Show STATE CAN NOT TAX attorney general bishop today transmitted the following opinion affecting state taxation of personal property upon indian or military reser lations vat ions to the state board of equalization to the honorable state board of equalization salt lake city utah gentlemen replying to your favor of recent date in which you ask to be advised whether personal property merchandise situated upon indian and military reservations can be taxed lazed I 1 have to advise you that I 1 am of the opinion the state has no power to impose taxes upon this class of property on the ground that tt ft pol lees see ees no DO jurisdiction over the subject matter for such purpose the rule la Is well settled that no juo state can impose taxes on persons persona property or other subjects of taxation which are not within its jurisdiction the sovereign tower of this country is apportioned by the federal constitution between the state and general government which gives to each an exclusive jurisdiction over certain taxation to Is based upon the theory that it is necessary to enable the state stale to carry into effect its mandates divid perform its manifold 1 the citizen pays the tax in order to heburt the he enjoyment of the benefits and advantages ii ol of organized society ane general rule governing taxation in so far as am it relates to who or what shall be taxed may be said to be as follows fol lowe every person within a state owing temporary timi temi or permanent allegiance to its it all property or of every description within tb the state estate and on entitled untitled titled to the protection of its laws law and every private franchise privilege business or occupation is subject to be taxed by the state to in return for the benefits be befits and protection anticipated add received from state government we have already seen that persons or property not within the territorial limits of a e state tat can lim not be taxed the reasons fo for r this to are obvious when considered lo in connection with the above general rule lor jor in such cases the state affords afford no protection tec tion and there is nothing for which taxation can be an equivalent the question therefore arises whether lindlau or military reservations are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the general government or that of the state government I 1 lu u the case of the port fort leavenworth leaven worth railroad company vs ve lows U 8 justice field delivering the opinion lays jay down the following lowing lol rules with respect to the accusation of exclusive jurisdiction by the united states stales over lands within the limits of a state 1 by purchase w with iab the consent of 0 the state slate 3 by cession from the state 2 by to its use upon the admission of the several stated comprising por tins of the pub lie lying north and west ot of the ohio river which to is acquired as an the result of the revolution revolutionary war from treat orem britain or cession ces rom irom i certain states and that thai still larger territory lying between the mississippi river and the pacific ocean acquired by cession from foreign countries when title is acquired by either of 0 the two first without reserva tion lion the fedora federal jurisdiction la Is ezola give elve of Sta talle jurisdiction under the third or last pointed out th the 1 to united states to 18 vested with absolu absolute abao lute title by reason of the cession to foreign countries and under the usual diatom custom or reservations of porticos thereof for specific purposes upon admission of states into the union the she title to those these portions por tiona remains remain in the government and does not pass to the states these reservations eions have been found necessary that the functions of the general govern ment may majr be carried out and to prevent its if operations from being crippled embarrassed embarras fed oed or perhaps wholly obstructed at the will or caprice of those who tor for the time being wielded the authority of the other ap take for or instance persons who own and conduct a store upon an indian reservation they can do so GO legally only by authority of congress has resumed to regulate rez such matters section tion 2127 of the revised statutes Statute eg provides that any loyal person citizen of the united states of good moral obar character acter shall be permitted to trade with any indian tribe upon giving bond to tte united states in ane penal sum of not less leal than five thousand and not more than ten thousand dollars dollare etc and must have a license from the tb ut nt ol of findlon affairs or indian agent or sub agen age n this license licence 1 air t r ghou baube may be absolutely or may be lor for similar reasons revoked the president may prohibit the introduction tro of any goods etc into such c country antry and revoke also license thereto ber lu tine penalty for the violation of these rules way may be lonus to in section 2133 2138 of the revised statutes aay A y person other then than an indian who a fidall b all attempt to reside in the indian country as a 9 traders trader or to introduce goods or trade therein without aoh such license shall forfeit all merchandise offered tor for sale to the indians indiana or found in their pa possession session and shall moreover be liable to a penalty of five hundred dollar thus it will be observed that congress has baa assumed to legislate generally upon subjects such territory now suppose the state should at tempt to impose a tax upon property situated thereto does it not dot clearly appear that an unavoidable conflict of between the federal and state slate governments govern menta would ensue and that it if the state bad jurisdiction to impose a tax the powers of the general government to carry out the will of congress would his be practically abrogated and destroyed subdivision 2 of section a 3 of the act among other things provides that the people inhabiting loha biting said proposed states do agree and declare that they brever disclaim all right to the public lands lying within said limits or held by say any in dials or indian and that u until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the united states the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the united states state and said indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the united states the same provision maybe may be found in the constitution see art 8 subdivision 2 udder those these provisions it would seem quite olear clear that in admitting this state into the union congress in tended to reserve to the general government exclusive jurisdiction over all lands owned or hold held by indians the lands upon which the stores are situated I 1 assume are indian and military reservations it if this thie be true then certainly as to those upon indian reservations the state pos deses no power to enter for the pur pose of imposing a tax upon properties situated and reasoning by analogy the role would appear to be the same respecting those conducting a business bua ineas upon a military reservation again there is a maxim in our government ern rn meat ment that taxation and representation KO go t together 1 this affords an additional and strong reason why such parties cannot be taxed section 11 page laws 1896 1890 pro vides tides for the purpose of registration or voting the place of residence of any verson must most be governed by the lol lowing rules as far as practicable rule 11 any ADY person living upon any indian or military reservation shall hall not dot be deemed a resident of utah within the meaning of this act culess ucb acob person bad acquired a residence in some soine cou county oty in utah prior to taking up his bis residence upon such indian or military reservation provided that if such person shall bell not be in the employment or of the government while re iding eiding upon indian or military reservation then such person shelf shall not be considered oos dered a resident of the state of utah P thus it will be observed that a person residing either upon an indian or military reservation could not be registered nor could coald he vote except as therein provided the state by its laws has denied him this right having it be right has it the power to impose uch guch burdens for its ito support I 1 think not take TAIKO knotner illus suppose some depredation was committed against this party could thia owner invoke the power of the state courts to punish the criminal for juoh act certainly not dot if then such ruch Vert parties les are deprived of the right to a voice as to we the vote and method of im ming a tax and denied the protection of the law to redress any injury which may result to his property it would seem eem eminently unfair to impose the burdens burd eDg or of taxation upon them nor do i I 1 believe the state has power to do so BO this opinion has baa proceeded upon the theory that not only the property is in fuated actuated iua ted within an indian or military arger aaion but that hat the person owning the same Is in a resident therein also for otherwise the rule would be different I 1 have the honor to be very respect lully A C BISHOP attorney general |