Opinion of the court. Works, and payment therefor is made by the corporation to the trustees of the works, as shown by the only witness examined in the case. Origin of the gas works is shown in the ordinance of the twenty-first of March, 1835, and it appears that the works were constructed and put in operation by means of money subscribed by private individuals, for which they received certificates of stock, signed by the mayor of the city, and countersigned by the treasurer, entitling the holder to the proper share of the profits arising from the manufacture and sale of gas. Original subscriptions amounted to one hundred thousand dollars, and the provision was, that the works should be under the exclusive control and management of twelve trustees, to be elected by the councils of the city. Purpose was to supply the city and the citizens with gas; but the stipulation was, that the public lamps of the city should be supplied at one-half the price paid by private consumers. Five hundred dollars is annually paid by the trustees to the city as rent of the lot for the location and use of the gas works. New subscriptions and loans were subsequently authorized to increase the capital stock for the extension of the works. Moneys arising from the manufacture and sale of the gas were required by the original ordinance to be paid into the city treasury, but that part of the ordinance was afterwards repealed, which gave the entire control to the trustees. Whenever the municipality deemed it expedient they might take possession of the gas works and convert the stock into a loan, redeemable in twenty years. They did take possession of the works, and loan certificates, on the third day of June, 1841, were issued to the stockholders, but the stipulation that the works should be controlled and managed by the trustees elected, as before, was renewed in the subsequent ordinance, passed in the same month. Clear profits were required, under this last arrangement, to be set apart as a sinking fund to be invested in the loans to the association, and the trustees were charged with the duty of carrying the regulation into effect. Throughout, from the organization of the association to the commencement of the suit, Opinion of the court. the works have been controlled and managed by the trus tees, and the interest of the association, which constructed the works and put them in operation, has never been divested or become vested in the corporation. Plaintiff's authorized the mayor of the city, on the sixteenth day of February, 1856, to contract with the trustees for the lighting, extinguishing, cleansing, and repairs of the public lamps of the city, for the term of three years, at a stipulated sum for each lamp, and made a sufficient appropriation to carry the contract into effect; and the evidence showed that the works were, throughout the period for which the duties were assessed, in the exclusive possession of the trustees. Testimony also showed that the city paid monthly for the gas consumed in her public lamps throughout that entire period. They sometimes paid a fixed sum for each lamp and sometimes one-half the rate paid by pri vate consumers. Prayers for instruction were presented by both parties, but the presiding justice rejected them all, and instructed the jury that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, and that their verdict should be for the defendant. 8. Buried as the original transaction is in subsequent ordinances and amendments thereto, still it is believed that there is no great difficulty in ascertaining the true state of the case so far as it respects the present controversy. Trustees elected by the councils of the city superintended the construction of the works, but the subscribers to the capital stock furnished the money employed in the enterprise, and became and are the legal owners of the works. When loans were subsequently made to enable the association to supply gas to a larger portion of the citizens, the capital stock and the number of shares were increased, but the control and management remained unchanged. Debts contracted by loans or otherwise became liens upon the works, and, in some instances, the faith of the city as surety or guarantor was pledged for the payment of the interest and ultimate payment of the principal. Such liens did not change the ownership of the capital stock of the association, nor did Opinion of the court. the mere entry by the city for the purpose of laying the foundation to issue the loan certificates, as the possession was only temporary, and the control and management were, by new stipulation, continued in the trustees constituted and appointed in case of any vacancy, as provided in the original ordinance. Rent was paid, as before, to the city for the lot leased for the location of the works and for the use of the association, and the authorities continued, as before, to pay monthly or otherwise, at stipulated prices, for the gas consumed in the public lamps. Taking the facts as they appear in this record, it is clear that the property of the association never became vested in the city, and it is equally clear that it remained vested in the association, subject to the liens created as security for the loans and as indemnity to the city for her liabilities incurred as surety or guarantor. Supreme Court of the State regarded the city as the borrower in the matter of the last loan, and they held that the object of the stipulation that the works should continue to be controlled and managed by a board of trustees, elected as before, was to keep the pledge out of the hands of the borrower and prevent the fund from being mingled with the funds of the city. Ruling of the court that the works were held by the city in pledge only, and not in full property, is all which the present case requires this court to decide. They also held that the effect of taking possession and the issuing of the certificates of loans, was, that the trustees ceased to be trustees for the stockholders and became the trustees of the city and the loanholders.