Omaha daily bee., 1901-01-22
RIGHT TO TAx THE INDIANS
south Dakota Opinion Bears on THIS
Question In Many states.

SIOUX FALLS, s. u, Jan. 2l.--CSpeciaI)
In the suit recently instituted In the
United States court here under the direc-
tion OF the attorney general OF the United
states against James A. Rickert. couutv
treasurer OF Roberts county to determine
the right Of county and state authorities TO
assess and tax the personal property and
improvements Of Indians who have taken
allotments OF land in severalty. Judge Car
land has just rendered a decision OF far
reaching Importance, as II will have a bear
ing on the taxation OF Indians in similar
cases in other states Of the union.
The decision OF Judge Garland is in part
as follows:
THE state of South Dakota has the un-
doubted authority to classify property for
the purposes Of taxation. II has the
right to say that property which might
technically be called real property by vir-
tue OF the provisions OF the common or
statute law shall, for the purposes Of tax
ation be called personal property The
improvements made upon these allotted
lands, for the purposes OF taxation are to
be deemed personal property and they we're
so assessed by the officers OF the county
OF Roberts. There is no pretense in the
case made by the bill that the county Of
Roberts has attempted in any way =, tax
the allotted land itself and whether the
land itself Is taxable is not a question pre-
sented in this case.
These Indians having severed their
tribal relations and adopted the ways Of
civilized life and having become full citi-
zens Of the United States and owners OF
property in the state OF South Dakota, in
what different position are they in regard
to the revenue laws Of the state than any
| l.lfh git
see that they occupy any different posi-
tion than any other citizen so far as prop
erty owned by them is concerned and 1t is
not claimed in this suit that the property
taxed does not belong to the Indians
named. II these Indians In regard to the
property Described in the bill, are not sub
ject to taxation now when, II at all, will
they ever be liable to taxation?
Upon its merits II appears from the
bill that the property described therein
was rightfully taxed by the officers OF the
county OF Roberts. The Indians mentioned
In the bill occupy about the same relation
with reference to the United States and the
state OF South Dakota, as do settlers upon
the public lands Of the United States who
have entered and paid for their land and
done everything that is required to be done
by the laws of the United States to give
them title to the land upon which they re-
side, the naked legal title simply remain
ing in the United States
"Other citizens OF South Dakota are
obliged to pay taxes upon improvements
made upon lands OF this character and I
can see nothing in any law or policy Of the
United States or the state that would ex-
empt these citizens mentioned in th- bill
Of complaint from the same burden"
The injunction restraining the officers OF
Roberts county from assessing and taxing
the property Of Indians in the future was
therefore, denied. Under this decision a
vast amount OF property which has not
heretofore been taxed will be subject to
taxation in the future.