Durant weekly news. (Durant, Choctaw Nation, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 190?-1944, 1915-06-04
si7. 900 TAX CASE COMES NJ
Up FRIDAY, JUNE ttTH
Assistmn County Attorney Gray
Moore Outlines the Position of thc
County in the Case---Spccial Judge
to Try Case.

Co Try Case.
on next Friday, June nth. the
case OF Geo X Broadwell va the
County Commissioners OF Bryan
County will be heard IN the District
Court by a special Judge. w, +. Free
man, of Ardmore, Judge Hatchett be-
ing disqualified.
The suit IL On a9a'eAi IRON ihg
refusal OF the County Commissioners
TO pay the plaintiff about Si7,0OO,
which plaintiff alleged represented
Indian taxes which were collected by
the County illegally. and his claims
based upon the assignment OF the In
dividual claims 10 him.
Assistant County Attorney Moore.
who attended this week q meeting OF
Eastern oklahoma county attorneys
! in Oklahoma City. which was called
| by the Attorney General to make
plans for resisting the cases In an in
terview with a representatives, { the
Weekly News. made thc following
statement OF the County's ease;
Under the Atoka agreement In the
! Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations
lands were made non-taxable while
In the hands of the original allottees.
and similar provisions are found In
the treaties with Charokees. Creeks,
and Seminolcs later. Congress
passed an act removing the reStric-
tions on many OF the Indians against
ALIENATION. and providing that when
the restrictions are removed the land
becomes subject TO taxation Under
the act of Congress this class of ID-
dian lands were assessed for taxation
and while the matter was being liti-
gated through the various courts,
many of the families paid these taxes
In May. 1912. the Supreme Court OF
the United states held that Congress
had no right to make these lands tax
able, and that the state could not tax
them These suits TO recover the
taxes paid are based upon the theory
that the County had no right TO col
llect the tax. and that therefore the
tax should be refunded This is be-
ling resisted on various grounds.
lamong which are that the taxes were
paid Voluntarily. there never being an
effort 10 force their payment and
were paid without protest, and that
Therefore they have no right to re-
cover from the counties. especially
lsince the County has apportioned TO
1.-THE State and the various municipal
Subdivisions of the County, their
share OF the taxes, and the County re-
ceived only a small portion OF the
amount of the taxes for which the
County Is being sued. and that Il act
ed merely as agent for the state and
the subdivisions of the County in col
lecting their portions OF the taxes
To compel the County now TO pay
back these taxes would compel 2
large bond issue. and force the Coun.
~ to repay a lot Of money that Wen
10 others. and from which the Coun
~ received no benefit Narious tech
: lnical questions are being raised also
= In Rogers county about $40, 900 ~
these taxes We're paid In Grad'
lconnty some were paid, and two case
are now pendrE IN tho SUPREME
| Court from that county. I'm one o
which eases the court held that tn
taxes were recoverable. and In th
lother. with different iudge prasid
Hing a was held on demurrer th0
the taxes were not recoverable.
fcasc from Carter county is also IN IN
Supreme Court in which the distric
lcourt. on demurrer to plaintiffs po
,tition held tho taxes not recovera
ble In This county judge McKeow
ovorrulod the countv's demurrer. am
| answer has been filed. and the case /
10 be tried this month.