Brief for the Respondent in Opposition — Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside

Supreme Court brief1972

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

AFI Nyt

‘

. ~ °

ae a

> :

S26 .

. .. ;

5) yg *

. vy

- .

2 . .

. ‘

- .

. * °

- one

4 .

. %

. -

‘

- .

e ‘ 2 e

. ¥

a .

Ps F

/ .

“ . .

. “

fe - el - f 4 % Be 4s ” ° : cn 4 : ain wos .-

: ni Precuyicy COUR a i= ‘oo pies Sa iy e ? ee Mabie Pate PY iat Seo. Saree

I area Se : a mS eR pare og EPR Bis Caeee : Se Goa rig eee

Riees aet : a x tg re <7 5 : é sae jai SE hr | cae i ae

, ee aay a we. oe se , pe ; fellate Re oe es ay

é a ; op He a Be ES te :

ei Seay ° * x ; * sy “@) : an -«

Sapreme nited States’

: eet vr 2 : : tions: ‘ } ”. ne a rss seeks od ae My

‘ pee : Ban: SN fo: ihe. F ARES Ei Tne :

ay “| October Term, 1971 _

Je a ea No. 71-183

®%

; THE ‘AGUA CALIENTE 1 ND OF ‘Mission INDIANS, 2

“by and through its TRIBAL.COUNCIL, and DORA JOYCE ~ PP

-" PRIETO, PRISCILLA GONZALES, GLORIA GILLETTEE, . *.

: PATRICK and io Co and, LAWRENCE PIERCE, Allottees,

. Individual d in Class Action, on behalf of. ALL ALLOT-

TEES of: ‘fotted land on the AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF _

eae aur peas INDIANS acme ian Bi a f tgs

| if ‘i oe gt Petitioners, ; 7

fhe es Fat - VS.

| Babe wae THE COUNTY OF RSIDE, a political subvision of the eg ee

ee eee oS ie

Gin Petition for Writ ot Certiorari to the United States Court

NETS of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. SOHN han OG ae ean

.\ |: «RAY T. SULLIVAN, JR,

ie LE | ORES —County-Gounsel, ce

* ZS Cae _ + County of Riverside, we

ae _’ STEVENA.BROILES, 5 2 =

ne - Deputy County Counsel, ~

. -300 Law Library Building, Mie

. 3535 Tenth Street, Pk Ta rg

‘5 + | -Riverside, Calif. "92501, : |

: _< (714) 787-2421,

Attorneys for Respondent.

Parker & Son, Inc., Law Printers, Los Angeles. Phone 724-6622 fee See

ai. *

-—

SUBJECT INDEX . |

° Page

‘Opinions Below ea

I ieee csliaccaeiea keane 2

‘Questions Presented scenes 2

Statutes involved ot see

Statement of the Case, 2:0 Leeesoceceeeeeet te

III sisdhscolscaitloacoheie Ulapenislans acetcasiatktedsabtmbatndieiecten 8 .

- ‘The California Posséssory Interest Tax May Be

.Validly Assessed Against Non-Indian Commer-

ofeh Leagues of Salon Tous Land on rae oe 8

7 i. |

Petitioners Have a Plain, Speedy and Efficient

- Remedy for This Alleged Injury in the Courts

of California —............... Rincneninsgeeieemapaoemeenines 15

: une TO APPENDIX - <

_ Appendix on ee l

United States Code, Title 28, Sec.-1360 _. ‘1

United States Code, ‘Title 28, Sec. 13541 -. . 2

Mission Indian Relief Act of January 12, 1891,"

c. 65, 26 Stat. 712 .....: ‘she Ie oe FS A ae _—- 2

California Revenue and Taxation Code SAS

. eo

" TOTEM LNT LEN ON ST TR

yarn

ede ie nan) van

PUTT a ball bade Bain c6! veciua aie

ited gta Sapa ad tne bk "

ll.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED .

a, .Cases « b - Page

‘Bailess v. Paukune, 344 U.S. 171 (1952) 22... 12

Central P. R. Co. v. California, 162 U.S. 91°

ee; OE RNY Dee Ai A LN NIE eh 10

_ Cherokee Tobacco, ’ 11 Wall., pp. 616, 620 _........ on

‘Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Mackey, 256 USS. 531

‘bp Omen sale Riad ue a tate et Sc 10

County of Riverside v. Palm:-Ramon Development

Co., 63 Cal.2d.534, 47 Cal.Rptr. 377, 407 P.2d

289 (1965) ............: cisisabmictatiaisiatiaaicoddamlaanen 3

Crocker v. Scott, 149 Cal. 575, 87 Pac. 102

Reena soinice Leen eee seine 18

Department of Eriployment v.) United States, 385

U.S. 355 (1966) een nein ieiseaaisentaaaiaiiiie 17

Department of Veterans Affairs) v. Board of thea: .

visors, 31 Cal.2d 657, 192 P. 2d 22 (1948) ...... 18

Eisley v. Mohan, 31 Cal.2d 637, 192 P.2d 5 (1948) _

‘pianaaiamiasimulenauen Ricca odiaptabneaatinsaition 17

Fink v. County Commissioners of Muskogee Coun-

ty, 248 U.S. 399 EI ccucncoeecasanaeadie- 12

Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U:S. 501 (1922) ........ 13.

Gromer ‘v. Standard - Dredging Co., 224 US. 362

2) | Seen nee oe eietrtenesshvoncenecitiatinsneata sai 10

Harsh California Corp. v. County of San Bernardino,

262 F.2d 626 (9th Cir. 1958) -.................... 15, 18

Helvering v.-Mountain Producers Corp., 303 USS. ee

376 (1938) ........ eipdanle) ostnnutiiinatcumiacareiniien 13

Jillson v. Sacramento County, 221. Cal. App. 2d 192,

oe Cee. S99 1G)... es 18

People v. Shearer, 30 Cal. 645 (1866)

_ Thomas v. Gay, 169° US. 264 (1898)

Lasker Boiler and Engineering Corp. v. Hamm, 216

F.Supp. 74 (M.D. Ala. 1963), aff'd 328 F.2d

Lt |: a meee ae

Lockhart v. Wolden, 17 Cal. ae 628, 211 P. od 319

(|b SPEER See mee OE CARES OSS 0c :

Lockheed Aircraft Corporation ° v. County of Los

Angeles, 207 Cal.App.2d 119, 24 Cal. Rptr. 316

CID sctsecinsvxsonssshepininecenncnpieaeinaniicutipelideints a

Matthews v. Rodgers, 284 U.S: 521 |, ) = 15

Montana Catholic Missions |v. Missoula County,

yr Re SG RG. | Rear ceenn tienen Ween. wee 13.

