Garland County v. Gaines

• Decision Date: 21 May 1892
• Citation: 19 S.W. 602
• Parties: GARLAND COUNTY v. GAINES.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

19 S.W. 602

GARLAND COUNTY v. GAINES.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 21, 1892.

Appeal from circuit court, Garland county; JAMES B. WOOD, Judge.

Application of A. B. Gaines to quash a tax assessment by Garland county on his interest in land leased to him by the United States. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

E. W. Rector, for appellant. George G. Latta, for appellee.

COCKRILL, C. J.

In the act of congress admitting Arkansas as a state, there was no reservation of federal jurisdiction over the Hot Springs reservation, and there has been no subsequent cession of jurisdiction by the state to the United States. The property of individuals on or within the reservation has therefore always been subject to taxation by the state. Railroad Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 995. No part of the reservation, while owned by the United States, can be subjected to taxation by the state. Van Brocklin v. State of Tennessee, 117 U. S. 151, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 670. But when the government parts with its title, or any interest therein, the property or interest which the government parts with becomes subject to taxation. When it makes a lease to an individual of any interest or privilege in its lands within the reservation, the interest of the lessee, whatever it may be, may be taxed, subject, however, to all the rights and interests which the United States retains in the property. The record in this cause shows that what is said by Judge MILLER in reference to the possessory right of miners in the government lands to dig for ores is strictly applicable to the right acquired by the government's lessee in this case. "This claim," said he, "may be sold, transferred, mortgaged, and inherited, without infringing the title of the United States. Why may it not also be made subject to a lien for taxes, and the claim, such as it is, recognized by statute, be sold to enforce the lien? We see nothing in principle, or in any interest which the United States has in the land, to prevent it." Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U. S. 762. See Colorado Co. v. Commissioners, 95 U. S. 265; Van Brocklin v. State of Tennessee, 117 U. S. 177, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 670. The interest of the lessee in the land is not the property of the United States, and it is not a means employed by the government to obtain a governmental end. The power to tax that interest does not involve, therefore, the power to destroy or disturb the government's interest. Our attention is called to a provision...