Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/169/264.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:45:12+00:00

Document:
On the third Monday in February, 1894, the supreme court of the territory of Oklahoma, by an order entered on the journals of said court, attached to said county of Kay, for judicial purposes, all the Kaw or Kansas Indian reservation and all of the Osage Indian reservation north of the township line dividing townships 25 and 26 N. All of said reservations so attached to said Kay county for judicial purposes by such [169 U.S. 264, 265] order are without the boundaries of said Kay county as established by the governor, and are not within the boundaries of any organized county of this territory. Said territory so attached to said county of Kay for judicial purposes is comprised wholly of lands owned and occupied by Indian tribes, and consists principally of wild, unimpro ed, and unallotted lands used for grazing purposes. That plaintiffs in error during the year 1895, and during the month of April of said year, drove, transported, and shipped to the ranges and pastures in that part of said Osage Indian reservation attached to said Kay county for judicial purposes, as aforesaid, large herds and numbers of cattle, which were taken to said reservation in pursuance and by virtue and authority of certain leases to plaintiffs in error for grazing purposes made by the Osage tribal government under the supervision of the agent in charge of said tribe, and upon the ratification and approval of the commissioner of Indian affairs and of the secretary of the interior, and said cattle of said plaintiffs in error were on the 1st day of May kept and grazed on that part of said Indian reservation attached to said Kay county for judicial purposes, as aforesaid.
By an act approved March 5, 1895, the legislative assembly of the territory of Oklahoma amended Section 13, art. 2, c. 70, St. Okl., relating to revenue, so that the same reads as follows: 'That when any cattle are kept or grazed or any other personal property is situated in any unorganized county, district or reservation of this territory, such property shall be subject to taxation in the organized county to which said county, district or reservation is attached for judicial purposes;' and authorized the board of county commissioners of the organized county or counties to which such unorganized county, district, or reservation is attached to appoint a special assessor each year, whose duty it should be to assess such property, and conferred upon such special assessor all the powers and required him to perform all the duties of a township assessor. The assessor so provided for was required to begin and perform his duties between the 1st day of April and the 25th day of May of each year, and [169 U.S. 264, 266] to complete his duties and return his tax lists on or before June 1st, and the property therein authorized to be assessed, it was provided, should be valued as of May 1st, each year.
In pursuance of the provisions of said act, the county commissioners of said Kay county did duly appoint a special assessor for the year 1895 to assess such cattle as were kept and grazed, and any other personal property situated in the unorganized country and parts of Indian reservations attached to said Kay county for judicial purposes, and said special assessor did, by virtue of said appointment, assess all the personal property in the territory so attached to the county of Kay for judicial purposes, including all of the cattle of the said appellants kept and grazed in said reservation on the 1st day of May, 1895. The said special assessor assessed the property of these appellants so located on said territory attached to said county of Kay for judicial purposes, as aforesaid, and returned the same upon an assessment roll at the total valuation of $760,469. That thereafter the said sum was, by the clerk of said county, carried into the aggregate assessment for said county, and by him certified to the auditor of the territory. That the territorial board of equalization, in acting upon the various assessments of the various counties as certified to said board, raised the aggregate valuation of the property returned for taxation upon the tax rolls of said county of Kay 35 per cent., and the county clerk for said county carried out the raised valuation so certified to him by said territorial board of equalization against the property of these appellants, and made the aggregate valuation of such property $1,026,634. Thereafter the territorial board of equalization levied and duly certified to the county clerk of the county of Kay tax levies for territorial purposes for the year 1895 as follows: General revenue, three mills on the dollar; university fund, one-half mill on the dollar; normal school fund, one-half mill on the dollar; bond interest fund, one-half mill on the dollar; board of education fund, one- half mill on the dollar.
That the board of county commissioners for the county of Kay made the following levies for the year 1895: For salaries, five [169 U.S. 264, 267] mills on the dollar; for contingent expenses, three mills on the dollar; for sinking fund, one and one-half mills on the dollar; for court expenses, two and one-half mills on the dollar; for county supplies, three mills on the dollar; for road and bridge fund, two mills on the dollar; for poor fund of said county, one mill on the dollar; for county school fund of said county, one mill on the dollar.
