U.S. Supreme Court BOARD OF COM'RS OF JACKSON COUNTY v. U.S., 308 U.S. 343 (1939)

[Page 308 U.S. 343, 351]

illegally collected from Indians be unduly circumscribed by state law. Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363, 50 S.Ct. 121. Again, state notions of laches and state statutes of limitations have no applicability to suits by the Government, whether on behalf of Indians or otherwise. United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181, 46 S.Ct. 298. Cf. Chesapeake & Delaware Canal Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 123, 39 S.Ct. 407. This is so because the immunity of the sovereign from these defenses is historic. Unless expressly waived, it is implied in all federal enactments.

But the recovery of interest in inter-governmental litigation has no such roots in history. Indeed, liability for interest is of relatively recent origin and the rationale of its recognition or denial is not always clear. That it is not a congenital rule in our law is indicated by its denial in United States v. North Carolina, 136 U.S. 211, 10 S.Ct. 920, on grounds of 'public convenience'. Since Congress has, in the legislation implementing the Indians' tax immunity, remained silent as to recovery of interest, we need not presume that it has impliedly fixed liability for interest in a suit like the present.

Having left the matter at large for judicial determination within the framework of familiar remedies equitable in their nature, see Stone v. White, 301 U.S. 532, 534, 57 S.Ct. 851, 852, Congress has left us free to take into account appropriate considerations of 'public convenience'.2 Nothing seems to us more appropriate than due regard for local institutions and local interests. We are concerned with the interplay between the rights of Indians under federal guardianship and the local repercussion of those rights. Congress has not been heedless of the interests of the states in which Indian lands were situated, as reflected by their local laws. [Footnote 3] With reference to other federal rights, the state law has been absorbed, as it were,

[Page 308 U.S. 343, 353]

call Jackson County's action into question. Whatever may be her unfortunate duty to restore the taxes which she had every practical justification for collecting at the time, no claim of fairness calls upon her also to pay interest for the use of the money which she could not have known was not properly hers.

Such is this Court's doctrine regarding the imposition of interest in cases where this Court has fashioned its own doctrine. If it be said that the default of the United States should not be charged against its Indian wards, a choice has to be made between equally innocent victims of official neglect from 1918 until 1936 in the administration of the Indian law. The loss of interest to the United States because of the conduct of its officials in the Sanborn and Billings cases, supra, had to be borne by the innocent public. We think as to interest here, the loss should remain where it has fallen. If thereby Indians are out of pocket, they should not be made whole by putting Jackson County unfairly out of pocket. The appeal for relief must be made elsewhere.

The judgment below must accordingly be modified, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. It is so ordered.

Judgment modified.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS concurs in the result.

Opinion of Mr. Justice BLACK.

Congress has traditionally treated the Indian wards of the Nation with particular solicitude,1 but has also gradually evolved a policy looking to their eventual absorption into the general body of citizenry. [Footnote 2] This policy has

[Page 308 U.S. 343, 354]

progressively subjected Indians to the laws under which all other citizens must live in the Indians' States of residence, if not in conflict with specific protective measures of Congress. 3 Here, in the exercise of its plenary authority, Congress by treaty exempted the lands of the Pottawatomies from taxation. It could have by stipulation granted the additional right to recover interest on any taxes collected in violation of the exemption; but it did not. The failure of Congress to stipulate that a State-as here-must pay interest to an Indian when the State law permits interest to no one,4 is entirely consistent with the congressional policy of steadily extending the operation of the States' laws over their resident Indians. Congress-with exclusive plenary power to legislate concerning the Indians-has not provided for recovery of interest from Kansas, and the courts have no constitutional power to create the right.

That Congress contented itself with the creation of the right to be free from taxation-as distinguished from a right to interest in a suit for refund-is emphasized by the conclusion which would be inescapable were this a suit against the United States for violation of the exemption here conceded to be binding on it. [Footnote 5] Without more,6 Congress would then-even on the basis of this concession-be deemed to have refused to create the separate right to recover interest. [Footnote 7]

[Page 308 U.S. 343, 355]

Because the laws of Kansas deny interest on tax refunds, I concur in the modification of the judgment below. [Footnote 8]

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurs in this opinion. Footnotes

Footnote 1 This case has since been followed by the same court in United States v. Lewis County, Idaho, 9 Cir., 95 F.2d 236 and Glacier County, Mont., v. United States, 9 Cir., 99 F.2d 733.

Footnote 2 Cf. Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 552, 57 S.Ct. 592, 601.

Footnote 3 See e.g., 5 of the General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 388, 389, 25 U.S.C.A. 348.

[Footnote 1] Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 564, 566 S., 568, 23 S.Ct. 216, 220, 221, 222; United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442, 450, 34 S.Ct. 396, 399.

[Footnote 2] Chipewa Indians v. United States, 307 U.S. 1, 4, 59 S.Ct. 687, 689; see Stuart v. United States, 18 Wall. 84, 87; Matter of Heff, , 497-503, 25 S.Ct. 506, 507-510; Lane v. United States ex rel. Mickadiet, 241 U.S. 201, 210, 36 S.Ct. 599, 601; Dickson v. Luck Land Co., 242 U.S. 371, 375, 37 S.Ct. 167, 169; McCurdy v. United States, 246 U.S. 263, 269, 38 S. Ct. 289, 291.

[Footnote 3] See Matter of Heff, supra; La Motte v. United States, 254 U.S. 570, 579, 580 S., 41 S.Ct. 204, 208; Sperry Oil & Gas Co. v. Chisholm, 264 U.S. 488, 498, 44 S.Ct. 372, 375; Larkin v. Paugh, 276 U.S. 431, 438, 439 S., 48 S.Ct. 366, 368 72 L.Ed. 640; United States v. McGowan, 302 U.S. 535, 539, 58 S.Ct. 286, 288.

Footnote 4 Jackson County Com'rs v. Kaul, 77 Kan. 717, 96 P. 45, 17 L.R.A., N. S., 552.

Footnote 5 The Government bases its concession on Choate v. Trapp, , 32 S.Ct. 565. But see Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616; Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504, 511, 16 S.Ct. 1076, 1078; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, supra, 187 U.S. at page 566, 23 S.Ct. at page 221.

Footnote 6 Cf. 26 U.S.C. 1671(a), 26 U.S.C.A.Int.Rev.Code, 3771(a).

Footnote 7 Angarica v. Bayard, 127 U.S. 251, 260, 8 S.Ct. 1156, 1160; United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co., 253 U.S. 330, 336, 40 S.Ct. 518, 521; Smyth v. United States, 302 U.S. 329, 353, 58 S.Ct. 248, 252, 114 A.L.R. 807. Cf. United States v. North Carolina, , 10 S.Ct. 920.

Footnote 8 Cf. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 114 A.L.R. 1487.