* Suppose that to be so, still they held that the control and management of the works continued in the trustees, and that they were to be elected, as under the original ordinance. Rights of the stockholders could not be divested without their consent, and the mere acceptance of certificates of loan in the place of certificates of shares in the capital stock, without more, would not operate to convey to the * Saving Fund Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 7 Casey, 187. Statement of the cases. city their interests in the gas works. Conclusion is, that the duties were properly assessed, and that there is no error in the record. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS. THE KANSAS INDIANS 1. The State of Kansas has no right to tax lands held in severalty by indi vidual Indians of the Shawnee, Miami, and Wea tribes, under patents issued to them by virtue of the treaties made with those tribes respectively in 1854, and in pursuance of the provisions of the 11th section of the act of June 30th, 1859 (11 Stat. at Large, p. 431). 2. If the tribal organization of Indian bands is recognized by the political department of the National government as existing; that is to say, if the National government makes treaties with, and has its Indian agent among them, paying annuities, and dealing otherwise with "head men " in its behalf, the fact that the primitive habits and customs of the tribe, when in a savage state, have been largely broken into by their intercourse with the whites,-in the midst of whom, by the advance of civilization, they have come to find themselves,-does not authorize a State government to regard the tribal organization as gone, and the Indians as citizens of the State where they are, and subject to its laws. 3. Rules of interpretation favorable to the Indian tribes are to be adopted. in construing our treaties with them. Hence, a provision in an Indian treaty which exempts their lands from "levy, sale, and forfeiture," is not, in the absence of expressions so to limit it, to be confined to levy and sale under ordinary judicial proceedings only, but is to be extended to levy and sale by county officers also, for non-payment of taxes. THESE were three distinct cases involving, however, with certain differences, essentially the same question, argued on the same day and by the same counsel. The specific question was, whether the State of Kansas had a right to tax lands in that State held in severalty by individual Indians of the Shawnee, Wea, and Miami tribes, under patents issued to them pursuant to certain treaties of the United States; the tribal organization of these tribes having to a certain extent, as was alleged, been broken in upon by their intercourse with the whites, in the midst of Statement of the cases: The Shawnees. whom the Indians were, and by their enjoyment, to some extent, of the social and other advantages of our own people. The question was raised on bills filed in equity in the county courts of Kansas, by different Indian chiefs,-Blue Jacket as representing the Shawnees; Yellow Beaver representing the Wea tribe, and Wan-zop-e-ah the Miamisagainst the County Commissioners of Johnson County and Miami County, to restrain these commissioners from selling for non-payment of taxes lands held by these Indians in their individual characters. The county court dismissed the bills, conceiving that the lands were rightly taxed, and on an affirmance of such dismissals in the Supreme Court of the State, the cases were brought here. They were, respectively, thus: I. CASE OF THE SHAWNEE TRIBE. In 1817, a portion of the Shawnees were living in Missouri, others in Ohio; those in Missouri were upon lands given to them by the United States, and which, by treaty, was declared should not be liable to taxes so long as they continued to be the property of the Indians.* In 1825, the Shawnees in Missouri gave up their lands there to the United States, and in consideration for the surrender received for themselves, and such of their brethren in Ohio as might choose to follow them, a tract in Kansasthen a wild-of 50,000 square miles, or 1,600,000 acres.† In 1831, the Shawnees in Ohio resolved to join their Missouri brethren who had gone to Kansas. A treaty was accordingly concluded in that year by the United States with the Ohio Shawnees. By the terms of it the President was to cause the said tribe from Ohio to be protected at their intended residence against all interruption or disturbance from any other tribe or nation of Indians, or from any other person or persons whatsoever, and he was to have the same care * 7 Stat. at Large, 166. + Id. 284. |