The county clerk of said county of Kay carried the valuation of the property of these plaintiffs in error upon the tax rolls of said county, and against the same extended the levies as aforesaid, and charged against the property of these plaintiffs in error in the aggregate the sum of $26, 174.16.
Before these taxes became delinquent, plaintiffs in error began to remove or attempted to remove their respective property from the territory attached to Kay county for judicial purposes and beyond the limits of Oklahoma territory. The treasurer of said Kay county issued tax warrants for the several amounts of taxes levied against the property of each of said plaintiffs in error, and delivered the same to the sheriff of said county for execution. Said sheriff seized certain property of each of appellants by virtue of such tax warrants. The appellants filed their several petitions in the district court of Kay county, and, on application, obtained injunctions restraining the appellees from making any further attempt to collect such taxes. Afterwards, on motion, the several actions were consolidated into one. To the petition filed in such consolidated action the defendants in error filed a general demurrer. At the hearing, the district court sustained the demurrer in part and overruled it in part, holding that all of the levies made for territorial purposes and the county levy for court expenses were valid, and as to those levies the injunction was dissolved, and as to all of the other county levies such injunctions were made perpetual. From that part of the order and judgment of the court, dissolving the injunction as to the territorial taxes and the one county fund levy, plaintiffs appealed. From that part perpetuating the injunction as to all of the county levies, except that for court expenses, the defendants appealed and filed their cross petitions [169 U.S. 264, 268] in error, and the case was taken to the supreme court of the territory. In that court the judgment of the district court was affirmed. Three of the four judges, who sat in the case, agreed in holding that the taxes levied for territorial and court expense funds were valid; two were of opinion that the balance of the taxes were unauthorized; one was of opinion that all the taxes were validly levied; and the fourth judge dissented in toto. From that judgment of the supreme court of the territory both parties appealed to this court.
On July 15, 1870 (16 Stat. 335) congress passed an act providing, in substance, that whenever the Osages should agree thereto, in such manner as the president should prescribe, said Indians should be removed from their said diminished reservation in the state of Kansas to the lands to be provided for them in the Indian Territory, 'to consist of a tract of land [169 U.S. 264, 270] in compact form, equal in quantity to 160 acres for each member of tribe, to be paid for out of the proceeds of the sales of their lands in the state of Kansas'; and subsequently the Osages were established upon their present reservation, and the Cherokees were paid therefor the sum of $1, 650,600; and by an act approved June 5, 1872 (17 Stat. 230), congress confirmed this reservation in said Cherokee country.
Whether, without express stipulation to tha effect, the right granted by treaty to the Cherokee Nation, to be exempt, as to their lands, from inclusion within the limits of any territory or state, passed with the grant of a portion of such lands to the Osage and Kansas Indians, we need not consider, because, even if such were the law, it is conceded that the United States have, by the act of May 2, 1890 (26 Stat. 81), [169 U.S. 264, 271] creating the territory of Oklahoma, included these Osage and Kansas Indian lands within the geographical limits of said territory.
'In the cases referred to, these principles were applied to treaties with foreign nations. Treaties with Indian nations within the jurisdiction of the United States, whatever considerations of humanity and good faith may be involved and require their faithful observance, cannot be more obligatory. ... In the case under consideration the act of congress must prevail as if the treaty were not an element to be considered.' The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616.
'The legislative power of the territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, not inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States, but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; to tax shall be imposed on the property of the United States, nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents, nor shall [169 U.S. 264, 272] any law be passed impairing the right to private property, nor shall any unequal discrimination be made in taxing different kinds of property, but all property subject to taxation shall be taxed in proportion to its value.' St. 1893, par. 66.
And the contention is that, irrespective of the question whether said lands are, by the treaties, excluded from the [169 U.S. 264, 273] limits and jurisdiction of the territory of Oklahoma, the taxation of cattle located for grazing purposes upon the reservations, under leases duly authorized by act of congress, is a violation of the rights of the Indians, and an invasion of the jurisdiction and control of the United States over them and their lands.
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 Railway Co. v. Fisher, 116 U.S. 28 , 6 Sup. Ct. 246, and Maricopa & P. R. Co. v. Arizona, 156 U.S. 347 , 15 Sup. Ct. 391, 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.
