1. Transfer by descent from one tribal Indian to another of land
allotted and patented by the United States to the ancestor with a
prohibition against alienation is not taxable by the state where
the land lies during the restriction on the title. P.
270 U. S.
558.
2. Inheritance in such cases is under the acts of Congress, by
which heirs are determined by the Secretary of the Interior, the
state law being adopted as the expression of the will of Congress.
P.
270 U. S.
559.
300 F. 113 affirmed.
Page 270 U. S. 556
Appeal from a decree of the district court restraining the
appellant, Auditor of the Oklahoma, from attempting to collect
state inheritance taxes by recourse to appellees' lands.
Page 270 U. S. 558
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
See-sah Quapaw, a full-blood Quapaw Indian woman, died March 4,
1920. She owned certain duly allotted lands in Oklahoma, patented
by the Secretary of the Interior September 26, 1896, and declared
to be "inalienable for a period of 25 years" thereafter -- all as
provided by the Act of March 2, 1895, c. 188, § 1, 28 Stat. 876,
907. Following the state statute of descent, the Secretary declared
that the only heirs were her husband and brother -- John Beaver and
Benjamin Quapaw -- full-blood Quapaws. Act June 25, 1910, c. 431, §
1, 36 Stat. 855;
Henrietta First Moon v. Starling White
Tail, 270 U. S. 243.
Restrictions upon the land were continued
Page 270 U. S. 559
for another 25 years by the Act of March 3, 1921, c. 119, § 26,
41 Stat. 1225, 1248.
Apparently appellant supposed that the lands passed to the heirs
by virtue of the laws of the state and were subject to the
inheritance taxes which she laid. He accordingly demanded their
payment of appellees, and threatened enforcement by summary process
and sale of the lands. The court below held that the state had no
right to demand the taxes, and restrained appellant from attempting
to collect them.
The duty of the Secretary of the Interior to determine the heirs
according to the state law of descent is not questioned. Congress
provided that the lands should descend and directed how the heirs
should be ascertained. It adopted the provisions of the Oklahoma
statute as an expression of its own will; the laws of Missouri or
Kansas, or any other state, might have been accepted. The lands
really passed under a law of the United States, and not by
Oklahoma's permission.
It must be accepted as established that, during the trust or
restrictive period, Congress has power to control lands within a
state which have been duly allotted to Indians by the United States
and thereafter conveyed through trust or restrictive patents. This
is essential to the proper discharge of their duty to a dependent
people, and the means or instrumentalities utilized therein cannot
be subjected to taxation by the state without assent of the federal
government.
The Kansas
Indians, 5 Wall. 737;
Tiger v. Western
Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286;
Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Harrison, 235 U.
S. 292;
Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U.
S. 506;
Lane v. Mickadiet, 241 U.
S. 201;
Jefferson v. Fink, 247 U.
S. 288;
Blanset v. Cardin, 256 U.
S. 319;
United States v. Bowling, 256 U.
S. 484;
McCurdy v. United States, 264 U.
S. 484;
Sperry Oil Co. v. Chisholm,
264 U. S. 488.
The decree below must be
Affirmed.