The Alaska daily empire., 1923-06-07
CIRCUIT COURT
 FAILS RULE ON
 INDIAN STATUS
Says Question of Citizenship Immaterial Tn Annette /
 Island Case.

That the question of citizenship of the Indians residing on Metla- katla Island, raised by Judge James Wickersham, special counsel for the Territory, in appealing ,the Annette Island eannery tax case, was not material, is the declaration of Judge Gilbert in recently announcing thei decision of the Circuit Court of Ap- |
 peals upholding Judge Reeds ruling | that the Territory had no power to
 tax the cannery output on the isl-
 and The Appellate Court, there | fore. did not pass on this question.
 The other contentious of the Ter ritory were also oyerruled by thel Circuit Courts decision. Until the Territory has received copies of the examine 1t closely it cannot be de- itermined whether or not the case
 will be appealed to the Supreme Court, said Gov. Scott C. Bone to day. The first contention of the Ter
 ritory was that the point at issue \ lis whether a foreign corporation engaged in canning salmon on An nette Island in Alaska is compellable ! to pay a Territorial tax levied ;1 against it based on the output or it's cannery, in common wibh all other persons and corporations en- gagged in similar business in the Il Territory" It was argued in SUD- port of this that the Territory isI empowered by law to impose taxes and licenses additional to those all ready imposed by Congress on trade and business.
 Says Is Privilege Tax.
 ] In this connection the Circuit Court said: This grant of power to tax however must be read in the :: light of the Organic Act of the Territory and settledrprinciples of law established by the courts. The : Organic Act contains the limita- ton which is found in all Terri torial organic acts. that no tax shall : be imposed upon the property of the United States. and the decisions lof the Supreme Court have firmly : established the rule that no State : or Territory has power to lay tax Ion a means or instrumentality used : by the United States in the per- formance of duty appertaining to !: it. The tax here in question is not : a tax upon the property of the : plaintiff in error It is an occupa- tional or privilege tax, Alaska Salt : Fish Co. vs. Smith, 225 U. s. A. : The tax, if permitted, might be de- structive of the means adopted by : the government to carry out It's purposes and obligations.
 Citizenship Not Material.
 Regard the status of the Indians as ward, the Court said
 "The plaintiff in error argues that
 the Indians on Annette Island are
 not and never have been, since
 their settlement there, a tribe of
 Indians, that their descendants by , virtue of their birth on the island
 became American citizens, that the
 Alaskan natives who joined them
 were likewise not an Indian tribe,
 and that the island never became a an Indian reservation. As we view
 the questions necessary here to be
 decided, we think the fact that the
 Indians are not tribal. and the fact.
 if it be a fact, that the majority of
 the Indians on the island are citi-
 zens of the United States by virtue !, tof their having been born on the soil of the United States are im- mat erial, for although such Indians may be citizens, they are still sub. ject to the care and protection ol the United States, Winton vs. Ames - 255 U. S. 391. The inhabitants oi !. the island, being Indians, stand in
 the same relation to the United
 States as do Indians on other reser. ! vations. Nor is it material that 7 lthe, Metlakahtla Indians were Brit. ish subjects before their emigration
 to the United States. Congress has z made that fact immaterial here, Al aska Pacific Fisheries vs. United | States, PAS U. s. 78. The govern
 ment has always recognized these
 Indians as its ward. The Act oi
 March 3. 1921, declares that An.
 nette Island be set apart as res.
 ervation for their use. Nor was tho < Secretary of the Interior without authority to execute the lease te the packing company. He was em { tpowered to make rules and regula ' tions for the government of the In e dians in the occupation of the
 lisland. Such regulations so auth d orized by Congress have the force n of law. In re Koltock. 165 U. S r 526; United States vs. Foster, 23a U. s. 515; Mckinley vs. United T States, PAS U. s. 397. The general k rule is that statutes passed for the
 benefit of dependent Indian tribe:
 or communities are to be favorably
 construed. doubtful expressions be-
 ing resolved in favor of the In ldians.' Alaska Pacifc Fisheries vs