Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264,
affirmed and followed to the point that
"the act of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of
Oklahoma of March 5, 1895, which provided that "
"when any cattle are kept or grazed or any other personal
property is situated in any unorganized country, district or
reservation of this territory, such property shall be subject to
taxation in the organized county to which said country, district,
or reservation is attached for judicial purposes"
was a legitimate exercise of the territory's power of taxation,
and when enforced in the taxation of cattle belonging to persons
not resident in the territory grazing upon Indian reservations
therein, does not violate the Constitution of the United
States.
Prior to the passage of that act, there existed no power in the
authorities of Canadian County to tax property within the attached
reservation, and, as such authority was first given by that act, it
could only be validly exercised on property subjected to its terms
after its enactment. Taxes otherwise lawful are not invalidated by
the fact that the resulting benefits are unequally shared.
In November, 1895, D. Wagoner, W. T. Wagoner, and S.B. Burnett
filed in the District Court of Canadian County, Territory of
Oklahoma, a petition against Neil W. Evans, as Treasurer, and I. M.
Cannon, as Sheriff, and Osborn, Hutchinson, and Vasey, as County
Commissioners of Canadian County asking to enjoin the said
defendants from levying or collecting certain taxes upon herds of
cattle and horses belonging to the complainants and by them kept
and grazed on the Kiousa and Comanche Indian reservation, which is
a part of the Territory of Oklahoma, but not embraced in any
organized county of that territory. In pursuance of the Act of
Congress of May 2, 1890, c. 182, 26 Stat. 861, that Indian
reservation was attached to Canadian County for judicial purposes,
and by an Act of March 5, 1895, of the territorial legislature, the
authorities of any county to which any reservation had been
Page 170 U. S. 589
attached for judicial purposes were authorized to assess taxes
upon any cattle or other personal property kept or situated within
such reservation. The petition alleged that in pursuance of the
said act, the defendants were proceeding to assess and collect
taxes for the years 1892 to 1895, both inclusive, that for several
reasons set forth in the petition, the said Act of March 5, 1895,
was invalid, and that said defendants were proceeding without
warrant of law. To this petition a demurrer was filed, which was
overruled, and thereupon the defendants filed answers admitting
that they were proceeding to levy and collect taxes as complained
of in the petition and alleging that their action in the premises
was in pursuance of a valid statutory enactment of the territorial
legislature.
An agreed statement of the facts was filed, and the cause was
submitted to the court upon the petition, answer, and statement of
facts, and thereupon the court found that the defendants were fully
authorized by the laws of Oklahoma Territory to collect from the
petitioners taxes for territorial and judicial purposes for the
year 1895 only, but that they were without authority to collect
from the petitioners taxes for county, township, or other than the
territorial and judicial purposes. It was therefore decreed by the
court that the defendants were authorized and permitted to collect
those parts of the tax which were for territorial and judicial
purposes for the year 1895 only, and enjoined them from collecting
any part of the taxes which were for county, township, or other
than territorial or judicial purposes, and no taxes whatever for
the years 1892, 1893, and 1894.
From this decree, both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of
the Territory of Oklahoma, which, on September 4, 1896, affirmed
the decree of the district court.
From that decree of affirmance, both parties were allowed an
appeal to this Court by the chief justice of the supreme court of
the territory.
Page 170 U. S. 590
MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS, after stating the facts in the foregoing
language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appeal of Wagoner and others, owners of cattle kept by them
on the Indian reservation attached to Canadian County, brings up
the same questions which were considered and determined by us at
the present term in the case of
Thomas v. Gay,
169 U. S. 264.
That was an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of
Oklahoma involving the validity of the Territorial Act of March 5,
1895, which subjected cattle, kept and grazed in any unorganized
country, district, or reservation, to taxation in the organized
county to which said country, district, or reservation is attached
for judicial purposes, and it appears in the present record that
the supreme court of the territory regarded that case as identical
in principle with the present one. Our examination of the records
in the two cases has brought us to the same conclusion.
