Opinion of the Court.

trol of the article in question as to exclude the operation thereon of the other. The rule is that this, if possible, is to be determined by ascertaining whether one of the two paragraphs is more definite in its application to the article in question than is the other. Isaac v. Jonas, 148 U. S. 648; Bogle v. Magone, 152 U. S. 623. Being a medicinal preparation, made as such and solely used as a medicine, the language of paragraph 74 clearly more definitely applies to it than does the generic provision" of chemical compounds and salts" found in paragraph 76. Magone v. Heller, 150 U. S. 70; Robertson v. Salomon, 130 U. S. 412. The fact that the certificate states that "muriate of cocaine is a medicinal preparation, and is known as such by the physician, the chemist, the druggist and in commerce, and was so known definitely, generally and uniformly at and prior to the enactment of the tariff law of 1890," becomes a factor, adding cogency to the demonstration that the article falls with more definite certainty under the classification of a medicinal preparation than it does under that of a chemical salt. De Jonge v. Magone, 159 U. S. 562; Berbecker v. Robertson, 152 U. S. 373; Robertson v. Salomon, 130 U. S. 412. And the force of this view is not weakened by the statement in the certificate that the term "salts,' or 'chemical salts' is a generic term, and includes a commercial class of articles known by chemists and by pharmacists and druggists at the date of the passage of the tariff act as covering, among others, muriate of cocaine." In reason, the result of the certified facts is simply this, that muriate of cocaine is in its narrow aspect a medicinal preparation, in its wider a chemical salt, and hence that chemical salt is a generic term designating all articles of that character, and hence embracing muriate of cocaine as the genus, must as a matter of course contain within itself the species which are embodied in it. In its ultimate analysis, therefore, the question asked is only this: Is the genus, chemical salt, more comprehensive than the species, muriate of cocaine?

Thus understood, it becomes of course necessary to answer the first question in the affirmative and the second in.the negative, and it is so ordered.

Statement of the Case.

WAGONER v. EVANS.

EVANS v. WAGONER.

APPEALS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF

OKLAHOMA.

Nos. 252, 262. Submitted April 29, 1898. - Decided May 23, 1898.

Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264, affirmed and followed to the point that "the act of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Oklahoma of March 5, 1895, which provided that when any cattle are kept or grazed or any other personal property is situated in any unorganized country, district or reservation of this Territory, such property shall be subject to taxation in the organized county to which said country, district or reservation is attached for judicial purposes,' was a legitimate exercise of the Territory's power of taxation, and when enforced in the taxation of cattle belonging to persons not resident in the Territory grazing upon Indian reservations therein, does not violate the Constitution of the United States."

Prior to the passage of that act there existed no power in the authorities of Canadian County to tax property within the attached reservation; and, as such authority was first given by that act, it could only be validly exercised on property subjected to its terms after its enactment. Taxes, otherwise lawful, are not invalidated by the fact that the resulting benefits are unequally shared.

IN November, 1895, D. Wagoner, W. T. Wagoner and S. B. Burnett filed in the district court of Canadian County, Territory of Oklahoma, a petition against Neil W. Evans, as treasurer, and I. M. Cannon, as sheriff, and Osborn, Hutchinson and Vasey, as county commissioners of Canadian County, asking to enjoin the said defendants from levying or collecting certain taxes upon herds of cattle and horses belonging to the complainants, and by them kept and grazed on the Kiowa and Comanche Indian reservation which is a part of the Territory of Oklahoma, but not embraced in any organized county of that Territory. In pursuance of the act of Congress of May 2, 1890, c. 182, 26 Stat. S1, that Indian reservation was attached to Canadian County for judicial purposes, and by an act of March 5, 1895, of the territorial legislature, the authorities of any county to which any reservation had been

Counsel for Wagoner.

attached for judicial purposes were authorized to assess taxes upon any cattle or other personal property kept or situated within such reservation. The petition alleged that, in pursuance of the said act, the defendants were proceeding to assess and collect taxes for the years 1892 to 1895, both inclusive; that, for several reasons set forth in the petition, the said act of March 5, 1895, was invalid, and that said defendants were proceeding without warrant of law. To this petition a demurrer was filed, which was overruled, and thereupon the defendants filed answers, admitting that they were proceeding to levy and collect taxes as complained of in the petition, and alleging that their action in the premises was in pursuance of a valid statutory enactment of the territorial legislature.

