James Goudy v. Edward Meath
| Decision Date | 19 November 1906 |
| Docket Number | No. 53,53 |
| Citation | 203 U.S. 146,27 S.Ct. 48,51 L.Ed. 130 |
| Parties | JAMES GOUDY, Plff. in Err., v. EDWARD MEATH, Assessor of Pierce County, Washington |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This case is before us on error to the supreme court of Washington. 38 Wash. 126, 80 Pac. 295. It was submitted to the state courts on an agreed statement of facts, and involves the question of the liability of the land of the plaintiff, now plaintiff in error, to taxation for the year 1904. He is a Puyallup Indian, and claims exemption under and by virtue of the treaty of December 26, 1854. 10 Stat. at L. 1132. That treaty provided for an allotment of land in severalty to such members of the tribe as were willing to avail themselves of the privilege, on the same terms, and subject to the same regulations, as were named in the treaty with the Omahas. The latter treaty, March 16, 1854 (10 Stat. at L. 1043), authorized the President to issue a patent for any allotted land, Under this treaty, on January 30, 1886, a patent to the plaintiff was issued. One of the facts agreed upon is the following:
In 1889, Washington was admitted as a state. Its first legislature enacted:
In 1893, Congress passed an act (27 Stat. at L. 612, 633, chap. 209) authorizing the appointment of a commission with power to superintend the sale of the allotted lands, with this proviso:
'That the Indian allottees shall not have power of alienation of the allotted lands not selected for sale by said commission for a period of ten years from the date of the passage of this act.'
Construing these several acts, the Secretary of the Interior on February 14, 1903, wrote to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, summing up his conclusions in these words:
'I am of the opinion that the requirements of the treaties with respect to these lands have been fully met, and that the provisions of the act of the legislature of the state of Washington of March 22, 1890, and the Indian appropriation act of March 3, 1893, referred to above, together operate to remove all restrictions upon the alienation or sale thereof by the allottees. I have therefore to direct that the Puyallup commissioner be instructed to continue the selection and appraisement of such portions of the Puyallup allotted lands, but only with the consent of the Indians, as provided in the act of March 3, 1893, until the expiration of the ten-year period mentioned, to wit, March 3, 1903, after which date, in my judgment, the Puyallup Indian allottees will 'have power to lease, encumber, grant, and alien the same in like manner and like effect as any other person may do under the laws of the United States, and of' the state of Washington.
'You are further directed to instruct the commissioner to take the necessary steps to complete and close up the business of his office as soon as practicable after March 3, next.'
Mr. Walter Christian for plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clinton v. State Tax Commission
...... subject to that taxation unless Congress speaks. See. Goudy v. Meath, 203 U.S. 146, 149, 27 S.Ct. 48, 51. L.Ed. 130; Gromer v. ......
-
Bryan v. Itasca County, Minnesota
...state taxation. Cf. Board of Comm'rs v. Seber, 318 U.S. 705, 713, 63 S.Ct. 920, 925, 87 L.Ed. 1094 (1943); Goudy v. Meath, 203 U.S. 146, 149, 27 S.Ct. 48, 50, 51 L.Ed. 130 (1906). These termination enactments provide expressly for subjecting distributed property "and any income derived ther......
-
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. United States 8212 625
...with their purpose they extend to all forms of transfer or encumbrance, involuntary as well as voluntary. Cf. Goudy v. Meath, 203 U.S. 146, 27 S.Ct. 48, 51 L.Ed. 130. The interference of state taxation with Congress' program of protection is made clear by the fact that the instant Oklahoma ......
-
Jaybird Mining Co v. Weir
...of the states and the nation in the field of taxation.4 1 Pennock v. Commissioners, 103 U. S. 44, 26 L. Ed. 367; Goudy v. Meath, 203 U. S. 146, 27 S. Ct. 48, 51 L. Ed. 130. 2 Keokuk v. Ulam, 4 Okl. 5, 38 P. 1080. The exemption granted the personalty of the Indians in United States v. Ricker......
-
Property Taxation of Indian Land After County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation
...(1925)). 30. Id. 31. Id. 32. Yakima Nation, 112 S. Ct. at 690 (quoting Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U.S. 497 (1936)). 33. Id. 34. 203 U.S. 146 35. Yakima Nation, 112 S. Ct. at 690-91. 36. Id. at 691. 37. Id. at 692. 38. Timber Traders, Inc. v. Johnston, 87 Wash. 2d 42, 47, 548 P.2d 10......