But it is obvious that a tax put upon the cattle of the lessees is too remote and indirect to be deemed a tax upon the lands or privileges of the Indians. A similar contention was urged in the case of New York, L. E . & W. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 158 U.S. 431 , 15 Sup. Ct. 896. There the state of Pennsylvania had imposed a tax upon a railroad, situated within the borders of that state, but leased to another railroad company engaged in carrying on interstate commerce, and this tax was measured by a reference to the amount of the tolls received by the lessor company from the lessee company. It was claimed that the imposition of the tax on tolls might lead to increasing them in an effort to throw [169 U.S. 264, 274] 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 , 17 Sup. Ct. 532, 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 Exp. Co. v. Ohio State Auditor, 166 U.S. 185 , 17 Sup. Ct. 604.
The suggestion that ch a tax on the cattle constitutes a tax on the lands, within the reasoning in the case of Pollock v. Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 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.
The unlimited power of congress to deal with the Indians, their property and commercial transactions, so long as they keep up their tribal organizations, may be conceded; but it is not perceived that local taxation, by a state or territory, of property of others than Indians would be an interference with [169 U.S. 264, 275] congressional power. It was decided in Railway Co. v. Fisher, 116 U.S. 28 , 6 Sup. Ct. 246, 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 & P. R. Co. v. Arizona, 156 U.S. 347 , 15 Sup. Ct. 391.
The organic act, as we have already seen, extends the exterior boundary of the territory around these Indian reservations. It also provides for the division of the territory into council and representative districts, and for the election of a legislative assembly and of a delegate to congress. The Indian reservations were not included within any of the council or representative districts. The act provided that there should be seven counties, and fixed the county seats, and, under the authority of the act, the governor established the boundaries of these counties. The legislature was authorized to change the boundaries of the original counties, but were not given authority to include these Indian reservations, or any lands not then [169 U.S. 264, 276] open to settlement in any of the counties. By section 9 it was provided that the territory should be divided into three judicial districts; that the supreme court should define such judicial districts; and that the territory not embraced in organized counties should be attached, for judicial purposes, to such organized county or counties as the supreme court should determine. In May, 1890, the supreme court made an order attaching the several Indian reservations to certain organized counties for judicial purposes, and by an order on February 3, 1894, attached the reservations in question in this case to Kay county for judicial purposes.
Undoubtedly there are general principles, familiar to our systems of state and federal government, that the people who pay taxes imposed by laws are entitled to have a voice in the election of those who pass the laws, and that taxes must be assessed and collected for public purposes, and that the duty [169 U.S. 264, 277] or obligation to pay taxes by the individual is founded in his participation in the benefits arising from their expenditure. But these principles, as practically administered, do not mean that no person, man, woman, or child, resident or nonresident, shall be taxed, unless he was represented by some one for whom he had actually voted, nor do they mean that no man's property can be taxed unless some benefit to him personally can be pointed out. Thus it has been held that personal allegiance has no necessary connection with the right of taxation; an alien may be taxed as well as a citizen. Mayer v. Grima, 8 How. 494; Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. 210. So, likewise, it is settled law that the property, both real and personal, of nonresidents may be lawfully subjected to the tax laws of the state in which they are situated.
'It remains only to notice one other position taken by the complainants. It is that if the act of the state under which the tax was laid be constitutional in its application to their property within Lincoln county, the property outside of Lincoln county is not lawful taxable by the authorities of that county, under the laws of the state. To this we are unable to give our assent. By the statutes of Nebraska the unorganized territory west of Lincoln county, and the unorganized county of Cheyenne, are attached to the county of Lincoln for judicial and revenue purposes. The authorities of that county, therefore, were the proper authorities to levy the tax upon the property thus placed under their charge for revenue purposes.' [169 U.S. 264, 278] In attle Co. v. Faught (Tex. Sup.) 5 S. W. 494, the case was that an unorganized county was attached by law to the organized county of Scurry for judicial purposes. The officers of Scurry county assessed and levied county taxes upon the cattle of the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, kept in the unorganized county, and it was held that, the unorganized county being in effect a part of the county to which it was so attached, the collection of taxes on such personalty of a nonresident may be enforced by the tax collector of the latter county. We are referred to similar decisions in Kansas, Philpin v. McCarty, 24 Kan. 393; in Ohio, Kemper v. McClelland, 19 Ohio, 308; in Iowa, Hilliard v. Griffin, 33 N. W. 156; in Michigan, Township of Comins v. Township of Harrisville, 45 Mich. 442, 8 N. W. 44.