An agreed statement of the facts was filed, and the cause was submitted to the court upon the petition, answer and statement of facts, and thereupon the court found that the defendants were fully authorized by the laws of Oklahoma Territory to collect from the petitioners taxes for territorial and judicial purposes for the year 1895 only, but that they were without authority to collect from the petitioners taxes for county, township or other than the territorial and judicial purposes. It was, therefore, decreed by the court that the defendants were authorized and permitted to collect those parts of the tax which were for territorial and judicial purposes for the year 1895 only, and enjoined them from collecting any part of the taxes which were for county, township or other than territorial or judicial purposes, and no taxes whatever for the years 1892, 1893 and 1894.

From this decree both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma, which, on September 4, 1896, affirmed the decree of the District Court.

From that decree of affirmance both parties were allowed an appeal to this court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Territory.

Mr. A. H. Garland and Mr. R. C. Garland for Wagoner and others.

Opinion of the Court.

Mr. Fred. Beall, Mr. Amos Green and Mr. C. M. Green for Evans and others.

MR. JUSTICE SHIRAS, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The appeal of Wagoner and others, owners of cattle kept by them on the Indian reservation attached to Canadian County, brings up the same questions which were considered and determined by us at the present term in the case of Thomas v. Gay, 169 U. S. 264.

That was an appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma, involving the validity of the territorial act of: March 5, 1895, c. 43, which subjected cattle, kept and grazed in any unorganized country, district or reservation, to taxation in the organized county to which said country, district or reservation is attached for judicial purposes, and it appears in the present record that the Supreme Court of the Territory regarded that case as identical in principle with the present one. Our examination of the records in the two cases has brought us to the same conclusion.

We therefore deem it unnecessary to again discuss at length questions so recently disposed of. The main contentions are that by reason of the treaty relations existing between the United States and the Indian tribes resident on the reservations it is not competent for the territorial legislature of Oklahoma to subject cattle within those reservations to taxation, even although such cattle are owned by persons. other than Indians; and that the legislature of Oklahoma cannot validly empower the authorities of an organized county to tax personal property situated in a reservation attached to such county for judicial purposes.

In Thomas v. Gay it was held that there was nothing in the treaties between the United States and the Indians Occupying these reservations which disabled the United States from bringing the reservations within the limits of the Territory of Oklahoma; that taxing personal property of persons other than Indians, and situated within the reserva

Opinion of the Court.

tion, did not impair the rights of person or property pertaining to the Indians; and that the taxation of cattle kept for grazing purposes upon the reservations, under leases duly authorized by act of Congress, was not a violation of the rights of the Indians, nor an invasion of the jurisdiction and control of the United States over them and their lands.

No additional fact is presented to 'distinguish the present case from that one, in the particular now under consideration, except that the United States authorities made it a condition on which the owners of cattle should have a right to obtain grazing leases from the Indians that they should employ Indians in herding their cattle. It is said that the purpose of that condition was to alienate the Indians from their tribal relations and to incline them to peaceful pursuits. Such may have been the object, but we are unable to see that such a clause in these grazing leases has any bearing on the power of the Territory to exercise the power of taxation. It is, indeed, contended that to permit the Territory to tax the cattle would tend to discourage the making of such leases, and thus deprive the Indians of the advantages coming to them. This seems to us too indirect and far-fetched an incident to affect our conclusions.

In Thomas v. Gay it was further held that the power to legislate delegated to the territorial legislature included the right to pass and enforce laws for the assessment and collection of taxes; that the act of March 5, 1895, was a valid enactment, under which it was competent for the taxing authorities of an organized county to levy and collect taxes on personal property situated within the attached reservations, and belonging to other persons than Indians.

These considerations cover and dispose of the contentions urged on behalf of the owners of the property taxed, and their appeal is accordingly dismissed.

It remains to consider the appeal of the taxing authorities of Canadian County.

They object, in the first place, to that portion of the decree below which restrains them from the collection of taxes for the years 1892, 1893 and 1894. They point to a provision