The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1903-01-20

THAT TRIBAL TAX.
Well Known Attorney Gives His
Opinion aud the Law in
Support Thereof.

Ohlckhenh, L. :, Jan. w. ltOO.
Editors Daily ExpTess:-
When 1 returned home from 8
trip out Of town last week, l was
very much surprised to find thai
the tribal authorities had been here
holding up the merchants under
the pFetense Of collectinga one per
cent tribal tax from those who
were not posted. / was more sur
prised TO fiDd that our honorable
United States marshal for the
southern district was aiding this
collection by his presence and in
his official position. Mr.. w. o.
Davis and myself went TO the
trouble to get petitions signed by
the merchants of nearly every town
in the Chickasaw nation, asking
congress to put a stop to this un-
lawful practice Of the Chickasha
authorities and succeeded in hav-
ing Congressman Stephens to pass
q law prohibiting the collection of
This so-called one per cent, which
was passed May q, 1902 and
reads as follows:
"That il shall hereafter be un-
lawful to remove or deport any
person from the Indian Territory
who is in lawful possession of any
lots or parcels of land in any town
or city in the Indian Territory
which has been designated as q
town site under existing laws or
treaties.
1t has always been conceded
by all that the expense money
could not be collected through the
courts. Every lawyer and judge
admits that they have no standing
in the courts OF collection. Our
court OF appeals for the Indian
Territory has recently decided that
neither the Indian authority nor
the Department Of the Interior
could seize property and close the
doors Of business houses to force
the payment OF the expense money,
Expenses Of fellows collecting
Quoting from case of BusteT
and Jones vs. Wright, decided
Sept. %, 1892, the conrt says;
while by the treaty and the
statutes The secretary ofthe interior
may find the fact that a man is 20
Intruder in the Greek nation, be-
cause be fails 10 comply with the
conditions upon which he was per
mitted to enter, and nut him out
he cannot collect the debt by clos
ing his place OF business. The one
is the enforcement Of penslty
for being an intruder; the other, II
allowed. would be the means OF
collecting a debt. The one, the
law provides for; the other. it does
not. We know OF no provision
of treaty or statute law providing
for such a remedy to be enforced
by the interior department of the
government. While that depart.
nent is clothed with vast power in
ana over the Indian Territory and
its people and might, possibly,
within the law, undertake the col
lection Of this debt or royalty. OF
whatever it may be called, yet il
must do so by acme remedy point
ed out by statute or the judgment
of court. Even il this should be
considered the collection OF tax
and, in our opinion, it is NOT
il would be unlawful, because
there is no statute providing that
taxes may be collected in this way,
s'Since the entry OF the decree in
the court below, congress, by act
approved May %, 1902, has pro
vided that it shall hereafter be
unlawful to remove OF depoTt any
person from the Indian Territory
who is an lawful possession of any
lots or parcels Of land in any town
or city 10 the Indian Territory
which has been designated as 9
town site under existing laws OF
,reatIes.' The complaint, in eff
feet, alleges that Wagner has
been so designated, and that tn
plaintiffs are in lawful possession
of lots therein; and as we hold
that the property of the plaintiffs
cannot be seized and the doors ol
their business houses closed, and
as the act referred to provides thai
the plaintiffs cannot be removed OF
deported from the Iudian Terri.
tory, II follows that the only
method left for the collection Of
The debt is through the ordinary
channels OF the courts.
''For the error above set out
the decree of the court below II
ravoraad y r. +. Riddle.