*1 410 No. 72-766. Calabro States, v. United 926; DuBose al., v. Craven, Warden, S. 1130;
No. 72-5173. Waddell North Carolina, 952. Motions for petitions rehearing leave to file denied.
April Sager Burgess No. 72-993. et ux. v. of Pottstown et al. Affirmed on appeal from D. D. E. Pa.
No. 72-1104. R-C Motor Linеs, Inc. v. United on appeal Affirmed from D. C. M. Fla. States D. No. 72-1234. Silverman, v. Brown- ing et al. Affirmed on appeal from C. Conn. Mr. Douglas probable jurisdiction Justice case oral argument. Kahn et ux. v. Arizona Tax State Appeal from Ct. Ariz. Motion to Commission. with printing statement granted. Appeal dismissed for question. federal Justice Douglas, with whom Mr. Justice Bren-
Mr. nan concurs, dissenting. after
Appellants, exhausting remedies, administrative brought suit the State of Ari- zona to personal recover income tax аssessments paid protest years 1967-1969. The assessments question imposed were be- while he earned appеllant) (hereafter husband later as then law clerk as a first employed, *2 salary Appellant’s Tribe. for the attorney wife, his Appellant Indian tribal funds. out of paid The reservation. Indians, within not resided who are state failure to thе suit Court Arizona granted. could be which relief upon claim the dismissal. Supreme Court affirmed C. by 25 U. controlled S. emplоyment was Appellant’s which con- governs the conditions 81,§ Even or Indians. be made tracts can subject to aрpellant’s employment was more specifically, In- of the Secretary by the regulations promulgated regulations, CFR Under these §§ terior in 25 72.1-72.25. any attorney performing legal services employment contract, which includеs tribe must have his In- Secretary of the approved by fees and expenses, (25 72.1.) determining § terior. CFR In addition, appropriateness of the the amount of tribal appro- funds held the tribal not otherwise treasury, priated pаyment, and available for considered. must be (25 72.5.) may CFR be for pay- § Tribal not used funds ment attorney expenses fees and in the absence express by authorization Congress. (25 72.6.) § CFR In order to be attorney to act an Indian eligible tribe, the area director review the applying must attor- ney’s qualifications references and (25 72.4) CFR § transmit a reсommendation Secretary to the In- In terior. qualified order to be provide such rep- resentation, attorney practice must admitted to before Department of the Interior and the bureaus (25 thereof. CFR 72.2.) An § attornеy performing legal services for an Indian tribe is to criminal penalties for the violation the statutes governing attor- ney contracts with Indian (18 U. S. C. 438), § can be fired Secretary (Udall the Interior v.
943 cert, 668, F. 2d Littell, 89, 1007). denied, Ari v. in McClanahan recently
As this Court stated Comm’n, ante, 168, p. 164, zona State Tax “c[t]he jurisdiction and free state leaving Indians from Rice v. history.’ dеeply rooted the Nation’s control is Olson, 324 In McClanahan the (1945).” U. 786, S. theory of the rejected nothing that remains separate people notion are a reservation Indians legis whom and therefore state tax jurisdiсtion, state may lation, not extend. Comm’n,
In Trading Co. Arizona Tax S. this Court struck down to assess a *3 “gross proceeds tax the sales, of or 2% of gross income” Warren Trading the which Co., did retail trading with on the reservation Indians under a granted by license the Indian Commissioner of Affairs. The Court emphasized comprehensive fed- regulatory eral schemе applicable persons to doing busi- ness Indian traders, granted the Commissioner authority Indian Affairs appoint tо traders, specify the types goods sold, and regulate the actual running business. concluded these apparently regulations all-inclusive and statutes would to sufficient Congress show that had taken business of Indian on trading fully reservations so in hand that no room remained for state imposing laws additional burdens.
Part of the Court’s reasoning Trading Post, suprа, that “Congress has, since the creation of the nearly Reservation a century ago, left the Indians on it largеly free to run the reservation and its affairs without a control, policy which has automatically re-
lieved Arizona of all burdens for on carrying those same responsibilities.” Therefore, the Court concluded that state tаx on gross “[t]his income put would financial bur- it whom deals Indians or the dens prescribed, tribes have or the Congress to those addition statutory disarrange and thereby disturb could and against Indians protect to in order up set plan Congrеss 691. Id., unfair or unreasonable.” deemed prices controlling also be should considerations These legal services Attorneys providing here. regula- Federal Government to strict are of counsel very selection frоm the control,
tion ap- contract to employment through negotiations includ- contract, of such form content proval of the of these breach and criminal sanctions regulations. avenue important an bеcome representation has
Legal decent salvage a can to which the can afford professional lifestyle. Very skilled simply, pay salary if not have to a lower he does take in the tax taxes to thе As situation State. tax on these post, income of a additional trading disarrange essential services cоuld indeed “disturb and statutory up protect plan Congress order prices Indians unfair against deemed or unreasоnable.” I probable jurisdiction dispose and not argument the case full briefing. without *4 Silvers Ap- Dowling, Judge, al. peal from Sup. dispense Ct. La. Motion to print- with statement and motion to printing motion to or affirm dismiss granted. Appeal jurisdiction. want of papers Treating the whereon appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied. Mullarkey, v. Florida Appeal from Sup. Ct. Fla. dis-
Feed Mills, Inc., missed for federal question.