The Blackfoot optimist. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1907-1918, 1916-02-17
STATES CANNOT TAX
UNPATENTED HOMESTEADS

! Washington - cit is the opinion of
this office that the state is without
authority, by exercise of the taxing
power, to interfere with or disturb the
possession of persons occupying public
lands pursuant to the laws of con-
gress,' wrote Commissioner Tallman of
the general land Office on May II, 1915,
to Joe j. Richard of Pasadena, Cal.
Mr.. Richard had written the commits
sioner inquiring as to the right of
Imperial county to levy taxes upon land
he had entered under the desert land
law.
The commissioner found that Rich
ard had made one years proof, but
had not made proof of annual expendi-
lures for the second and third wears.
nor had he made final proof or complet-
ed payment of the purchase price. cit
results held the commissioner, "that
you do not possess any equitable estate
in the land, and have not earned the
legal title.
Quotes Court Decision.
cit is quite well established con
tinued the commissioner, "that state
cannot impose taxes upon lands i'll
which the government holds the equit-
able estate In the case of Hussman
VS.. Durham (165 U. S., 144) the supreme
court of the United States declared that
the public lands of the United States
were not subject to taxation by state
and that the power to tax come into ex-
istence only when and as soon as the
right to patent had been fully earned
by the entryman. 1t is plain, then,
that the lands of your entry are not yet
subject to taxation by the state
The state of California had asserted
the right to lay tax upon the "pos-
sessory interest in public lands as
distinguished from the lands them
selves, and upon permanent improve
ments upon such lands. The state law
also declares that taxes due upon i'm
provements shall constitute lien upon
the land upon which the improv ements
exist. The California courts upheld
the right of the state to enforce pay
ment of taxes under the state law just
cited, and further held that the state
could force the sale of the land, and
put the purchaser in possession by
judicial process.
Case from Tennessee.
Commissioner Tallman cites the de-
cision of the United States supreme
court in Van Brocklin VS.. Tennessee
Q17 U. S., 1917, where it was declared
taxation, and that they We're in no wise
the subject of state legislation. The
supreme court, he said, had decided in
other cases that the states in which
public lands are situated could in no
wise lawfully interfere with, disturb or
embarrass the United States in the ad-
ministration of the public land laws.
The commissioner also cites the SUI
preme court decision in United States
VS.. Rickert 1S8 U. S., 1922, where it
was ruled that permanent improvements
upon land allotted to an Indian could
not be burdened by taxes levied by the
state of South Dakota, so long as the
land upon which the improvements ex
listed were not itself subject to taxa
ton. In that case the United States
held title for the Indian for 25 years
before issuing absolute patent. "But
there is much reason,' holds the com.
missioner, "to believe that the conclu-
sion reached in that connection would
be equally appropriate in the case Of
any other land to which the govern
ment's title had not been extinguish-
ed.'