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Welch, 17 Cal. App. 2d

ee > Be | Renee ee eR een ere 18

‘Oklahoma: Tax. Commission v. Texas Company,

336 U.S. 342 (1949) Fiocsaiacacievontsimeaioonsell 10

‘Oklahoma Tax. Commission v. United States, 319

REA See CGE icine tee

Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. Ss. 60

CID chgnasiicsncessedinatinneaisinsisdainkdilipignciplehuaninabinei

Palm Springs Spa, Inc. v. County of Riverside, 18

Cal.App.3d 372, ........ Cal,Rptr. ........ (1971)...

Sweet v. Schock, 245 U.S. 192 PRET D aissentcennns

Taber v. Indian Territory Sessa: Oil Co., 300

U.S. 1 (1937)

i ee

ee ee es

Page

Thomson v. Union P. R. Co., 9 Wall. US.) 579° :

(1870)

ee ee eee eee eee

‘Union P. R. Co: v. Peniston, - Wall. (US. 3...

ee pcalaicalas AA poibnmabictasenaa sh aelacreiesaemssceasaaeanieasiie

a ae

papeeet ee ys oh ee

| | . Page

‘+ United States v. Boyd, 378 U.S. 39 (1964)... 9

United States v. Detroit, 355 U.S. 466 (1958)

spasuabitsnealiceld epi asetedaepedasciclamiss tei amicaaclie ons tilasn sae 8, 9, “11, 14

United States ' v. Erie County, 31 F.Supp. 57 sisal

a. Wee Soe IR SN I OI 14

United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9. (E. D.

S.C. 1959) aff'd without _— 394, US. 281

- , = A I sa aliaaaeie ceaambaescattrenchli astra oo 16. -

United States \ v. Township of er 355 US.

re rae 8

Universal Consolidated Oil i v. Byram, 25 Cal.

ae Jaa, 13s F268 6 (1558) .............................. 17

Wagoner v. Evans, 170 U.S. 588 (1898) es 13

| Miscellaneous

Hearings on H.R. 17273 Before the Subcommittee —

on Indian Affairs of the House- Committee on

- Interior and Insular Affairs, 90th Cong. 2nd

_ Sess., ser. No. 90—28 (1968) - ee REN CRE a J ec

Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on

Equalization on Land Allotments on the Agua.

. Caliente Reservation in California of the House

- Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 85th

Cong., Ist Sess., ser. No. 17 (1957) -................. 14-

Marshall, State and Local Taxation (11 California

Practice, 1969) : Sk OEE es desambeagmecnumuiabnnenaeliins 19

Regulations

Cede of Federal Regulations, Title as Secs. 131.1- ~

3 Reem PF Ps SOE. POF OE 4,44 ~

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30, Secs. 221.1-

SEE. Neneuabitiendipetanivianindtivatinceraon tanec 11

V. |

Rules : - Page

Rules of the United States Supreme Court, Rule

AP RB EE TAA Dna len NR ee a Ee REA NOY 19

- Rules of the United States Senedee Court, Rule

SEE > a)aateniniieidansaitnioseniolscecntnaieracskonemeeelicoensiaennindamaite (a

| Statutes |

Act. rt August 9, 1955, c. 615, 69 Stat. 539, as”

amended, 25 US.C. Secs. 415-415d ipiitipabaasis 4

Agua Caliente Reservation Act of August 9, 1955,

i, As GI I I enn is ecclsrsimmeetssomaniisirtilmeni 4.

* Califorifié Revenue and Taxation Code; Sec. 107

Ge EEE Reeve PE Ll a NAIR Daa a

California Seiad and Taxation Code, Secs. 5136-

5143 Be RI. SI SE Oe Sa OE RN a 18

California Revenue and Taxation Code, Secs. 5096-

5 aig ORR LAC DNR COOK, AEN NTN oe Noe =

Mission Indian Relief Act of feats 12, 1891, 2

65, 26 Stat. LL ee ey i

Public Law, Sec. 280 ..................... eect omen:

United States Code, Title 18, Sec. 1162 recente 13.

" United States Code; Title 28, Sec. 1254 (1) : a

United States Code, Title 28, Sec. 1341 ...... en

IIE RE AFIELD I NL A 2, 15; 16, 17

United States Code, Title 28, Sec. 1360 ........... &

United States Code, Title 28, Sec. 1360(b) ........ 14

United States Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 2s ee 13

- 4

~~ qubleanw—s> °—,

Supreme Court of the United States

‘October ‘Term, 1971

‘No. ‘71-183

THE ‘AGUA CALIENTE BAND. OF MISSION INDIANS,

by and through its TRIBAL COUNCIL, and DORA JOYCE

PRIETO,:-PRISCILLA GONZALES, GLORIA GILLETTEE,

PATRICK PATENCIO and LAWRENCE PIERCE; Allottees, :

Individually and in Class Action, on behalf’ of ALL ALLOT-

TEES of Allotted land on the AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF

MISSION INDIANS RESERVATION,

-- Petitioners,

vs.

THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political subdivision of the

‘STATE .OF CALIFORNIA,

‘Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

~ BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION.

. Opinions Below.

_ The opinion of the United States: ‘Court of nial

for the Ninth Circuit and dissenting opinion were filed

‘ on May 12, 1971, and are reported at 442 F.2d 1184.

_” A copy of these’ opinions is attached to Petitioners’

brief, and marked ‘Appendix C. The opinion- of the

United States District Court, Central District of. Cali-.

fornia, was filed on October 17, \1969, and is reported

at 306 F.Supp. 279. A copy of this opinion is attached

to Petitioners’ brief and marked Appendix B.

‘ ae aie

Jurisdiction df this Court is invoked pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1254(1), and Rule 22 of the Rules of the

Supreme Court of the United States. The judgment of

‘the Court of, Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. was en-

tered on May 12, 1971, and the petition for certiorari

and the certified record were filed within 90 days of

_ that —_ 3

| - Questions Presented. ae

1. Whether or not a non-Indian lessee is exempt

from property taxes assessed against his commercial

lease of Indian trust land and other property.

2.. Whether or not there is a plain, speedy and ef-

- ficient remedy in’ the California courts to test the va-

lidity of the assessment of the possessory interest tax

against non-Indian lessees of Indian trust lands so~

_ that the Tax Injunction Act (28 USC. §1341) bars

the Petitioners’ suit.

Statutes Involved.

| The relevant statutes: are set forth in Appendix A.

’ They are the following: :

= 28 U.S.C. §1360 \ =

“28 U.S.C. §i341-\ 7)

fe | on Mission Indian Relief Act. of January 12, 1891, “©: :

3 sia 65, 26 Stat. 712 .

’ California Revenue and’ Taxation Code 8107

| gees , Statement of the Case. ae

This is an action brought by an Indian band and

allottees to recover damages and to permanently enjoin

_ the collection of possessory interest taxes by\the County

of Riverside from non-Indian lessees of Indian - trust

a lands. —- | 7

ge ! : aunt ‘

—3—

The trust lands comprise ‘the Agua Caliente (Palm

Springs) Indian Reservation. The reseryation’ contains. .

