This tax abatement proceeding involves the legality of personal property taxes assessed and levied by Shannon County on Indian owned cattle within an Indian Reservation.
Applicants, John Pourier, Jr„ and Loren Pourier, are ranchers residing on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. They and their wives are members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Each received Sioux Indian Benefit Property Allotments which were used to establish cattle herds.
*238John Pourier, Jr., received his Benefit Allotment in 1918. He also received a land allotment and in addition leases land within the reservation upon which he maintains his herd. His cattle have been used as security for a loan from a private bank in Rapid City.
Loren Pourier received his Indian Benefit in 1941 with which he purchased some cows. He has never received a land allotment, but maintains his herd on leased land within the reservation. At one time he purchased some herd bulls with an FHA loan. His cattle have also been used as security for a loan from a private bank at Rapid City.
Since receiving their Sioux Benefit Allotments applicants have continuously ranched and raised cattle on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Their present herds consist of increases from the original cattle purchased from allotment money or from tribal loans. On November 18, 1964 some of their cattle were sold at the Kimball Livestock Auction and the proceeds of sale levied upon by Shannon County for delinquent personal property taxes assessed against applicants for the years 1956 to 1964. With respect to John Pourier, Jr., the county distrained and now retains the sum of $7,422.00 and in the case of Loren Pourier the sum of $574.53 was distrained and is now retained. Applications for abatement were denied by Shannon County and appeals were taken to circuit court. The court granted the applications and ordered the money collected by the county be returned together with interest at the legal rate of interest from November 18, 1964.
The county appeals claiming applicants' cattle are taxable personal property because: (1) The beneficial purpose of the original Sioux Benefit issue has long since been served or defeated; (2) the cattle do not have the character or tax exemption status of Indian trust property; (3) applicants enjoy unrestricted ownership and have used their cattle as security for private loans; (4) applicants have been granted the privileges of full citizenship and should share its tax burden; and (5) they are subject to pay Federal Income Taxes.
*239The power of a state to tax is coextensive with its sovereign power to control the objects and subjects of taxation. M'Culloch v. State of Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579. Presently, this state's jurisdiction and power to legislate and control tribal Indians and their property on or within Indian reservations is minimal. Smith v. Temple, 82 S.D. 650, 152 N.W.2d 547. The plenary and exclusive power of the Federal Government to regulate Indian affairs was recognized recently by this court in considering another phase of state taxation affecting Indians, Employment Sec. Dept. v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 80 S.D. 79, 119 N.W.2d 285. It follows, according to an acknowledged authority on Indian law, that "Indians and Indian property on an Indian reservation are not subject to State taxation except by virtue of express authority conferred upon the State by act of Congress." Federal Indian Law, 1958 Ed., p. 845.
Indian property has also been held immune from state taxation as an instrumentality of the Federal Government. This concept is "founded upon the premise that the power and duty of governing and protecting tribal Indians is primarily a Federal function, and that a State cannot impose a tax which will substantially impede or burden the functioning of the Federal Government." Federal Indian Law, 1958 Ed., p. 846, and see United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 23 S.Ct. 478, 47 L.Ed. 532; United States v. Pearson, 8 Cir., 231 F. 270; Dewey County, S.D. v. United States, 8 Cir., 26 F.2d 434, cert. den. 278 U.S. 649, 49 S.Ct. 94, 73 L.Ed. 561; United States v. Thurston County, Neb., 8 Cir., 143 F. 287; United States v. Wright, 4 Cir., 53 F.2d 300, cert. den. 285 U.S. 539, 52 S.Ct. 312, 76 L.Ed. 932; Morrow v. United States, 8 Cir., 243 F. 854; concurring opinion of Judge Gates in Lebo v. Griffith, 42 S.D. 198, 173 N.W. 840; Olney v. McNair, 105 Wash. 18, 177 P. 641. According to this concept personal property belonging to tribal Indians purchased with money of the Government "was furnished to the Indians in order to maintain them on the land alotted during the period of the trust estate, and to induce them to adopt the habits of civilized life. It was, in fact, the property of the United States, and was put into the hands of the Indians to be used in execution of the purpose of the government in reference to them. The assess*240ment and taxation of the personal property would necessarily have the effect to defeat that purpose." United States v. Rickert, supra. For the same reason this immunity extends to the increase of issue property, to property purchased from the proceeds of •sale of the increase, or to property exchanged for similar use and increases therefrom so long as it can be traced and identified as such. United States v. Pearson, supra. This case also recognized, as an elementary principle, that courts cannot terminate the trusteeship of the United States which "will continue until such time as the United States sees fit to terminate the relation of guardian and ward between itself and the said Indians."
The nonexemption of Indians from federal income taxation is without significance on the power of a state to tax personal property owned by tribal Indians and located within Indian reservations. Taxation of Indians by the Federal Government does not impliedly authorize taxation by the state. Taxation or exemption of Indians by either the Federal Government or by the State is a matter for Congressional resolution. For this reason, the contentions made by the county should properly be directed to the Congress of the United States. As the court observed in United States v. Rickert, supra, "It is said that the state has conferred upon these Indians the right of suffrage and the other rights that ordinarily belong only to citizens, and that they ought, therefore, to share the burdens of government like other people who enjoy such rights. These are considerations to be addressed to Congress. It is for the legislative branch of the government to say when these Indians shall cease to be dependent and assume the responsibilities attaching to citizenship. That is a political question, which the courts may not determine."
Applicants were entitled to an abatement of their taxes in accordance with SDC 57.0801 which provides: "* * * if any person, against whom an assessment has been made or a tax levied, claims such assessment or tax or any part thereof to be invalid for any reason herein stated, the same may be abated, or the tax refunded if paid, and the board of county commissioners is authorized and empowered to abate or refund, in *241whole or in part, such invalid assessments or taxes in the manner hereinafter prescribed and in the following cases only:
(3) When the complainant or the property is exempt from the tax".
Pursuant to SDC 12.0618, applicants appealed from the decision of the Board of County Commissioners denying their applications. In its decision the circuit court correctly concluded the tax abatement applications should have been granted. This was the extent of its power and authority. However, the court entered a money judgment in favor of John Pourier, Jr., against Shannon County for the sum of $7,422.00 together with interest thereon and a like judgment in favor of Loren Pourier in the amount of $574 together with interest. This proceeding does not involve a refund of taxes and the court was without authority to enter a money judgment against the county. The question of allowable interest is therefore moot.
The judgment appealed from is reversed with instructions to enter a judgment in conformity to this opinion. No costs shall be allowed.
RENTTO, BIEGELMEIER and HOMEYER, JJ„ concur. ROBERTS, J„ dissents in part.