Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/421

 502us2$21K 08-19-96 17:39:52 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 251 (1992)

263

Opinion of the Court

reservation land owned by one or both parties. See Moe, supra, at 478–479. Thus, even as to § 6 personal jurisdiction, Moe in no way contradicts Goudy v. Meath, which involved the personal liability for taxes of an Indian who not merely owned an allotted parcel, but was, as the language of § 6 requires, himself an allottee. See 203 U. S., at 147, 149. But (and now we come to the misperception concerning the structure of the General Allotment Act) Goudy did not rest exclusively, or even primarily, on the § 6 grant of personal jurisdiction over allottees to sustain the land taxes at issue. Instead, it was the alienability of the allotted lands—a consequence produced in these cases not by § 6 of the General Allotment Act, but by § 5 3—that the Court found of central significance. As the first basis of its decision, before reaching the “further” point of personal jurisdiction under § 6, id., at 149, the Goudy Court said that, although it was certainly possible for Congress to “grant the power of voluntary sale, while withholding the land from taxation or forced alienation,” such an intent would not be presumed unless it was “clearly manifested.” Ibid. For “it would seem strange to withdraw [the] protection [of the restriction on alienation] and permit the Indian to dispose of his lands as he pleases, while at the same time releasing it [sic] from taxation.” Ibid. Thus, when § 5 rendered the allotted lands alienable and en3

Section 5 of the General Allotment Act provides in part: “[A]t the expiration of said [trust] period the United States will convey [the allotted lands] by patent to said Indian. . . in fee, discharged of said trust and free of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever. . . . And if any conveyance shall be made of the lands set apart and allotted as herein provided, or any contract made touching the same, before the expiration of the time above mentioned, such conveyance or contract shall be absolutely null and void. . . .” 25 U. S. C. § 348. The negative implication of the last quoted sentence, of course, is that a conveyance of allotted land is permitted once the patent issues.