26,696.28 acres of mostly non-contiguous sections of

_ land in and around the resort city of Palm Springs, -

California. [T. 174, line 25, to, T. 175, line 3,] The —

. trust provisions under which the United States. holds

title for the use and benefit of the band ‘and allottees:

is contained in the Mission Indian Relief Act of Jan-

uary 12, 1891, c. .65, 26 Stat. 712; and later amend-

ments. [Amended. Pre-trial Order; R. 509,- lines 1-6;

T. 21, line 24, to T. 25, line 8.] |

The tax. complained of in this action was first lev-.

ied on non-Indian lessees in 1961. [T. 126, lines |

11-16. ] It is an ad valorem property tax assessed against

the improvements and leasehold interest owned by non-

Indian lessees of Petitioners. The measure of the tax is

the market value of the- -property owned by the lessee,

excluding the tax-exempt interest of thé Indian.- In.

making his appraisal, the County. Assessor first deter-—

mines the value of the land, assuming that the fee. is

unrestricted; by the. usual methods of valuing land.

The Assessor then values the ‘tax-exempt reversionary

- | interest. Subtracting the value of the Indian’s interest

from the value of the land leaves the “true. value” of

the possessory interest. Additional deductions are made

to reflect the risk associated with the lease’ and the. re-

ae strictions contained’ in the lease agreement. The final’

result is the “full cash“value” of the possessary interest.

‘County. of ‘Riverside v. Palm-Ramon Development Co.,

63 Cal.2d 534,. 47° Cal. Rptr. 377, 407 ask 289

(1965). 7

-At present, 1250 acres of reservation land are under

long-term lease. This includes 8 acres of tribally owned

land. [T. 25, lines ‘5-7.] The majority of these leases ~

ae Rs

“Nal Gt a Fepscsme

ae bm

gerenjiaat PEER

lease term to 99 years. [T, 25, line 12, to T

~ $131 et seq. and the a

were executed after. 1961. [T. 190, lines 4-8.| Long

term leasing of land on the Agua Caliente Reservation

was authorized in 1955 by the Act of August 9, 1955,

c. 615, 69 Stat. 539, as amended, 25 U.S.C. §8415-

415d. Although leasing of land on the reservation” has

been permitted since the turn of the century, it was not

until 25-year lease terms were permitted that Oppor-

tunities for lease development arose. Subsequently, it

became apparent that this term was insufficient to at-

- tract large investment because of, the lack of adequate

_. financing available for leases with only 25 year terms..

Therefore, in 1959, Congress extended the 2 tn

, line

4; T. 68, line 23, to T. 69, line 7.| All leases. of Indian

provisions of 25 C.F.R. |

broval of the Bureau of Andian

trust land are subject’ to

Affairs..

Two. leases of reservation = were introduced into

~ evidence at trial, ‘one signed before and the other after

the County first .assessed the possessory_ ‘interest tax

against a non-Indian Iqssee. One lease is a long-term

commercial ‘lease executed January 21, 1958, between:

Palm. Springs Spa, ‘the predecessor in interest of Palm .

Springs Properties, ‘and the Agua Caliente Band of oS

Mission ‘Indians.’ [Pltf. Ex. 4, admitted T. 48.] This

lease required the ‘construction and installation of ex-

tensive improvements on the property by the lessee

($2,800;000.00). [Pltf. Ex. 4, R. 50, line 21, to R.

51, line 2.] The’ buildings, trade fixtures and personal

property placed on the leased land become the: said

Palm atten Spa is pomeers seeking in the State Courts, so

far unsuccessfully,”a refund of the possessory interest taxes it ‘has

paid to the County of Riverside. Palm ~ neal Spa, Inc., v.

County of Riverside, 18 Cal. wines aa Sta, ... ae —

| ag7,

of the ‘Indian upon the expiration of the. lease term.

[Pltf. Ex. 4, Ry 16, lines 22- —s As amended, the

Kase i is for an initial term of 99 years.

_ The lease a a percentage lease. The minimum rental _

is $36 ,099.80 per annum. The lessor also receives 5%:

_of tovab’ sales except for food sales which is 1%. {T..

(132 lines 3: 11; Pitf. Ex. 4,R. 15, lines 2-21. |

The other lease was- entered into on November 30,

1961, between Palm Springs’ Spa Annex and members

of the Patencio family, allottees No. 15 to 18 inclusive.

[Pitf. Ex. 10, admitted T. 195.] The lease is for a

‘term of 99 years. Buildings, improvements, trade fix-

tures and personal property in the value of “$1,500,--

000.00 are required to be constructed and installed,’ |

becoming the property of the Indian upon termination -

‘of the lease. aia Ex, 10, ey ‘line 30, to p. 8, fous :

14.) - , |

. This lease is ; also a percentage ary The minimum

Tental is $4,680. 00 per year for the. first two years;

$7, 800.00 per year for the next two years, and $31.-

200.00 per annum: thereafter. The determination of

_ the excess over the rental minimum is based on 5% of

’ hatel’ and -other business receipts; 1%‘ of: restaurant Te-

ceipts; 242%. of liquor sales- receipts and a percentage

of from 15% to 742% of receipts from subleases of

all other facilities depending upon: thé value of the im-

provements constructed on the premises. [ Pitf. Ex. 10,

pp. .4-5.] Possessory . interest taxes on the ‘lease are

deducted in computing the: Percentage rental. [Pltf. | a |

10, p. 4, lines 26-31. |

' The location of the property leased - pursuant to the

Spa lease and the, Spa Anney lease is in downtown

a — [T. 13, lines 8-24.] ° ee ae

2 ‘

' @

ct.

Both leases provide that the lessee is to pay all taxes,

"general and special assessments, that may be -assessed

‘upon or against the leased land and all interests there-

‘in ahd improvements and .other property thereon to

. which either-the lessor or lessee may beedme liable in

". relatiog thereto.” [Pltf. Ex. .4, R. 17, line 26 to R.

18, line 10; Plif. Ex. 10, p. 16, lines 6-17. |

The result af the imposition of possessory interest

tax on the interest of nen-Indian lessees was to intro’

dyce.an added element to lease negotiations. (T. 228,

line 15-to T, 229, line 9.| The Indian lessor in order

to reach agreement in.post-1961 lease negotiations, has

to agree to a rental rate that considers the lessee’s pos-

sessory interest\tjx payment? [T. 12, line 16, to T.

219, line 24; T. 70, lines 17-19.| The imposition of the

tax doesnot affect the fair market value of the Indian

trust land [T. 234, lines 16-25; T. 242, line 22, to T. -

243, line 5], there being no evidence to indicate that it

results in the Indian feceiving less than the mar-

ket eStablished (fairy¥ net return on the property. [T.

: 273, lines 6-15 a, |

In the opinion ef Leonard M. Hill, Area Director

far the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the impaet of the tax

on development has ‘not been “particularly negative.”

