Court Opinion

ID: 9419361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:49:06.544555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:17.700472
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Murphy,
dissenting:
I dissent because the Court today takes too narrow a view of our obligations to our Indian citizens — obligations engendered by a history marked at times with trespass, depredation and corruption,' and by the concomitant necessity of aiding and protecting a people once dependent and unlearned in our ways during their difficult period of transition from that situation to the assumption of civic responsibilities and assimilation into the mass of our citizenry.
The assumptions which the opinion of the Court makes regarding the tax status of Isabelle Garden’s allotted land but state the applicable law. The land which she received in 1902 under a trust patent, issued pursuant to the Nelson Act (25 Stat. 642) and the General Allotment Act (24 Stat. 388), was exempt from state and local taxation for a period of 25 years, or until 1928. United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432; Board of Commissioners v. Seber, 318 U. S. 705. Since the tribe to which she belonged gave up its extensive holdings after assurances that the forthcoming allotments would be non-taxable for 25 years,1 this tax exemption was a vested right of which she could not be deprived without her consent. Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665; Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17; Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U. S. 363. Consequently, although Isabelle Garden upon reaching her majority in 1911 became eman*481cipated by virtue of the Clapp Amendments of 1906 and 1907 (34 Stat. 353, 1034), that legislation did not disturb her vested tax exemption.
The Court’s reliance upon Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17, as the basis for its decision with regard to the 1911-21 taxes paid by Isabelle Garden is unwarranted. In that case it was assumed that an emancipated Indian possessing a vested tax exemption could not recover back taxes illegally assessed but voluntarily paid. 253 U. S. at 22. But that case did not hold, as the Court now asserts that it did, that the burden was on the Indian claimant to establish the involuntary character of the payment. Still less, since the United States was not a party, did it consider what the rights of the United States would be should it bring suit on behalf of the Indian. That is the instant question, and while it is ordinarily true that the burden of demonstrating the illegality of a collected tax and compliance with the statutory requirements for refund are upon the taxpayer seeking recovery, strong reasons of policy suggest an opposite rule should prevail in this case. While “emancipated” upon attaining twenty-one, Isabelle Garden was an Indian “just emerging from a state of dependency and wardship,” Ward v. Love County, supra, at p. 23, and the United States had the right, if not the duty, to enforce for her benefit its guarantee of tax immunity even though she was a citizen, the restrictions on her property were removed,, and she was otherwise emancipated from a wardship status. Cf. Cramer v. United States, 261 U. S. 219, 232; Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 413, 437; United States v. Minnesota, 270 U. S. 181, 194. To hold that the United States is foreclosed by action which Isabelle Garden may have taken or failed to take in ignorance of her legal rights is to hinder the United States in the performance of its considered policy of protection and to deprive her indirectly of that of which she could not directly be deprived — her vested tax *482exemption. Without legal right the County placed her tax-exempt property upon its tax rolls immediately upon her reaching adulthood, assessed it, and she paid the taxes under circumstances not fully disclosed. In this situation it is only fair to put the burden on the County, whose unauthorized action brought it about, of establishing that she paid the taxes of her own free will with full knowledge of her legal rights. A contrary rule fails,to take into account the long and not altogether creditable history of our relations with the Indians and the obligations we owe to those people to protect them in their rights.
Apart from the question of burden of proof, however, I cannot agree with the opinion of the Court. The crucial issue with regard to the 1911-21 taxes is assumed to be the voluntary or involuntary character of those payments. The trial court admittedly made no findings on this issue, and, in the absence of such findings, the proper procedure would be to remand the case to the trial court. Cf. Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U. S. 286, 300. But if we are to decide the case here by indulging in presumptions, I think the only tenable assumption is that the payments were made under compulsion. Isabelle Garden’s land was assessed immediately after she became twenty-one, and she ran the risk of losing it unless she paid the taxes. The record shows that some of the Indians, originally included in this action, who failed to pay their taxes did lose their allotments. On the record it cannot be said with certainty that Isabelle Garden paid the taxes for any other purpose than to prevent her allotment from being sold for unpaid taxes. This is borne out by the fact that she herself brought suit in 1923 to recover the 1911-21 taxes.2 Suggested *483reasons for finding that the payments were voluntary are without substance. Isabelle Garden did not have to pay those taxes for the privilege of managing her allotment as she wished. That right was hers under the Clapp Amendments which were competent to remove the restrictions upon her land, but not the vested tax immunity. Cf. Choate v. Trapp, supra, p. 673. And there is nothing in the record, apart from argument contained in the County’s unsuccessful motion for a new trial, to support the assumption that she voluntarily paid the taxes to enjoy the benefits of county government. Payments made under circumstances such as this, where an exempt Indian runs the risk of losing her allotment unless the taxes are paid, should not be considered voluntary payments. Cf. Ward v. Love County, supra, p. 23; Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U. S. 363, 369.
Finally, I cannot assent to the proposition that since Isabelle Garden settled her taxes for 1922 through 1934 for less than the amount she owed for taxes validly assessed for the period beginning in 1928 when her land became taxable, the United States cannot recover for her the amounts she paid to discharge the 1922-25 taxes. Those taxes were discharged in 1936 by the purchase of State Assignment Certificate No. 76. At the same time, the taxes for 1926-34 were discharged by the purchase of another assignment certificate. The fact, .unexplained by the stipulation, that two certificates were used to discharge the taxes suggests that there was no relation between the discharge of the 1922-25 taxes and the settlement of the admittedly due taxes for 1928-34. But even if a relation is assumed, the United States should still be allowed to recover the amount paid for Assignment *484Certificate No. 76. Isabelle Garden probably would have been able to compromise her 1928-34 taxes even more advantageously if the County had not asserted its unwarranted claims for the years 1922-25 during which, period the property was still tax exempt. That is sufficient to warrant recovery of the amount paid for Assignment Certificate No. 76 in discharge of the 1922-25 taxes.3

 House Ex. Doc. 247, 51st Cong., 1st Sess. (Ser. No. 2747), pp. 93, 103, 104, 138 (1890). See also Morrow v. United States, 243 F. 854.

 This unsuccessful suit is no bar to the present action by the United States. The interest of the United States in Having its obligations and policies respected cannot be defeated by judgments in actions to which it is not a party. United States v. Candelaria, 271 U. S. 432, 443-44; *483Sunderland v. United States, 266 U. S. 226, 232; Privett v. United States, 256 U. S. 201, 204; Bryan County v. United States. 123 F. 2d 782.

 This analysis also indicates that the portion of the assignment certificate covering the period 1926-34 which discharged the taxes levied for 1926 and 1927 should be returned. The Government, however, presses no claim for these amounts here.