Forbes v. Gracey
| Decision Date | 01 October 1876 |
| Citation | 24 L.Ed. 313,94 U.S. 762 |
| Parties | FORBES v. GRACEY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nevada.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Hall McAllister for the appellant, and by Mr. W. E. F. Deal for the appellee.
This was a suit brought by appellant to enjoin the collector of taxes for Story County, Nevada, from collecting a tax imposed by the law of that State upon the property of the Consolidated Virginia Mining Company, the appellant being a stockholder in the company and an alien subject of the Queen of Great Britain. The tax is, by the State statute, imposed upon the proceeds of the mine worked by the corporation, and is resisted on the ground that the title to the land from which the mineral is taken is in the United States, and is not for that reason liable to State taxation.
The case is prepared and submitted to us on printed arguments in the very last days of the term, and we are urged to decide it on the ground that it involves a question of vast interest to all the mining operations in the Pacific States, and is of vital importance to the State of Nevada, as it affects her largest source of revenue. In view of its importance we should postpone the decision until next term, if the questions presented were either doubtful or difficult of solution. We think a very few words—all we can give to the subject at this late day—will show that it is neither.
It is very true that Congress has, by statutes and by tacit consent, permitted individuals and corporations to dig out and convert to their own use the ores containing the precious metals which are found in the lands belonging to the government, without exacting or receiving any compensation for those ores, and without requiring the miner to buy or pay for the land. It has gone further, and recognized the possessory rights of these miners, as ascertained among themselves by the rules which have become the laws of the mining districts as regards mining claims. See Revised Statutes, title xxxii. chap. 6, sects. 2318-2352. But in doing this it has not parted with the title to the land, except in cases where the land has been sold in accordance with the provisions of the law on that subject. If the tax of the State of Nevada is, in point of fact, levied on this property-right of the United States, we are bon d by our previous decisions and by sound principle to hold that it is void. If, on the other hand, it is levied on property of the miner, and may be collected without affecting or embarrassing the title of the United States to property which belongs to that government, then there is no ground for interference with the processes of the State in its collection. A few extracts from the statute of Nevada, showing the nature and character of the property on which the contested tax is imposed, and the manner of its enforcement and collection, will enable us to decide whether it belongs to the one or the other of these classes. We copy here the important sections of the act of Feb. 28, 1871, imposing this tax:—— 'SECTION 1. All ores, tailings, and mineral-bearing material of whatever character shall be assessed for purposes of taxation for State and county purposes in the following manner: From the gross yield, return, or value of all ores, tailings, or mineral-bearing material of whatever character, there shall be deducted the actual cost of extracting said ores as minerals from the mine, the actual cost of saving said tailings, the actual cost of transportation of said ores, mineral-bearing material, or tailings to the place of reduction or sale, and the actual cost of such reduction or sale, and the remainder shall be deemed the net proceeds, and shall be assessed and taxed as provided for in this act: Provided, that in no case whatsoever shall the whole amount of deductions allowed to be made in this section from the gross yield, return, or value of said ore, mineral-bearing material, or tailings exceed the percentage of gross yield, value, or return of such ore, mineral, or tailings, as hereinafter specified; on all ores, tailings, or mineral-bearing material the gross yield or value of which is $12 per ton or less, the whole amount of deductions shall not exceed ninety per cent of such gross yield, return, or value; on all ores, tailings, or mineral-bearing material, the gross yield, value, or returns of which is over $12 and under $30 per ton, the whole amount of deductions shall not exceed eighty per cent of such gross yield, value, or return; on all ores, tailings, or mineral-bearing material, the gross...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co.
...have always been recognized by law, although in all such cases the legal title to the land remains in the government. In Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762, 24 L.Ed. 313, the in relation to the subject we are discussing, in the course of its opinion, said: 'Congress has, by statutes and by tacit......
-
Burnet v. Coronado Oil Gas Co
...he derives from it, is also tax immune. New Brunswick v. United States, 276 U. S. 547, 48 S. Ct. 371, 72 L. Ed. 693; Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U. S. 762, 24 L. Ed. 313; Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527, 22 L. Ed. 805; see Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 468, 7 L. Ed. 481; Veazie Bank v. Fenno,......
-
Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Magnolia Petroleum Co
...property purchased from that Government. City of New Brunswick v. United States, 276 U.S. 547, 48 S.Ct. 371, 72 L.Ed. 693; Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762, 24 L.Ed. 313; Tucker v. Ferguson, 22 527, 22 L.Ed. 805; see Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, 468, 7 L.Ed. 481. Also subject to local ad ......
-
Harvey Coal & Coke Co v. Dillon
...land is property in the miner, and property of value, and may be taxed by the state, and the state may sell it for taxes. Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U. S. 762, 24 L. Ed. 313. I repeat that plainly the right vested In the coal company, and being actually exercised, is property, and the Legislature......