[T. 31, limes 10-13 and T, 31, line 22, to T. 32.

line 1.| The Department of the Interior's Palm Springs

- Task Force in its report “Administration of Guardian-

ships and Conservatorships Established for Members

of the Agua Caliénte Band of Mission Indians” dated .

hd 2 neciati the fact tt te pomescry interest ta

ways

he tox coe amide ae [TE 217. fine 16,

Jo T. 215, lime 22.)

a”

‘March, 1968, does not list the tax ‘as one of the several -

impediments to the economic development of the reser-

_ vation. The Task Force Report is contained in Hear- —

_~ dtigs on-H.R. 12273 Before the Subcommittee on In-

dian A fairs of the House Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs, 90th Cong. 2nd Sess. ser No. 90—28,

(1968) at pp. 19-193. -

It is in contention of Petitioners that as a.matter of

law, Indian lessors are entitled to receive a net return

. om leases of trust land of 8%; although the market or

fair rate of net return is only 6%. [T. 306, line 16,°

to T. 307, line 5.| In order ‘to receive this higher ra‘c

of return, California’s possessory interest tax must be

removed as a cost to the non-Indian lessee because the

lessee is not willing to pay more to lease Indian land

‘ than non-Indian owned land. [T. 306, lines 5-10: T

" 320, lines 2-6.}.

a oe

ARGUMENT.

A «

Fhe California Possessory Interest Tax May Be Validly

Assessed Against Non-Indian Commercial Lessees

- of Indian Trust Land. '

This action is somewhat bizarre in that the parties

who are complaining of the tax are not the taxpayers.

* The petitioners’. property interests are neither the sub-

ject of the challenged tax nor are their interests includ-

ed in the measure of the tax. The tax is assessed against,

and measured ‘by: the value of the non-Indian commer-

- cial leasehold ¢state that concurrently exists in their |

trust property. There is no way that ultimate liability .

for the tax can fall upon the Indians or the Federal.

Government. Even under the lease agreements offered

into evidence and approved by the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, the burden of paying the tax remains with the

~ non-Indian lessees.

‘The basic ‘question in this case is: Are Indian

owners of Indian trust lands’ entitled to be free from

“any indirect economic impact of State taxes, thereby

making tax exempt the property interests of their les-

sees who have no personal immunity and who lease

the land for their own purposes and profit? -

‘The Court of. eoyl felt-the Petitioners’ position -

to be “untenable” |442 F.2d at 1187] and. rested its

decision on United States v. City of. Detroit, 355 US.:

466 (1958), and Oklahoma Tax Commission. v. Texas

Company, 336,U.S. 342 (1949).

In United States v. City of Detroit, supra, this Coyrt

upheld a tax similar to the- California possessory in- —

terest ‘tax, that was assessed against the leasehold es-

tate of a government contractor.” To the argument that

®Accord: United. Staies v. - Township ov] Muskegan, 355 US.

on, eatacet ° ‘

= ey

the tax would decrease the rental income to the Gov- |

ernment, this. Court answered “.’. . the imposition of

an inereased financial burden on : the Government does

not, by -itself, .vitiate a state tax.” [336 U.S. at 472.]

Similarly, this Court speaking through Justice White

in United States. v. Boyd, 378 US. 39 (1964), epit-

- ° omized the case law with respect to the existence of an

implied Constitutional immunity from taxation as fol-

. lows: +, Fi .

The Constitution immunizes the United States

and- its property from taxation by the States, ‘[ci-

tation] but it does not forbid a tax whose legal

incidence is upon a contractor doing business with

the United States, even though the economic bur-

den of the tax, by contract or otherwise, is ul-

timately borne by the United States. +: (Citations. }

[378 U‘S. at 44.] :

Petitioners seek ,to distinguish United States v. City

of Detroit, supra, by arguing that the California tax

has a disastrous impact on the program’ of leasing

_ Indian lands and lease revenus.* Without explaining

" the contradiction, however, they assert and have in fact

imposed, what is reputed to be a tribal possessory: in-

terest tax. Suffice it to say that Leonard M. Hill, Area

Director for the Bureau of Indian Affairs,’ and the

’

‘No authority is cited for the assumption implicit in petitioners

brief that they are entitled as a matter of law to a rate of return

on trust lands in excess of that paid for similar non-Indian land.

’Mr. Hill stated: “I think after the first shock, after it, was

generally known that the County was assessing the tax, that the

tt si, on the development Was not particularly negative... .”

31, lines 10-13], and “I think in recent years or the last two

or three years I do not think that the.imposition of a tax neces-

satity has slowed up the development on the leases that have

been negotiated since everyone knew that the impositton would be

made.” [T. 31, Jine 22, to T. 32, line 1.] -

;

Department of the Interior’ s Palm Springs Task Force “a

do not see the impact -or the lease program that Pe- ©

. titioners find. Neither was there any -evidence to ‘indi-

cate that the possessory. interest tax results in the In- .

dian lessor rectiving less than the market established

rental rate of return. | T. 273, lines 6-15.] °

The argument that a non-discriminatory property tax .

assessed against “a third person, could .as a matter of

law ever be considered more than a theoretical burden

On a tax-cxempt “entity has been previously rejected

by this Court. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas”

Company, 336 U.S. 342 (1949); Taber v: Indian

_ Territory Illuminating Oil’ Co., 300- US. 1 (1937);

Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Mackey, 256 U.S. 531,

535-537 (1921); Gromer v. “Standard Dredging Co.,

224 U.S. 362 (1912); Central P. R. Co. v. California,

162 U.S. 91 (1896); -Thomson v. Union P. -R. Co.,

‘9 Wall. (U.S.) 579 (1870). As stated -in Union P. R.

Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall: (U.S.) 5 (1873): .

It is, therefore, manifest that exemption of Fed-

eral agencies from state taxation is dependent,

_ not upon the nature of the agents, or upon the

mode of their constitution, or upon the fact ‘that

they are agents, but upon the effect of the tax; -

that is,.upon the question whether the tax does ~

“* in truth deprive them of power to serve éhe govefn-

ment as they were -intended to serve it, or does

hinder the efficient exercise of their power. A tax

upon their property has no such necessary effect.

It leaves them free to discharge the duties ‘they

have undertaken to perform .. . [18 Wall.-(U.S.)

at 36-37°] a

The Petitioners’ position, in essence, seeks to re-

surrect the old “economic burden” test for tax: exemp-

m, | ; et

_tion, that the. Federal Government rejected as “illu-

sory and incapable of consistent application.” “United —

States v. Detroit, 355 U.S. 466, 473 n.4 (1958). :

The various arguments that Petitioners raise in at-

tacking California’s possessory’ interest tax were decid-

ed adversely to them in Oklahoma Tax Commission v.

