The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1922-02-05

appeal by Gillespie from the deci-
sion an, holding OF the state auditor.
The dis rlct court through District
Judge q gorge w. Clark. after full
prcfentr+ lion upon briefs and argu.
mcnts. | nd taking the case undeI
adviseu,( Mt, found the statutes ~
Oklahoiti void and unconstitutlon .
al, and ~ inulled the taxes. on appeal
by the 5'ntc. the supreme court Of
Oklahon first affl med tho judR-
ment, bu \ with a change In the per-
sonuel OF The court, on petition for
rohcHriug uQd without permitting "A
rcHrgumC.it Of the case before tho
new justil H changed It's mind, or.
dorcd the iud gmcnt reversed, and
the taxes n,pOscd. Ho then lifted the
ease. on ohalf OF Mr.. Gillespie. to
the United safes supreme court.
when that tt,urt reversed the okla
homa suprenie court. Gnd sustained
Judge ClarlI preserving the fruits
~ two vict,s les already won for
Gillespie.
IL u 4 'cdcral Agency
According to Gilmore's view.
some mlsapN rehcnbion seems TO
exist aa 10 bt tn the effect Of the
decision, and {, nc hard blow claimed
a
true large 1rnber ~ lessccs have
boon affected Nnd benefited ana re-
llcvod f1om tlee tx. according TO
the chief clerk of the Income tax
department OF ! he state auditor
about two thorf ana However, the
Rintc has not b't N deprived OF any
taxes that Il IN, any shadow OF
right to impose. but has merely
been prevented ht,m demanding and
collecting taxes th which II never
had any right. n Is too, at a
time when the sta to treasury II so
plethoric with taxtys collected ana to
he collected, that ! he governor and
state auditor have recently engaged
In n hot and spirihcd contest ms to
whether or not the thate should lovy
and collect any n volorom taxes,
except as required lby the COnstltu-
tion, the state nSdltor claiming
they should not be- and many citi-
zor and taxpayers peel that he was
rigl The case was decided on the
ancient and familia { principle that
tho state has no rig ht to tax either
Il federal agency or fundamentally
as that would be to allow the state
to tax the very op, ratlons OF. and
the means employed by. the United
states government y discharge it's
governmental functit ms, and that,
innsmuch as the leal MS themselves
cannot be directly ta~ vi. the income
derived therefrom can, lot be.
A like principle has always been
applied Is favor of the states. where
by the United States / n equally re
strained from thus int ,rferlng with
the state. II is one OF u b. fundaman-
tai principles upon wi aich the or
ganization OF our fedci pl and state
governments reSt. and / nust be pre-
served, II the constituti tnal scheme
OF federal ana state governments
is to remain. SO the eases II not one
In which the state Is mer, ~ deprived
OF the right TO collect &c txes, and n
taxpayer is relieved from the liabil-
ity to pay. In involved. bl d the very
OF the preservn tion OF the
sovereignty and right OF she United
states to act unhampec Il by the
states. and the corollary 8, wereignty
Of the states to SO act uni pmpered.
was involved. and would have. at
least, been shaken and wea tened by
n contrary decision. II was conceded
In this case, and has nlw, sys been
held, that II N the duty OF the fed
erai government to either exploit
md develop these lands OF the In
dian itself, or secure one b do IL
For the government. The lessee,
iherefore. becomes n part OF be gov