FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   878   879   880   881   882   883   884   885   886   887   888   889   890   891   892   893   894   895   896   897   898   899   900   901   902  
903   904   905   906   907   908   909   910   911   912   913   914   915   916   917   918   919   920   921   922   923   924   925   926   927   >>   >|  
U.S. 142 (1928). [98] 286 U.S. 123 (1932). [99] Educational Films Corp. _v._ Ward, 282 U.S. 379 (1931). [100] 235 U.S. 292 (1944). [101] Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. _v._ Oklahoma, 240 U.S. 522 (1916). [102] Howard _v._ Gipsy Oil Co., 247 U.S. 503 (1918); Large Oil Co. _v._ Howard, 248 U.S. 549 (1919). [103] 257 U.S. 501 (1922). [104] Oklahoma Tax Comm'n _v._ Barnsdall Refiners, 296 U.S. 521 (1936). [105] 330 U.S. 342 (1949). Justice Rutledge, speaking for the Court, sketched the history of the immunity of lessees of Indian lands from State taxation, which he found to stem from early rulings that tribal lands are themselves immune (The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737 (1867); The New York Indians, 5 Wall. 761 (1867)). One of the first steps taken to curtail the scope of the immunity was Shaw _v._ Gibson-Zahniser Oil Corp., 276 U.S. 575 (1928), which held that lands outside a reservation, though purchased with restricted Indian funds, were subject to State taxation. Congress soon upset the decision, however, and its act was sustained in Board of County Comm'rs _v._ Seber, 318 U.S. 705 (1943). [106] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 416 (1819). [107] Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 337 (1867). [108] Cummings _v._ Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 323 (1867). [109] The Federalist No. 27, p. 123; I Farrand Records, 404. [110] _See_ Article I, Section III, Paragraph 1; Section IV, Paragraph 1; Section X; Article II, Section I, Paragraph 2; Article III, Section II, Paragraph 2; Article IV, Sections I and II; Article V; Amendments XIII, XIV, XV, XVII, and XIX. [111] 1 Stat. 73 (1789). [112] 5 Stat. 322 (1839). [113] 1 Stat. 302 (1793). [114] 2 Stat. 404 (1806). [115] _See_ 2 Kent's Commentaries, 64-65 (1826); 34 Stat. 590, 602 (1906); 8 U.S.C. Sec. 357, 379; 18 ibid. Sec. 135 (1934); _also_ Holmgren _v._ United States, 217 U.S. 509 (1910). [116] For the development of opinion especially on the part of State courts, adverse to the validity of the above mentioned legislation, _see_ 1 Kent's Commentaries, 396-404 (1826). [117] 16 Pet. 539 (1842). [118] 24 How. 66 (1861). [119] 16 Pet. at 622. [120] 24 How. at 107-108. [121] 100 U.S. 371 (1880). [122] Ibid. 392. [123] Claflin _v._ Houseman, 93 U.S. 130, 136, 137 (1876); followed in Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 55-59 (1912). [124] 40 Stat. 76 (1917). [125] Jane Perry Clark, The Rise of a New Federalism
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   878   879   880   881   882   883   884   885   886   887   888   889   890   891   892   893   894   895   896   897   898   899   900   901   902  
903   904   905   906   907   908   909   910   911   912   913   914   915   916   917   918   919   920   921   922   923   924   925   926   927   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
Section
 

Article

 

Paragraph

 

Indian

 

Commentaries

 

immunity

 
taxation
 
Howard
 

Indians

 
Oklahoma

Amendments

 

Records

 
Farrand
 

Sections

 

Second

 

Liability

 

Employers

 

Claflin

 
Houseman
 
Federalism

opinion

 

courts

 
validity
 
adverse
 

development

 

States

 

United

 
mentioned
 

legislation

 

Holmgren


Justice

 

Refiners

 

Barnsdall

 

Rutledge

 
speaking
 

rulings

 
tribal
 

sketched

 
history
 

lessees


Educational

 

Territory

 

Illuminating

 
immune
 

Kansas

 

McCulloch

 

Maryland

 

sustained

 

County

 
Federalist