We therefore deem it unnecessary to again discuss at length
questions so recently disposed of. The main contentions are that,
by reason of the treaty relations existing between the United
States and the Indian tribes resident on the reservations, it is
not competent for the territorial legislature of Oklahoma to
subject cattle within those reservations to taxation, even although
such cattle are owned by persons other than Indians, and that the
Legislature of Oklahoma cannot validly empower the authorities of
an organized county to tax personal property situated in a
reservation attached to such county for judicial purposes.
In
Thomas v. Gay, it was held that there was nothing in
the treaties between the United States and the Indians occupying
these reservations which disabled the United States from bringing
the reservations within the limits of the Territory of Oklahoma;
that taxing personal property of persons other than Indians and
situated within the reservation
Page 170 U. S. 591
did not impair the rights of person or property pertaining to
the Indians, and that the taxation of cattle kept for grazing
purposes upon the reservations, under leases duly authorized by act
of Congress, was not a violation of the rights of the Indians nor
an invasion of the jurisdiction and control of the United States
over them and their lands.
No additional fact is presented to distinguish the present case
from that one in the particular now under consideration except that
the United States authorities made it a condition on which the
owners of cattle should have a right to obtain grazing leases from
the Indians that they should employ Indians in herding their
cattle. It is said that the purpose of that condition was to
alienate the Indians from their tribal relations, and to incline
them to peaceful pursuits. Such may have been the object, but we
are unable to see that such a clause in these grazing leases has
any bearing on the power of the territory to exercise the power of
taxation. It is, indeed, contended that to permit the territory to
tax the cattle would tend to discourage the making of such leases,
and thus deprive the Indians of the advantages coming to them. This
seems to us too indirect and far-fetched an incident to affect our
conclusions.
In
Thomas v. Gay, it was further held that the power to
legislate delegated to the territorial legislature included the
right to pass and enforce laws for the assessment and collection of
taxes; that the Act of March 5, 1895, was a valid enactment under
which it was competent for the taxing authorities of an organized
county to levy and collect taxes on personal property situated
within the attached reservations and belonging to other persons
than Indians.
These considerations cover and dispose of the contentions urged
on behalf of the owners of the property taxed, and their appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
It remains to consider the appeal of the taxing authorities of
Canadian County.
They object in the first place to that portion of the decree
below which restrains them from the collection of taxes for the
years 1892, 1893, and 1894. They point to a provision
Page 170 U. S. 592
contained in the Act of March 5, 1895, enabling the special
assessor to assess or reassess property that at any time has, by
oversight or negligence or for any other cause, escaped taxation,
and they contend that the act of 1895 was an amendatory statute,
and intended to cure a supposed defect in the then existing laws,
and cases are cited in which it has been held that such curative
statutes can have a retrospective effect and enable the authorities
to assess and collect taxes on property which should have been
theretofore assessed.
It is sufficient to say that prior to the passage of the Act of
March 5, 1895, there existed no power in the authorities of
Canadian County to tax property within the attached reservation.
Such authority was first given by that act, and could only be
validly exercised on property subjected to its terms after its
enactment.
Another objection on behalf of the county officers to the decree
below appears to us to be well taken. It respects that feature of
the decree which restricts the collection of taxes for the year
1895 to those imposed only for territorial and judicial purposes,
and forbids the collection of taxes imposed for county
purposes.
The same question arose in the case of
Thomas v. Gay,
and the conclusion there reached, upon a examination of the
authorities, both state and federal, was that it cannot be
maintained that those whose cattle are within the protection of the
laws of Oklahoma, but are situated on a reservation, receive no
benefit from the expenditures of public moneys in the organized
county to which the reservation is attached. Cases cited wherein
the power of municipal organizations to tax property outside of
their boundaries has been denied are not applicable when the power
is conferred by a general law, enacted by a legislature having
jurisdiction over the subject. Nor are taxes, otherwise lawful,
invalidated by the allegation, or even the fact, that the resulting
benefits are unequally shared.
The appeal is sustained in this particular, and the decree
of the supreme court of the territory is reversed, and the cause
remanded to that court, with directions to reverse
Page 170 U. S. 593
the decree of the district court insofar as it restrains the
county authorities from collecting taxes for county purposes for
the year 1895, and to affirm the rest of that decree. The costs in
No. 252 to be paid by the appellants, and in No. 262 by the
appellees.
