). Even the action of the executive
and other political departments of the
government is now restricted with re-
spect to its dealings with the half
breeds 10 the extent that they cannot
establish a rule that will be binding in
it's effect upon the courts. The United
States Indian agent, Pine Ridge agen-
cy, asked in a letter OF March u, 1894,
for information as to whether the chill
dren of an Indian woman married to a
white citizen of the United States since
the act of Aug. 9. 1SSS. C25 Stats. 1922.
would be entitled to share i'm the per
capita payment then to be made at
that agency. and stated that the dues-
ton involved the rights OF a consider
able number of persons residing upon
the reservation and enrolled I'm the last
census. The act of 1888 provided as fol-
lows:
That no white man, not otherwise a
member of any tribe of Indians. wh1
may hereafter marry an Indian MO-
man. member OF any Indian tribe in
the United States. except the five civ
Ilized tribes of Indian territory, shan
by such marriage acquire any right TO
any tribunal property. privilege or m
terest whatt yer. to which any member
Of such tribe Is entitled.
SEC. THAT every Indian
member Jf any such tribe of indians.
who may hereafter be married II any
citizen nf tie United States. is hereby
declared to become by such marriage
A citizen CT The United States. With eli
Of the Y ghis, privileges and immuri-
ties of any such citizen. beng = mar
ried woman. provided that nothing in
this act shall impair or in any vav
affect the right or title of such married