Choctaw, Oklahoma Gulf Railroad Company v. John Harrison, No. 45
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | McReynolds |
| Citation | 35 S.Ct. 27,59 L.Ed. 234,235 U.S. 292 |
| Parties | CHOCTAW, OKLAHOMA, & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Appt., v. JOHN A. HARRISON, as Sheriff of Pittsburg County, State of Oklahoma, and Personally |
| Docket Number | No. 45 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1914 |
v.
JOHN A. HARRISON, as Sheriff of Pittsburg County, State of Oklahoma, and Personally.
Page 293
Messrs. J. G. Gamble, C. O. Blake, and M. L. Bell for appellant.
Mr. J. L. Hull and Mr. Charles West, Attorney General of Oklahoma, for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 293-295 intentionally omitted]
Page 295
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court:
By an original bill filed July 19, 1909, in the circuit court of the United States, eastern district of Oklahoma, appellant sought to enjoin the sheriff of Pittsburg county from collecting taxes claimed by the state upon the gross sale of coals dug from mines belonging to the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians, which it leased and operated. The claim was based on the Oklahoma statute which provides for a gross revenue tax; and was resisted upon the ground (among others) that in reality the demand was for an occupation or privilege tax to which the appellant could not lawfully be subjected, because, as a Federal instrumentality acting under Con-
Page 296
gressional authority, it had leased and was operating mines to which the Indians held title. A general demurrer was sustained, and the cause is here by direct appeal.
No objection has been interposed to the forum selected or the procedure adopted. Meyer v. Wells, F. & Co. 223 U. S. 298, 56 L. ed. 445, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 218.
Appellant is a railroad corporation with power to lease and operate coal mines. In the region formerly known as Indian Territory,—now within the state of Oklahoma,—the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians, as wards of the United States, own a large area of segregated and unallotted lands containing valuable coal deposits which are not subject to taxation by the state. Marchie Tiger v. Western Invest. Co. 221 U. S. 286, 310, 312, 55 L. ed. 738, 747, 748, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 578; Ex parte Webb, 225 U. S. 663, 684, 56 L. ed. 1248, 1257, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 769.
The act of Congress approved June 28, 1898 (30 Stat. at L. 495, 510, chap. 517), 'Curtis act,' ratified, confirmed, and put into effect the Atoka agreement of April 23, 1897, between the United States and the Choctaws and Chickasaws, which provided that their coal lands should remain common property of the members of the tribes; that the revenues derived therefrom should be used for the education of their children; that the mines thereon should be under the supervision and control of two trustees appointed by the President, and subject to rules prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior; that all such mines should be operated and the royalties paid into the Treasury of the United States; that the royalty should be 15 cents per ton, with power in the Secretary of the Interior to reduce or advance the same according to the best interests of the tribes; and that all lessees should pay fixed sums as advanced royalties.
In harmony with the provisions of the Curtis act appellant secured from the duly appointed trustees leases of certain mines, obligating itself to take out annually
Page 297
specified amounts of coal, and to pay the stipulated royalty. It proceeded actively to develop these, either directly or through its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Baumann v. Bowles, No. 35209.
...Beach, 174 Cal. 478, 163 Pac. 670; Childers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 80 Fed. (2d) 27; Choctaw, O. & G. Railroad v. Harrison, 235 U.S. 292, 35 Sup. Ct. 27, 59 L. Ed. 234; City of New Brunswick v. United States, 276 U.S. 547, 48 Sup. Ct. 371; City of Osceola v. Board of Equalizati......
-
Macallen Co v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 578
...name, or by using some form of words, can take away our duty to consider its nature and effect. Choctaw, O. & Gulf R. R. v. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292, 298, 35 S. Ct. 27, 59 L. Ed. 234; Galveston, Harrisburg, etc., Ry. Co. v. Page 626 Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 227, 28 S. Ct. 638, 52 L. Ed. 1031. A......
-
Taber v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., Case Number: 25794
...169 U.S. 264, 42 L.Ed. 740; Central Pac. Railway Co. v. California, 162 U.S. 91, 40 L.Ed. 903, and Choctaw, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Harrison, 235 U.S. 292, 59 L.Ed. 234, observing that the last-mentioned opinion recognized the right to tax the tangible property of the lessee upon an ad valorem b......
-
Schlosser v. Welsh, No. 66.
...and Oklahoma Territory, although bonds not guaranteed either by federal or territorial government); Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292, 35 S. Ct. 27, 59 L. Ed. 234 (state tax on gross income from production and sale of coal mined from Indian lands under authority of act of C......
-
State ex rel. Baumann v. Bowles, No. 35209.
...Beach, 174 Cal. 478, 163 Pac. 670; Childers v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 80 Fed. (2d) 27; Choctaw, O. & G. Railroad v. Harrison, 235 U.S. 292, 35 Sup. Ct. 27, 59 L. Ed. 234; City of New Brunswick v. United States, 276 U.S. 547, 48 Sup. Ct. 371; City of Osceola v. Board of Equalizati......
-
Macallen Co v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 578
...name, or by using some form of words, can take away our duty to consider its nature and effect. Choctaw, O. & Gulf R. R. v. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292, 298, 35 S. Ct. 27, 59 L. Ed. 234; Galveston, Harrisburg, etc., Ry. Co. v. Page 626 Texas, 210 U. S. 217, 227, 28 S. Ct. 638, 52 L. Ed. 1031. A......
-
Taber v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., Case Number: 25794
...169 U.S. 264, 42 L.Ed. 740; Central Pac. Railway Co. v. California, 162 U.S. 91, 40 L.Ed. 903, and Choctaw, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Harrison, 235 U.S. 292, 59 L.Ed. 234, observing that the last-mentioned opinion recognized the right to tax the tangible property of the lessee upon an ad valorem b......
-
Schlosser v. Welsh, No. 66.
...and Oklahoma Territory, although bonds not guaranteed either by federal or territorial government); Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Harrison, 235 U. S. 292, 35 S. Ct. 27, 59 L. Ed. 234 (state tax on gross income from production and sale of coal mined from Indian lands under authority of act of C......