Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/88566/thomas-vs-gay
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 19:08:33+00:00

Document:
As to that portion of the argument which claims that, even if the Indians were not interested in any way in the property taxed, the territorial authorities would have no right to tax the property to others than Indians located upon these reservations, it is sufficient to cite the cases of Utah & Northern Railway v. Fisher, 116 U. S. 28 , and Maricopa & Phoenix Railroad v. Arizona, 156 U. S. 347 , in which it was held that the property of railway companies traversing Indian reservations are subject to taxation by the states and territories in which such reservations are located.
their burden on the carrying company, and thus, in effect, become a tax or charge upon interstate commerce. But this Court held that such a tax upon tolls was too indirect and remote to be regarded as a tax or burden on interstate commerce. A similar view was taken in the case of Henderson Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 166 U. S. 150 , where a tax imposed by the State of Kentucky on the intangible property of a company which owned and maintained a bridge over a river between two states was contended to be objectionable as constituting a burden upon interstate commerce, but it was held that the fact that the tax in question was to some extent affected by the amount of the tolls received, and therefore might be supposed to increase the rate of tolls and thus be a burden on interstate commerce, was too remote and incidental to make it a tax on the business transacted. Adams Express Co. v. Ohio state Auditor, 166 U. S. 185 .
The suggestion that such a tax on the cattle constitutes a tax on the lands within the reasoning in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429 , is purely fanciful. The holding there was that a tax on rents derived from lands was substantially a tax on the lands. To make the present case a similar one, the tax should have been levied on the rents received by the Indians, and not on the cattle belonging to third parties.
congressional power. It was decided in Utah & Northern Railway v. Fisher, 116 U. S. 28 , that the lands and railroad of a railway company, within the limits of the Fort Hill Indian reservation in the Territory of Idaho, was lawfully subject to territorial taxation, which might be enforced within the exterior boundaries of the reservation by proper process. The question was similarly decided in Maricopa & Phoenix Railroad v. Arizona, 156 U. S. 347 .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.