'We are unable to see that the taxes levied on this property were not for a public use. Taxes for schools, for the support of the poor, for protection against fire, and for waterworks are the specific taxes found in the list complained of. We think it will not be denied by any one that these are public purposes, in which the whole community have an interest, and for which, by common consent, property owners everywhere in this country are taxed. There are items styled city tax and city buildings which, in the absence of any explanation, we must suppose to be for the good government of the city, and for the construction of such buildings as are necessary for municipal purposes. ... It may be true that the plaintiff does not receive the same amount of benefit from some or any of these taxes as do citizens living in the heart of the city. It is probably true, from the evidence found in this record, that his tax bears a very unjust relation to the benefits received as compared with its amount. But who can adjust with precise accuracy the amount which each individual in an organized civil community shall contribute to sustain it, or can insure in this respect absolute equality of burdens and fairness in their distribution among those who must bear them?
'We cannot say judicially that the plaintiff received no benefit from the city organization. These streets, if they do not penetrate his farm, lead to it. The waterworks will probably reach him some day, and may be near enough to him now to serve him on some occasion. The schools may receive his children, and in this regard he can be in no worse condition than those living in the city who have no children, and yet who pay for the support of the schools. Every man in a county, a town, a city, or a state is deeply interested in the education of the children of the community, because his peace and quiet, his happiness and prosperity, are largely dependent upon the intelligence and moral training which it is the object of public schools to supply to the children of his neighbors and associates, if he has none himself.' [169 U.S. 264, 280] It is no objection to a tax that the party required to pay it derives no benefit from the particular burden; e. g. a tax for school purposes levied upon a manufacturing corporation. But, in truth, benefits always flow from the appropriation of public moneys to such purposes, which corporations in common with natural persons receive in the additional security to their property and profits. Nail Co. v. Weed, 17 Mass. 52.
As the owners of the cattle taxed own no real estate within the Indian reservation, this objection, if sound, would render [169 U.S. 264, 281] it impossible to tax the cattle at all. But it is the usual course in tax laws to treat personal property as one class and real estate as another, and it has never been supposed that such classification created an illegal discrimination because there might be some persons who owned only personal property, and others who owned property of both classes. Again, it is complained that this law violates the principle of uniformity, and operates as an unjust discrimination, because it provides for an assessment of cattle, kept and grazed on the Indian reservations, at a different time from that provided for the assessment of personal property, including cattle, in the organized country.
'It is claimed that this law violates the principle of uniformity in providing for an assessment of the logs of a nonresident at a different time than that provided in the case of residents, and that for the same reason it discriminates unjustly against nonresidents. But the court is of opinion that the case [169 U.S. 264, 282] does not come within either of these principles. ... The legislature was aware that the logs of nonresidents were liable to be floated out of the state during the month of April.' Nelson Lumber Co. v. Town of Loraine, 22 Fed. 54.
Without undertaking to enumerate all the instances in which there is some difference of procedure in respect to property assessed within the organized counties and property assessed in the unorganized districts and reservations, or to [169 U.S. 264, 283] consider minutely the several objections that are urged to such differences, we do not perceive that the questions suggested are for the courts. Clearly these are matters of detail, within the legislative discretion. It is the lawmaking power which is to determine all questions of discretion or policy in ordering and apportioning taxes; which must make all the necessary rules and regulations, and decide upon the agencies by means of which the taxes shall be collected. When, as may sometimes happen, the legislature transcends its functions, and enacts, in the guise of a tax law, a law whereby the property of the citizen is confiscated, or taken for private purposes, the judiciary has the right and duty to interpose. But such a case is not presented by this record.
Such allegations disclose that there are parties not represented before us whose interests are involved in the inquiry. The case was heard in the trial court on a demurrer to the [169 U.S. 264, 284] petition, and the question of the validity of the action of the board of equalization in raising the assessed values throughout the territory was put by the supreme court, without discussion, on its previous decision in the case of Wallace v. Bullen. We are also informed by the briefs that the case just mentioned is now pending before the supreme court on an order for a rehearing. Whether the facts pertaining to the action of the board of equalization in this particular were the same in Gray v. Stiles as those in this case we cannot say from this record.
[ Footnote 1 ] See 52 Pac. 954, 54 Pac. 974.

References: art. 2
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.