Texas Company, 336 U.S. 342 (1949). Invthat ac-

tion a lessee of mineral rights® in Indian trust land

was held to be subject to the Oklahoma gross produc-

tion tax and per barrel excise tax. The gross produc- ~

tion tax was levied at the same rate as the. property

tax-rate and was in substance an ad valorem proper-

ty tax under State law, 336 U.S. at 346, and treated

‘as such by this Court, 336 U.S. at 350. The holding. -

of-the Court was expressly grounded on its earlier: de-.

cisions cited in footnote 18 of the opinion that. have :

held that “property owned by a private person and used .

by him in performing services for the Federal Govern-—

ment is subject to state and lacal ad valorem taxes.”

336 U.S. at 350.

Arguments that taxation of the’ son-Indiei lessee’s

property violate the trust obligation of the Federal Gov-

ernment to convey the Jand-“free of all charge or in-

cumbrance whatsoever” at the end of the trust period

beg the question. They assume that the non-Indian les-

see’s estate is‘also subject to the trust provisions. This

is not the: law. In holding the. interest: of a non-Indian

in Indian trust land subject to ad valorem. taxation.

-®As in the present action the lease was subject to regulations

of the Secretary of the Interior. 336 U.S. at 345. ‘These regula-

tions are more restrictive than those applicable to the leases in

the present action. Compare 30 sca ieot §§22i.1-221.67 with 25

C.F.R. §§$131.i1-131.i9.

Shw ROR enog NY ‘nadernet

cite oh ta peradls.

ae eae

this Coutt i in : alien v. Paukune, ‘344 US. 171 952) |

‘stated: | ii

Levindale Lead Co. y. Coleman, 241 USS. (432 a

. dealt with restrictions on alienation attached to land

under the Osage Indian Allotment Act of. June

28, 1906,.35 Stat. 539. The’ Court held that the -

policy of-that Act did not embrace persons who

were not Indians, since the Congress sought to pro-

‘tect only those toward whom it owed the duties of

a guardian. The same answer must be given here. -

If Juana is not an Indian; the United States has

no interest of hers in the land to protect. True,

the United States holds the legal title to the land. .

But nothing in the act prevents the devolution of

the equiable interest to the widow. If she is not

within the class-who Congress sought to protect,

the trust is a dry and passive one; there remains

only a ministerial act for the trustee to. perform,

hamely, the’ issuance of a fee’ patent’ to the cestui.

[344 U.S. at 173. Footnotes omitted.]

Similarly, this Court in Fink v. County Commission-

ers of "Muskogee County, 248 U.S. 399 (1919), held

that the exemption from ad valorem property‘ taxes of

Indian trust land, does not run with’ the land so as to

exempt it from taxation in the hands of a non-Indian

purchaser.*. There is’ nothing in the Mission Indian

Relief Act that indicates that Congress intended that.

non-Indians living Off the reservation pay the costs: of

schools, roads, courts, police protection and ‘all the

other benefits of an ordered society for the non-Indian

lessee as well as the Indian. In. fact, as originally en-

acted, leasing of the land was forbidden—the property

being “for the sole use and benefit” of the Petitioners.

7To the same pene is Sweet v. Schock, 245 U.S. 192 ( 1917).

Contrary to Petitioners’ argument, x the commerce

‘clause of the. Constitution (art. I, §8, cl. 3)-is not a

. bar to the California tax. State taxation of non-Indian |

<property on Indian land has long ago been held not

to impose an illegal burden or regulation of commerce

with ‘the Indian. Montana .Catholic Missions yv. Mis-

. soula County, 200 U.S. 118 (1906); Wagoner v..Evans, ©

170 U.S. 588 (1898); Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264,

274-275 (1898). Petitioners’ argument that the. Cali- -

fornia possessory interest tax violates the commerce

clause because it hampers the United States in making -

the best lease terms for its Indian wards, while at one

time used by this Court to strike down a State income

tax on a non-Indian lessee’s income from Indian trust

property, is untenable today and without authority.

Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376

(1938), overruling Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 US.

501 (1922).

" Congressionai authorization for the California pos-

sessory-interest tax, if such is indeed necessary, is con-

tained in 28 U.S.C. $1360, that extended to all Indian

— in California “those civil laws of such State

. that are of general application to private persons

or peivele property” and provides that such civil laws

“shall have the same force-and effect within the State.

“Section 107 of the California Revenue and

Taxation Code is certainly a civil law of general appli-’

_cation to private property within the State of California.

The leasehold ‘estate of the non+Indian lessee, " being a

separate and distinct property, interest from that of the

‘A discussion of .the scope of The jurisdictional grant of Public

Law 280 (18 U.S.C. $1162; 28 U.S.C. $1360) is cOniained in

Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 US. 60. 74 (1962).

thee | |

Federal Government or the Indian,” and not subject _

to the trust provisions, is not exempted from taxation

“by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1360(b). Subsection —

(b) provides that “Nothing in this section shall author-

ize the alienation, encumbrance, or taxation of any

By ' real or personal property . . belonging to any Indian

_ or arly Indian ‘tribe, bend, or community that.is held .-

_. in trust by the United States... .” >

The burden is clearly on " Pethioners to persuade

Congress, if they feel it necessary, to enact’ legislation -

creating a tax exemption for their commercial lessees.

a :’ This Court has repeatedly said that tax exemp- 4

_—~ tions are not granted by implication. United States

|. . Trust Co.-v. Helvering, 307 US. 57,60: It has

‘applied that rule to taxing acts affecting Indians

as,to. all others. As was said of an ‘excise tax

on tobacco produced by the Cherokee Indians in

1870, “If the exemption had _- been intended, it

-would doubtless have been expressed.” Cherokee

Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616, 620. [Oklahoma Tax —

Commission v. United. States, 319 US. 598, 606

(1943). }

~ Congtess is certainly: aware of the existence of the |

application of the. possessory interest tax to non-Indian

~ lessees Such a tax was first upheld against a non-Indian |

leasehold estate in Indian trust land_ in United States

-e Erie County, “31. F.Supp. 57. (W.D.N.Y. 1939), and

its use was suggested by Congressman Utt during hear-

ings before Congressman Haley’s subcommittee in 1957.

Hearings Before the Special Subc ‘ommittee on Equaliza-

_ tion on Land Allotments on the Agua Caliente Reser-.

vation «in California of the *Hous Cominiitee on. In-

terior and Insular Affairs, 85th ‘ong., - Ist Sess., ser.

No. 17 at 41—42 € 1957). 2)

1 *United States v. Detroit, 355 US. 466 (1958); Pedple- v.

-m . Shearer, 30 _- 645, 657 _— ;

oo onthe Sopec

_ Petitioners Have a Plain, Speedy, and Efficient Remedy |.

for Their Alleged . Injury in the Cours of bas

fornia. . .

The Tax Injunction Act, 28 U. S.C. 134, —

that: .

