Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress

Cl. 3.-Commerce-Intrastate

house or firm doing business in another State to pay a license is a burden on interstate commerce. The fact that no discrimination is made between domestic and foreign commerce does not render such a tax valid.

Robbins v. Shelby County, 120 U. S. 493.

U. S. v. Hvoslef, 237 U. S. 1.

(e) Title retained by vendor until purchase price paid.-Where a sewing machine is shipped into a State to be delivered to the consignee upon payment of the purchase price, the seller is not liable for a State license tax, such tax being an interference with interstate commerce.

Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Sims, 191 U. S. 451.

Trading stamps.-A tax on merchants using redeemable coupons or profit-sharing certificates is not a tax on interstate commerce as applied to coupons issued and redeemed by the retail merchant himself.

Rast v. Van Deman, 240 U. S. 342.
Pitney v. Washington, 240 U. S. 387.

Mail-order business.-One having a stock of liquors on hand within the State and engaged in the business exclusively of carrying on a mail-order business-that is, the soliciting of orders from persons in other States by mail, the receipt of such orders, and the filling of the same by delivering to a carrier for through transportation out of the State-is engaged in interstate commerce and can not be subjected to a State tax for carrying it on.

Heyman v. Hays, 236 U. S. 178.

Lightning-rod agents.-Ordinance imposing a tax upon "lightning-rod agents or dealers engaged in putting up or erecting lightning rods within the corporate limits," is valid as applied to one engaged in the business of soliciting orders for a nonresident, and whose duty it is, as included in the price paid to the nonresident for the rods, to erect them without further charge.

Browning v. Waycross, 233 U. S. 16.

Property in transit.-While the property is at rest for an indefinite time awaiting transportation, or awaiting a sale at its place of destination, or at an intermediate point, it is subject to taxation. But if it be actually in transit to another State it becomes the subject of interstate commerce and is exempt from local assessment.

Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U. S. 504.

Susquehanna Coal Co. v. South Amboy, 228 U. S. 665.
Pittsburgh, etc., Coal Co. v. Bates, 156 U. S. 584.

Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622.

Diamond Match Co. v. Ontonagon, 188 U. S. 96.

Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress

Cl. 3-Commerce-Intrastate

Western Oil Ref. Co. v. Lipscomb, 244 U. S. 346.

Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 524.

Kehrer v. Stewart, 197 U. S. 67.

Armour Packing Co. v. Lacy, 200 U. S. 226.

Insurance premiums.-State tax upon the excess of premiums received over losses and ordinary expenses incurred within the State is valid.

New York Life v. Deer Lodge County, 231 U. S. 495.

See also

People v. National Fire Ins. Co., 27 Hun (N. Y.) 193, in which case
Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, is relied upon and distinguished.
Nutting v. Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 553.

Northwestern, etc., Ins. Co. v. Wisconsin, 247 U. S. 132.

National Union v. Wanberg, 260 U. S. 71.

Live-stock grazing in the State.-A flock of sheep driven without unnecessary delay across a State for shipment, and not for the purpose of grazing, is interstate commerce to such an extent as to be exempt from taxation by the State through which it was being transported.

Kelley v. Rhoads, 188 U. S. 4.

Income from interstate business.-A State, in levying a general income tax on the gains and profits of a domestic corporation, may include in the computation the net income derived from transactions in interstate commerce, where there is no discrimination against interstate commerce.

U. S. Glue Co. v. Oak Creek, 247 U. S. 321.

Commerce with Indians and Indian Tribes

Power of Congress in General

Congress possesses plenary power over the tribal relations and lands of the Indians, and the action of Congress with reference thereto is conclusive upon the courts.

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553.

U. S. v. Cisna, 1 McLean, U. S.254.

The power of Congress over commerce between Arkansas and the Indian Territory is not less than its power over commerce among the States.

Hanley v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 187 U. S. 617.
Ex parte Webb, 225 U. S. 663.

Whitney v. Dick, 202 U. S. 132.

Definition of "Commerce with the Indian tribes

Commerce with foreign nations means commerce between citizens of the United States and citizens or subjects of foreign governments as individuals, and so commerce with the Indian tribes means commerce with the individuals composing those tribes.

U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 417.

Indians as Wards of the Government.

The recognized relation between the Government and the Indians is that of a superior and an inferior whereby the latter is placed under the care and control of the former.

Matter of Heff, 197 U. S. 483.

Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress

Cl. 3.-Commerce-Indian

Whether, to what extent, and for what length of time distinctly Indian communities within the borders of the United States shall be recognized and dealt with as independent tribes, requiring the guardianship and protection of the United States, are questions to be determined by Congress and not by the

courts.

U. S. v. Sandoval, 231 U. S. 28.

The guardianship of the Federal Government over an Indian does not cease when allotment is made and the allottee becomes a citizen.

Bowling v. U. S., 233 U. S. 528.

Lane v. Morrison, 246 U. S. 214.

Status of Indian Nations or Tribes.

The Indian tribes have always been recognized as distinct communities, and have been permitted to a large extent to make and enforce the laws for their own government; but they are in no sense sovereign nations, and are, like all other communities within the territory of the United States, subject to the paramount authority of Congress, which may, in its discretion, assume such part of the control and government of any tribe as, in its judgment, is necessary, or for the best interest of the members.

Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1.

Jurisdiction of States Over Indians.

No State can, either by its constitution or other legislation withdraw the Indians within its limits from the operation of the laws of Congress regulating trade with them, notwithstanding any rights it may confer on them as electors or citizens.

U. S. v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 419.

State statute making it unlawful for any persons other than Indians to settle or reside on any lands belonging to or occupied by any nation or tribe of Indians within the State and providing for their summary ejectment held not to conflict with the Constitution.

New York v. Dibble, 21 How. 366.
Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515.

Indians as Citizens.1

Citizenship is not in itself an obstacle to the exercise by Congress of its power to enact laws for the benefit and protection of tribal Indians as a dependent people.

U. S. v. Sandoval, 231 U. S. 28.

Act July 1, 1902 (c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641), whereby a citizenship court was created in the Indian Territory and empowered to re

See also Amendment 14, sec. 2, p. 742,

Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress

Cl. 3.-Commerce-Indian

view the final judgments of the courts of the United States under act June 10, 1896 (29 Stat. 339), which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, was constitutional and valid against successful litigants who had not procured allotments before its passage.

Wallace v. Adams, 204 U. S. 415.

See also

Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445.

Heckman v. U. S. 224 U. S. 413.

Hallowell v. U. S. 221 U. S. 317.

Tiger v. Western Inv. Co., 221 U. S. 286.

Lands and Funds of Indians.

Indians as tribes could sell to the Government of the discoverer, but could not sell to any other government, or its subjects, for the Government by discovery acquired the exclusive preemption right of purchase and the right to exclude the subjects of other governments, and even its own, from acquiring title to Indian lands.

Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. 244.

Neither the provisions of the Indian appropriation acts of 1896 and 1897, authorizing the Dawes Commission to determine claims to citizenship in any of the Five Tribes of the Indian Territory, nor of the Curtis Act of 1898, were unconstitutional as an impairment of vested rights, since the land and moneys of those tribes were public moneys and were not held in individual ownership.

Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445.

The lands of the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico, although held in communal fee-simple ownership by the Indians of each pueblo, are subject to the legislation of Congress, enacted in the exercises of the Government's guardianship over such Indian communities and their affairs.

U. S. v. Sandoval, 231 U. S. 28.

Hallowell v. Commons, 239 U. S. 506.

Alienation of Lands in General

Congress has power to limit the alienation of lands by an Indian.

Taylor v. Brown, 147 U. S. 640.

It is within the power of Congress to enlarge the period within which an Indian allottee is prohibited from alienating his land beyond that imposed when the allotment was made, so long as the land is held by the allottee, although in the meantime he may have been made a citizen.

Heckman v. U. S., 224 U. S. 413.

See also

U. S. v. Mille Lac Band, 229 U. S. 498.
Monson v. Simonson, 231 U. S. 341.
Gannon v. Johnston, 243 U. S. 108.

Sec. 8.-Powers of Congress

Egan v. McDonald, 246 U. S. 227.

Brader v. James, 246 U. S. 88.

McCurdy v. U. S., 246 U. S. 263.

Cl. 3.-Commerce-Indian

The rights of lessees of the heir of an Indian to whom title to land was granted by an Indian treaty can not be divested by any subsequent action of the lessor, or of Congress, or of the executive departments.

Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S. 1.

Actions by or Against Indians

A United States citizen who has become a citizen of an Indian nation by marriage with one on whom citizenship in the nation has been conferred by the legislature of the nation, but who has ceased to be such owing to a withdrawal by the legislature of all rights of citizenship possessed by his wife, may enforce his claim against one of that nation in the Federal courts. Roff v. Burney, 168 U. S. 218.

Offenses by or Against Indians

Where the country occupied by Indians is not within the limits of any of the States, Congress may, by law, punish any offense committed there, whether the offender be a white man or an Indian.

U. S. v. Rogers, 4 How. 572.

Independently of any question of title, the Federal courts have jurisdiction of crimes committed by Indians on a reservation, for, regarding them as the wards of the Nation, the United States has full power to pass such laws as may be necessary to their full protection, and to punish all offenses committed against them or by them within the reservation.

U. S. v. Thomas, 151 U. S. 577.
Donnelly v. U. S., 228 U. S. 243.
U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375.

U. S. v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278.

Intoxicating Liquors to Indians

A stipulation in a treaty with an Indian tribe that laws prohibiting the introduction of liquors in Indian country should apply to the territory ceded by the treaty to be valid and operative without legislation, and binding upon the courts, though the ceded territory was within an organized county of a State.

U. S. v. Whisky, 93 U. S. 194.

The power to protect the Government's Indian wards against the evils of intemperance is sufficiently comprehensive to enable Congress, when securing the cession of part of an Indian reservation within a State, to prohibit the sale of intoxicants upon the ceded lands if, in its judgment, that is reasonably essential to the protection of the Indians residing on the unceded lands.

Ferrin v. U. S., 232 U. S. 478.

« AnteriorContinuar »