Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-221

Opinion No. 221 Taxation-Ta..yes, What Constitutes Payment-Regis/:.e,·ed Warrants -County Treasurer. HELD: County treasurers have no right to accept anything but money in payment of taxes and have no author- it~' to accept registered county war- rants. Imlians-Climinal Jurisdiction-Courts HELD: State courts have jurisdic- tion of crimes committed by Indian wards upon lands to which the United Sta tes has parted with ownership. May 25, 1933. You have submitted two questions: "1. May the treasurer of a county accept county warrants in payment of taxes where there is a large amount of warrants registered? "2. Have the state courts jurisdic- tion of crimes committed by Indian wards upon lands to which the govern- ment has ·part ownership, such as the city of Polson, or deeded or patented land ?" I find no provision in the statutes authorizing the county treasurer to ac- cept registered county warrants in pay- mel:t of taxes and in the absence of such provision he has no authority to accept anything in payment of taxes except money. In 61 C .• T. n63, Section 1240, the law is stated: "But in the absence of such a restriction, taxes may be paid in any lawful current money. although the collector has no authority to accept anything else unless specially allowed by law." And in Section 1241: "State scrip, county warrants or or- ders, treasurers' certificates, school dis- trict orders, state or municipal bondH or the coupons therefrom, and all other such evidences of indebtedness are not receivable in payment of taxes, unless specifically made so hy some constitu- tional or statutory proYision." Answering your second question, it is my opinion that the state courts have jurisdiction of crimes committed by In- dian wards upon land to which the government has parted with ownership. In the case of State v. Big Sheep, 75 "font. 2HJ, 243 Pac. 1067, where the de- fendant, an Indian ward, was convicted of a misdemeanor committed off the reservation and in the county of Big Horn, the comiction was upheld. It is true that in that case the misdemeanor charged was not made a crime by the laws of the United States, but that fact did not seem to be the determining factor. The court said on page 225: "The justice's court haQ jurisdiction of the misdemeanor charged if committed within Big Horn county, unless upon land within, the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States." And on page 233 : "The United States did not attempt nor has it ever attempted, to punish its wards for crimes committed within the limits of a state but outside a reserva- tion. Even before he became a citizen, if an Indian committel a crime within this state, and without his reservation, he was held amenable to our laws, and subject to the jurisdiction of our courts." (See cases cited.) And again on page 234: "Lands to which the United States has parted with title and OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 155 over which it no longer exercises con- trol, even if within the exterior boun- daries of the reservation, are not deem- ed a part of the reservation." In a late case, State v. Phelps, 93 ~font. 277, 19 Pac. (2nd) 319, being a case where a tribal Indian was con- victed in the state court for stealing cattle on the Crow Indian Reservation, the Supreme Court held that the state court had no jurisdiction. The court, however, did say on page 284: "As to individuals committing acts proscribed hv both federal and state laws, it is suf- fiCient here to say that, if a tribal In- dian commits such a crime off the res- ervation. or a person not a tribal Indian commits' such a crime on the reserva- tion, the state court has jurisdiction; • • ." (See also State v. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont. 33 and State v. Little Wlhirl Wind, 22 Mont. 425.) The state- ments of the law by our Supreme Court are in line with other cases. In 31 C. J. 5H9, S'ection 130, appears this general statement of the law: "The state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by tribal or other Indians within the state and outside the limits of nny Indian reservation, where there are no statute or treaty prOvisions granting or retaining jurisdiction in favor of the United States." (See foot note 68 citing the two Montana cases named.)