_ The district courts ‘shall not enjoin, suspend o

- restrain the: assessment, levy. or collection of any\ °

tax wgder State law where a plain, speedy ach \

efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such

State.: \ :

. The Policy that led to the enactment of the Tax In-

junction Act is stated in Matthews v. . Rodgers, 284

US. 52k ‘ 1932):

._The scrupulous regard for the rightful in- *

Aiba of state governments which should at

all.times actuate the federal courts,-and“a proper

reluctance to interfere t by injunction with their

fiscal operations, requirg ‘that such relief should be

‘denied in every case where the asserted federal

right may be preserved without it. [248 US. at_.

‘5 525. ] : . ]

The United States Court of Appeals in ‘reaching its.

— decision on the merits, held that -a person who could

have been co-plaintiff with the United States, is en-.-

titled. to eee an action in the federal courts con-—

‘testing a State tax atlegedly imposed on ‘a federal instru-

mentality; 28 U.S.C.: §1341 to the contrary: notwith-.

standing. 3 a | :

’ In so holding the court failed. to cite -or distinguish —

its carlier opinion in Harsh California Corp: v. County.

of: San° Bernardino, 262 F.2d 626 :(9th. Cir. 4958),

‘that affirmed the dismissal,- of an action, pursuant to ae

jet! 2 idee Nh Tees

# indie OS ae eel

28 3 U. S.C. $1341, toenjoin the collection of possessory.

‘ interest taxes assessed against the Harsh California ~

- Corporation ’ on its lease’ of tax-exempt land and im-

provements owned by the United States. | —

Nor did the court. make. any. mention, of - Lasker

Boiler and Engineering Corp. v. Hamm, 216 F.Supp.

74 (MD. Ala. 1963), aff'd 328 F.2d 429 (Sth Cir.,

1964) wherely the/ District Court dismissed dn action,

' pursuant to the Tax Injunction’ Act, to enjoin a State

use tax that allegedly “violated the sovereign immunity

of the United States and subjects plaintiff, as an of-

ficial agency of the United States Government, to state.”

_ tax action’ without authority therefor. ; 1. [216 F,

Supp. at*75. |

Merely because’ an Indian can sue. to. ‘protect his’

property rights doés not mean that hé enjoys the same 7

access to the federal courts as that available to the

United States. It is the presence of the United States

- in an action, not the fact that; the. United States could -

- have been present because the issue is the alléged taxa-

tion of a federal instrumentality, that’ creates the ex-

- ception to.the jurisdictional bar of 28 U.S.C. §1341.

In United States v. Livingston, 179 F.Supp. 9 (E.D.

* §.C. 1959) aff'd without opinion:394 U.S. 281 (1960),_

felied upon by the Court of Appeals in‘ excepting pe- .

-_titioners from the operation of 28 U.S.C. §1341, ‘the

court specifically determined that the United States was

not just a nominal party in that action but was in fact

suing to defend its own sovefeign immunity. The opih-

ion of the court also touches on what is the real basis

' for exempting the United States from #8 U.S.C. $1341,

- - the absence ‘of a clear and explicit expression of:

Congress to the e contrary:

‘ _—17—")

| There appears no -good reason why the Con-:

> gress should deny. the United States the protection ase

of the equitable powers of her’own courts jin a

| situation such | as that. with which: we are now con-.

- cerned, . _.[179 F.Supp. at 11. |

———

The discussion by-this Court in Department. of E

ployment v. United States, 385 U.S. 355° (19663; on

the application of the Tax Anjuhction -Act to ‘suits

brought by the United States, and the authorities cited”

- 2 ‘footnotes, 6° and 7 of the opinion, also inidicate

that it is the presence of the: United States in the .ac-

‘tion, and, not the fact that a tax is alleged to be im-

posed. on:a ‘federal instrumentality, ‘that creates the ex-

ception to 28 U.S.C. §1341._. DNS

= ~Fer-we-conclude, in accord with am un-

: broken line of authority and, convincing evidence

. _ of legislative* purpose, that §1341- does not att.

as ‘a restriction upon suits by the United States.

‘to protect itself and its instruménfalities .from un-

constitutional state exactions. .. . [385 U.S. at’

~ 358. Footnotes omitted. |

There are numerous remedies Petitioners could have.

sought under | California’ law, had they brought the

present action in the State courts.’ These remedies are:

an action in mandamius to compel the Assessor ‘to al-

re low the claimed ‘property tax exemption, Eisley v. Mo--

a ‘han, 31. Cal.2d 637; 192 P.2d 5 (19483;. Lockhart

| vy. Wolden, 17. Cal.2d 628, 211 -P.2d 319 (1941); an

action to enjoin the ‘assessment, levy and collection of

the tax, Universal Consolidated Oil Co. v. Byram, 25

~ Cal.2d 353,-153 P.2d 746 (1944): Lockheed Aircraft

Corporation: v.. County: of Los Angeles, 207 Cal. App:

a 2d 119, 24 Cal. Rptr. 316 ee = an. ‘action 1 for a

| | Q . - =r . ; at

i: “"g > tion of the validity of the tax; Montgomery

| Ward & Co. v. Welch, 17 Cal.App.2d 127, 61 P 2d .

_ 790 ( 1936}. ae

eee The fact Sat the Petitioners are nat liable for pay-

gg ment of the taxes of which they complain would not

prevent them from seeking relief in the California-eourts. ..

_ In Department of Veterans Affairs v. Board of Su-’

" pervisors, 31 Cal.2d 657, 192 P.2d 22 (1948), a tax

. ¢xempt agency of the State sought a writ. of mandate

*to establish a tax exemption for real property in which

it held a lien interest. The agency was not alleged to be

liable for the taxes assessed. The court. denied: relief,

not upon the ground that pfocedurally the agency could

ae enjitled to a cancellation of taxes under California law

Fe where its property interest at the time it sought can-

cellation was merely that.of a secured creditor. :

"interest tax,“ thestatutory remedies of payment under

__ +” Protest and suit for recovery of the taxes [California

Revenue and Taxation Code §§5136-5143| and peti-

_ \tion for refund and suit? [California Revenue and

habe = axation Code §§5096-5107| would be available as

: _ « Well as resistance to an action by the respondent to

“collect the tux. Harsh California Coip. v. County of

> * San Bernardino, 262 F.2d 626 (%h Cir. 195§). In-

a ao deed, it is the very lack of availability of these statu-

_ tory remedies to Petitioners that permits them to seck

the equitable remedies. Crocker v. Scoit, 149 Cal: 575,

yg 6 87 Pac. 102 (1906); Jillson v. Sacramento “County, °

. .221 CalApp.2d 192, 34 Cal. Rptr. 419°(1963).-At

*-. . # _ Bast one text writer has recognized that in a situation

* similar to that of the Petitioners, injunctive ‘and declar.. °

. . One possible use of the action for declar.

er sy SiR bdenedon wage eto cia

where a tenant has paid the tax pursuant to agree-

; + ment with the landlord and where the owner can-

hot sue to recover. the taxes, he not havinz paid -

them.” | Marshall, State and Local ‘Taxation (11

California Practice, 1969) at 174. Footnotes omit- -

ted. | 2

Conclusion. — - peas a

Petitioners” petition for Writ of Certiorari fails to

\ raise any of the special or important reasons ‘for grant-

| '. ing a review listed in Rule 19(1)(b) of The Rules of

\ the Supreme Court of the United States and accord-

. ingly should be denied.

