110 F. 609 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana | 1901
This is a suit brought by the United States against George Higgins, the treasurer and tax collector of Missoula county, Mont., to enjoin him from collecting a tax from one Oliver Gibeau. It appears from the evidence in this case that said Gibeau is the owner of a number of horses and cattle ranging upon the Flathead Indian reservation, sometimes called the Jocko Indian reservation, in the state of Montana; that in the year 1897 one W. R. Hamilton, the then assessor of said Missoula county, listed the said property as that of said Gibeau for taxation, and that state and county
“When, however, the tribal relations are dissolved, when the headship of the chief or the authority of the tribe is no longer recognized, and the individual Indian, turning his back upon his former mode of life, makes himself a member of the civilized community, the case is wholly altered. He then no longer acknowledges a divided allegiance. He joins himself to the body politic. He gives evidence of his purpose to adopt the habits and customs of civilized life. And, as his case is then within the terms of this amendment, it would seem that his right to protection in person, property, and privilege must he as complete as the allegiance to the government to which lie must then be held; as complete, in short, as that of any other native-born inhabitant.”
In the case of U. S. v. Hadley (C. C.) 99 Fed. 437, it is held that a half-breed Indian, raised among the white people as a white man, could not be classed as an Indian, although he had gone upon an Indian reservation to live, and had received an allotment of land in severalty. It has been held that a white man adopted into an Indian tribe by the rules and regulations thereof did not lose his status as a white man, or acquire that of an Indian. The mother of Oliver Gifoeau could not, by taking him with her to an Indian tribe, and securing iiis adoption into the same, deprive her son of the rights of a white man and of a citizen. By Indian polity he might, by them, be classed as an Indian, but not by the constitution and laws of the United States. In the case of U. S. v. Higgins (heretofore decided) 103 Fed. 348, in which it was sought to enjoin said Higgins from collecting taxes from one Alexander Matt, the facts presented were essentially different. Matt was born in the “Indian country.” His people never assumed the habits of civilization. It was not shown that his father ever was or became a citizen of the United States. He was one of the class recognized and treated as an Indian in the orders of the executive department of the government to the Flathead Indians to remove from the Bitter Root Valley to the present Flathead or Jocko Indian reservation. For these reasons the injunction heretofore issued should be dissolved, and the complainant’s bill dismissed, and it is so ordered.