James Goudy v. Edward Meath, No. 53
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Brewer |
| 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 |
| Docket Number | No. 53 |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1906 |
v.
EDWARD MEATH, Assessor of Pierce County, Washington.
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.
Page 147
The latter treaty, March 16, 1854 (10 Stat. at L. 1043), authorized the President to issue a patent for any allotted land, 'conditioned that the tract shall not be aliened or leased for a longer term than two years; and shall be exempt from levy, sale, or forfeiture, which conditions shall continue in force until a state constitution, embracing such lands within its boundaries, shall have been formed, and the legislature of the state shall remove the restrictions. . . . No state legislature shall remove the restrictions herein provided for without the consent of Congress.' Under this treaty, on January 30, 1886, a patent to the plaintiff was issued. One of the facts agreed upon is the following:
'That since the issuance of said patent, and by an act of Congress passed and approved on the 8th day of February, 1887, plaintiff became and now is a citizen of the United States, and entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of such citizens. Said act is found in the United States Statutes at Large, vol. 24, chapter 119, at page 388.'
In 1889, Washington was admitted as a state. Its first legislature enacted:
'Section 1. That the said Indians who now hold. or who may hereafter hold, any of the lands of any reservation, in severalty, located in this state, by virtue of treaties made between them and the United States, shall have power to lease, encumber, grant, and alien the same in like manner and with like effect as any other person may do under the laws of the United States and of this state, and all restrictions in reference thereto are hereby removed.' Laws 1889, 1890, p. 499.
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,
Page 148
on February 14, 1903, wrote to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, summing up his conclusions in these words:
'I am of the opinion that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oneida Tribe of Wi v. Village of Hobart, Wi, No. 06-C-1302.
...incumbrance, or taxation upon issuance of a patent. Id. at 264, 112 S.Ct. 698. This had been clear for as far back as Goudy v. Meath, 203 U.S. 146, 27 S.Ct. 48, 51 L.Ed. 130 (1906), which had rejected the argument that in granting Indians the right to convey their land, Congress had not als......
-
CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES, MONT. v. Moe, Civ. No. 2145.
...was achieved the Indian "shall have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the state." See Goudy v. Meath, 203 U.S. 146, 27 S.Ct. 48, 51 L.Ed. 130 (1906). By specific congressional mandate equal protection followed citizenship. The Montana Enabling Act specif......
-
Clinton v. State Tax Commission, 33526.
...Congress may protect them from state taxation, will nevertheless be 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. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U.S. 362, 371, 32 S.Ct. 499, 56 L.Ed. 801; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Pe......
-
Grondal v. United States, 20-35694
...also removes the restrictions on encumbrance and state taxation—even if the statute did not expressly remove those restrictions. See 203 U.S. 146, 149, 27 S.Ct. 48, 51 L.Ed. 130 (1906) ; see also County of Yakima , 502 U.S. at 263–64, 112 S.Ct. 683 ("Thus, when [the General Allotment Act] r......
-
Oneida Tribe of Wi v. Village of Hobart, Wi, No. 06-C-1302.
...incumbrance, or taxation upon issuance of a patent. Id. at 264, 112 S.Ct. 698. This had been clear for as far back as Goudy v. Meath, 203 U.S. 146, 27 S.Ct. 48, 51 L.Ed. 130 (1906), which had rejected the argument that in granting Indians the right to convey their land, Congress had not als......
-
CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES, MONT. v. Moe, Civ. No. 2145.
...was achieved the Indian "shall have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the state." See Goudy v. Meath, 203 U.S. 146, 27 S.Ct. 48, 51 L.Ed. 130 (1906). By specific congressional mandate equal protection followed citizenship. The Montana Enabling Act specif......
-
Clinton v. State Tax Commission, 33526.
...Congress may protect them from state taxation, will nevertheless be 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. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U.S. 362, 371, 32 S.Ct. 499, 56 L.Ed. 801; Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. Pe......
-
Grondal v. United States, 20-35694
...also removes the restrictions on encumbrance and state taxation—even if the statute did not expressly remove those restrictions. See 203 U.S. 146, 149, 27 S.Ct. 48, 51 L.Ed. 130 (1906) ; see also County of Yakima , 502 U.S. at 263–64, 112 S.Ct. 683 ("Thus, when [the General Allotment Act] r......