P *. Ray T..SULLIVAN, Jr.

eee * County Counsel,

County of Riverside,

pair oa STEVEN A..BROILes,

. Deputy County C ounsel,

Attorneys fox Respondént.

‘©

- 6

sien oh eT Retin eS Reeinapeteany ’

£6 LR tasers

Soin hamnmemmsesinemeesintnammndiiedl

eg eee

“,

- APPENDIX A.

United States Code, Title 28.

$1360. State - civil jurisdiction in actions to which’ In-

dians are parties.

(a) Each of the States or Coleen listed in ‘e-

-following table*shall- have jurisdiction over civil causes -

of action between Indians or- to which Indians are par-

‘ties which arise in the" areas of Indian country listed

opposite ‘the name of the State or Territory to the same-

extent that such State or Territory has jurisdiction over - **

other civil causes Of action, and those civil laws of

such State or Territory that are of general application _

to private persons or private property shall have the .

‘same force and effect within such Indian country as -

they have elsewhere within the State or ie Sereiory:

State or “

Territory of Indian C ountry affected | .

AlasKa .......... All Indian country within the “Territory.

California ....All Indian country within the State.

Minnesota.-... -All Indian country within the State, ex-

cept the Red -Lake. Reservation.

Nebraska ...:..All Indian country. within the State.

Oregon ........All Indian country within the State, ex-

cept the Warm Springs Reservation. 7

Wisconsin .. _-All Indian country within the State. 7 +

(b) Nothing in this section shall authorize the aliena-

tion, encumbrance, or taxation: of any real or Personal |

property: including water rights, belonging to’ any In:

dian 9f ‘any Indian. tribe, band. or community that is.

hej in trust by the. Uriited: States or is subject to a re-,

Striction — alienation ie as by the United States,

—2— . . :

or shall authorize adele of ‘thé use of such proper-

; ty im 4 manner inconsistent with any Federal treaty,

* agreement, or Statute or with any regulation made pur-

Suant thereto; or shall confer jurisdiction upon the.

State .to adjudicate, in probate proceedings or other-

wise, the ownership or right to possession of such prop-

erty or any,interest therein.-

'- * Or hereafter adopted by an Indian tribe, band, or com-

“munity, in thé exercise of any authority which it may —

Possess shall, if not inconsistent with any applicable

~ civil law of the State, be given full force and effect in

_ the determination of civil causes of acfion pursuant to

this section.

United States Code. ‘Title 28: ee

* $1341. Taxes by‘States.° - ~*

* The district courts shall not. enjoin, suspend or re-

Strain. the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under

State law. whére a plain, speedy. ‘and efficient. remedy

may be had in the courts of such State.-*

Mission Indian Relief. Act.

Act of January ‘12, 1891, c. 65, 26 Stat. 712 _

BE .IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE’ .AND

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED

STATES. OF AMERICA IN CONGRESS ASSEM-

BLED, That immediately after the passage. of this act

the Secretary of the Interior shall appoint three disinter-*

. ested persons as commissioners to arrange a just and *

satisfactory settlement of the Mission Indians _Tesiding .

in the State of California, upon reservations which shall

_be secured to them as hereinafter provided. -

—3—.

Sec. 2. That: it shall be- the duty of. said commis: «

sioners to ‘Select ¢ a reservation for’ each band or village |

‘of the Mission Indians residing | within said ‘State,

which reservation shall include, ‘as far as practicable,

the Jands and villages which have been in the -actual

ovtcupation and .possession of said Indians, and which

shall be sufficient in extent to. meet their just require-_

‘ments, which selection shall-be valid when approved ,

by the President and Secretary of the Interior. They

shall also’ appraise the. value of the improvements be-

longing’ to any person to whom valid existing rights have

attached under the: public-land laws of-the United |

States, or to, the assignee of such person, where such . «

improvements are situated within thé limits of any re-

servation selected and defined by said commissioners -

subject in each’ case to the approval of the Secretary

of the Interior. In cases where ‘the Indians are in occu-

pation of lands within the limits of confirmed private

grants, the commissioners shall determine and define

the boundaries of such lands, and shall ascertain wheth-_

er there are vacant public lands in the vicinity to. which

they may be removed. And. the said commission is

‘hereby authérized to employ 4 competent surveyor and’

the necessary assistants,

_ Sec. 3.-That the commissfoners, upon the completion

of their duties, shall report the result to the Secretary

of the Interior, who, if no valid objection exists. shall

cause a patent to issue for each of the reservations se-

lected by the commission and: approved by, him in favor

of each band or village of Indians occupying any suth

reservation, which patents shall be of the legal effect.

-and declare that the United States does dnd will hold —

the land thus patented. subject to the provisions of sec-.

tion four of this act, for the period of twenty-five years,

afm

Dmitri’ Ce etka

in trust, for ‘the sole use and :benefit of the band: or

village to which it is issucd, and that at the expiration

of said period the United Statés will convey the same

or the remaining portion not previously, patented in se-

veralty by patent to said band or village, discharged of

said trust, and free of all charge or incumbrance what-

soever: Provided, That no patent ‘shall embrace any

tract or tracts. to which existing. valid rights have at-

~~ tached in favor of any person under any of the United

- States laws providing for the disposition. of the ‘public

~ domain, unless such person shall acquiesce in and ac-

‘cept the appraisal provided for in the preceding sec-

tion in all. respects and shall thereafter, upon> ‘demand

and paynient of said appraised value, execute a-release

of all title and claim thereto; and a separate’ patent,

in similar form, may be issued fot any such tract. or

tracts, at any timé thereafter. Any such person shall be

' permitted to exercise the same right to take land under

the public-land laws. of the United States as though he

had not-made settlement on the lands embraced in said

reservation: and a.separate patent in:similar form, may

be’ issued for any tract or tracts at any time after: the

appraised value of the imprevements : thereon shall have

- been paid: And provided further, That in case any land

shall be selected under this. act to which any railroad

company is or shall hereafter be entitled to receive a

. patent, such railroad company shal], upon releasing

all claim and title’ thereta, and on the approval ° ‘of the

President and: Secretary of the Interior, be allowed. to.

_ Select an equa! quantity of other land of like value in

lieu thereof, at such place as the Secretary of the In-

terior shall determine: And provided further, That said

patents declaring such lands to be held ‘in trust. as afpre-

—~Said. Shall be retained and kept in the vai! hs aga

oe ae

ment, and certified copies of the same shall be -for-

warded to and kept at the agency by the agent having ~

‘charge of the Indians for whom such lands are to Be

held in trust, and said copies _— be om: fo mmapee-

tion at such agency.

