OCR Text |
Show 134 REPORT OF THE COXMI88IONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. To this the Department replied July 16, 1900, and, after reviewing the instructions contained in former letters, said: The modification of the regulations of the Department of July 21 and 26, 1898, in said departmental decision of May 18, 1899, only extended to the case of the Creek Indians where they had entered into leaseaunder the rules and regulations of October 7, 1898, and this modification waa made for the reason that the tax of $2required by seetion 334 of the Creek laws was in effect prohibitory and ought not to be enforced so as to prevent the individud Indian from reaping the benefit intended to besecured to him on account of the leasing of his pro rata share for grazing purposes. Upon a careful consideration of the whole matter the Department sees no reason for modifying the former instructions given to you, and you are accordingly advised that the tax on cattle impomd by the laws of theCherokee Nation should becollected impartially from everyone owing said tax. There is an additional reason why said tax ought to be collected, in this, that by section 577 of said article and chapter "forty per cent of ell revenue arising under the operation of this act shall be placed to the credit of the school fund and the remainder to the general fund." The efforts of the Government to collect the cattle tax have met with reasonable success, and there have been collected from this source during the year $1,956. The injunction case of Rogers v. Churchill and others, above men-tioned, was recently decided by Judge Gill in favor of Rogers, and the injunction was made permanent. The opinion of the court in thi case will be found on page 561. The matter is now pending on appeal. Hay tax.-The laws of the Cherokee Nation impose a tax of 20 cents per ton in the form of royalty on all hay shipped out of the nation. This was discussed and much correspondence on the subject was given in my last annual report. September 23,1899, the inspector reported to the Department the difficulties that were being experienced in the collection of royalties on hay shipped out of the Creek and Cherokee nations, and stated that these difficulties were increased by reason of the fact that the management of the different railroad companies pass-ing through said nations had first instructed their agents not to receive any hay for shipment until they were satisfied that all royalties due thereon had been paid, and had afterwards revoked said instruc-tions and directed their agents to accept all hay offered for shipment. The inspector cited the second article of the Cherokee treaty of July 15, 1866 (14 Stats., 799), and suggested that it might be possible, under the provisions of that treaty, to compel the railroad companies pass-ing through the Creek and Cherokee nations to refuse to accept hay for shipment on which the royalties had not been paid. In its report of October 10,1899, this office said: It is not seen how a revenue law of any of the Five Civilized Trihes could be held to be a part of the Indian intercourse laws, and the refusal of a railmad company to assist in the collection of these revenues would not be, in the opinion of this office, a viob tion of the Indian intercourse laws. This otiice has also been unable to find anything in the statutes granting the vari-ous railroad companies rights of way through the Indian Territory, or in the general |