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