‘Sec. 4. That wheneve any of the a tesiding

upon any reservation patented under the’ provisions of

_ this act: ‘shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of the In-

trior, be ‘so advanced in civilization as to be capable

of owning and managing land in severalty, the . Secre-

| tary of the Interior may cause allotments to be made

to such lidians, out of the land of such - reservations,

- in quantity. as follows: To each head of a family not

_ more than six hundred and forty acres nor less than.

one hundred and sixty acres of pasture or grazing land,

and in addition thereto not exceeding twenty acres, as

he shall deem for. the best interest of the allottee, of.

_ arable land in some. suitable , locality; to each single

- person over twenty-one years of age not less than eighty

nor more than, six hundred and forty acres .of pasture

or grazing land and not ——— ten acres of such me

arable land.

Sec..5. That upon the approval of the allotments pro- |

* vided for in the preceding’ section by the Secretary of

‘the Interior he shall cause patents to issue therefor in

‘the name of the allottees,* which shall be of the legal

effect and declare that the United States does and

will hold the land thus allotted for the period’ of twenty-

five years, in trust for the sole use and’ benéfit of the

Indian to whom such allotment Shall have been made, _

' -or, in-case of his decease, of his heirs according to the

laws of the. State of California, and.that at .the -expira-.

tion ‘of said Period. the United | States will convey the

same by patent to the said Indian, or his heirs as afore-

said, in. fee, discharged of said trust and free of aii

charge or. incumbrance whatsoever. And if ‘any .con-

_ Véyance shall be made of. the lands get apart and: allot-

ted as herein providea, or any contract made touching ;

4 _ - the same, beforé the expiration of the time above men-

tioned, such conveyance or contract shall be. absolutely .

null and void: Provided, That these patents, when is-

sued, shail pverride ‘the patent authorized to be issue

* to the bané@ or village as aforesaid, and shall separate

Bi the individual allotment: from the lands held in ‘com-

mon, which proviso shall be. incorporated in each. of the

village patents.

Sec:.6. That in cases where the lands occupied by —

any band or village of Indians are. wholly or’ in part

within the limits ojgany confirmed private: grant or. |

' grants; it shall be tly duty of the Attorney-General of

; | the United States, upon request of the’ Secretary of the

|. Interior, through special counsel or otherwise, to de-« —

fend such Indians in the rights-secured to them in the.

: original grants from. the Mexican Government, and in

an. act for the government and protection of Indians

_ passed: by- the legislature. of the State of California

; April twenty-second, eighteen hundred and: fifty,or to

. _ bring any suit, in the name of the United States, in |

the Circuit Court of the: United States for California,

3 a that may be found necessary to the full protection of

: ee the legal or equitable Tights of any Indian or — of :

4 , Indians in any of such lands.

_—

oo. — Sec. 7. That each of the: commissioners: authorized «

= > - to be dppoirted by thé first section of this act shall

3 __ be paid at the-rate of eight dollars. per day for the time

he is actually and. necessarily employed in the discharge _

—_—_—

me, ee

of his duties, and necessary traveling expenses;.and for

the payment of the same, and of* the expenses of sur-

out of any money in the Treasury nd not otherwise

appropriated. ,

Sec. 8. That previous to the issuance of a. patent

'veying, the sum of: ten thousand’ dollars, or so much: °

thereof as may . be necessary, is. hereby appropriated

for any reservation as provided in section three. of this a

act the Secretary of the Interior -may authorize. any .

_._—-=citizen of the United States, firni, or corporation to con-

struct a flume, ditch, canal, pipe, or other appliances us

for the conveyance of water -over, across, or through

such reservation for agricultural, manufacturing, or

other Purposes, upon condition that the Indians owning

or occupying such reservation or reservations shall, at

all times during such ownership or occupation, be sup-~ |

plied with sufficient quantity of water for irrigating and

‘domestic purposes upoii such terms as shall be pre-

scribed:in. writing by the Secretary of the. Intericr, and

upon such other terms as he may prescribe, and may

grant. a right of way for -rail of other toads through his

“such. reservation: Provided, That any individual, firm.

or corporation desiring such privilege shall first give

bond to the United States, in such sum as thay be re-

quired by the Secretary -of the Interior, with good and

sufficient: sureties, for the _ performance of such condi-

tions and stipulation as said Secretary may requiré.‘as

- a condition precedent to the granting of such authority:

And provided further, That this act shall’ not authorize

the Secretary of the Interior to grant a right of way

to- any railroad .company through any reservation for a

longer distance. than ten’ miles. And any patent issued

for any reservation upon which such privilege has. been.

Ge pad

Bed

rs line a ad ‘

Rae i Paiva Dek Se. Sriiland ai!

“es

- Fail ; bd ad ae

is. ah

- granted, or Yor any’ -alloiment therein, shall be subject

io such privilege, right of way, or easement. Subse-

- quent to thie issuance of any tribal patent,, or of any

individual trust patent as. ‘provided ‘in section five of --

this act, any citizen of the’ United States, firm, or cor-

poration may contract with the tribe,. band, or indi- .

_-vidual for whose use and benefit any lands are held ‘in

trust by the United States, for the right té construct a

flume, ditch, canal, pipe, of other ‘appliances for the

conveyance of water over, across, or through such lands,

“the Secretary of the Interior: under such: conditions as

he -_ see fit to impose. SS

’

" Galifornia Revemse and Taxation Code. .

$107 “Possessory Interests.” ree

“Possessory interests” means the following:

(a) Possession of, claim t, ‘or right to the posses-

sion of land or improvements, except when coupled with

ownegship of the land or amprovements ‘in the same

_ pers | is

A Taxable improvements on tax-exempt land. Ex-.

cept as provided in this section, possessory — interests

- shall not be considered as sufficient security for the

payment of any - taxes. Leasehold estates for the pro- |

~~ duction ‘of gas, petroleum and. other hydrocarbon sub-.

stancés ‘from beneath: the surface. of the earth, and

other rights relating to such substances which consti-

‘tute incorporeal hereUitaments or profits a: prendre, are

sufficient security, for the payment of. taxes levied there- .

_ on. Such. estates and rights shall not be classified. as

- possessory interests, but shall be placed on the secured

Aa aed oe ‘ | es as

_ In the event of delinquency in the payment of any

‘" installment of taxes on such leasehold,estates or rights,

they shall be subject to seizure and sale in the‘same.._ °

manner as: provided fot the seizure and sale of pos- ‘

_Sessory interests in Sections 2914" and 2919, ‘inclusive,

_ at any time within the three years after the delinquen-

‘cy. Suit may be brought against an assessee of such

taxes in ‘the event of re in the payment. thereof. ,

- .

. ond

‘

6 -

e /

£ .

XS .

"ee

OT a ae Re Kes aoe eT

UN RR RRA

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.