Case Title: STATE v STASSO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-04-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13190 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- LASSO STASSO, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: Diskrict Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert L. Fletcher, County Attorney, Thompson Falls, Montana Clayton Herron argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Victor F. Valgenti argued, Missoula, Montana Richard A. Baenen, Washington D.C. Submitted: January 19, 1977 ~ e ~ i d e d .. APW eg 1 9 n Filed : b\PI 21 I $ @ . M r . Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. Defendant Lasso Stasso, a duly enrolled member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Indian Tribes, was convicted i n justice court, Thompson Falls, Montana, of a violation of the game laws of Montana. The specific charge was k i l l i n g a deer out of season. This conviction was appealed t o the d i s t r i c t court and was s e t aside and the charges dismissed. The s t a t e appeals. The t r i a l de novo i n the d i s t r i c t court was held January 27, 1975. These facts were stipulated by the parties: 1. Defendant, Lasso Stasso, is a duly enrolled member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana. The Confederated Tribes were parties t o the Treaty of Hell Gate of July 16, 1855, 12 Stat. 975, with the United States. 2. Defendant shot and killed a deer on August 24, 1972, i n the general vicinity of White Pine Creek, Sanders County, Montana. A t the time of the incident the season was closed f o r hunting deer, pursuant t o Montana law. 3 . That the location i s outside the boundaries of the Flathead ~ e s e r v a t i o n , as established by Article I1 of the Treaty -- of Hell Gate of July 16, 1855, but within National Forest Service lands which have never been patented t o any private person. The s t a t e relied solely on the stipulated facts. Defendant, however, presented the testimony of an expert witness and exhibits clearly outlining the aboriginal hunting t e r r i t o r y of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. The evidence indicated the deer was taken within t h i s aboriginal hunting territory, but without the of confines/the present day Flathead Reservation. The d i s t r i c t court found the lands upon which the offense occurred were open and unclaimed lands under the Treaty of Hell Gate and provisions of the treaty a r e superior t o any reserved power of the s t a t e and therefore exempt from s t a t e regulation. The complaint was dismissed for failure t o s t a t e the commission of a public offense. The issue to be decided i s whether present day members of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have a right t o hunt free from the regulation of Montana game laws, on "open and unclaimed lands" by virtue of Article I1 of the Treaty of Hell Gate. In determining t h i s issue, w e f i r s t consider whether Forest Service land may be included within the meaning of "open and unclaimed lands" . The concept of aboriginal t i t l e t o lands historically occupied by American Indians is recognized i n Sac and Fox Tribe v. United States, 383 F.2d 991,997 (Ot.C1.1967), cert.den. 389 U.S. 900, 88 S.Ct.220,t19 L ed 2d 217, where the court stated: "* * * the right of sovereignty over discovered land was always subject t o the right of use and occupancy and enjoyment of the land by Indians living on the land. This right of use and occupancy by Indians came t o be known a s 'Indian t i t l e . ' l . I t i s sometimes called 'original t i t l e ' o r 'aboriginal title. 1 1 1 Hunting and fishing rights are part and parcel with aborginal t i t l e . State v. Coffee, (Idaho 1976), 556 P.2d 1185. Aboriginal t i t l e is founded on the concept that Indian occupancy and use of the land prehistorically predated the present sovereign. This being so, we examine the t e r m s by which the Indians ceded t h e i r land t o the United States t o determine t o what extent Indian hunting rights on that land remain unextinguished. The p a r t i e s stipulated the Conferedated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, of which the defendant i s a member, were p a r t i e s t o the Treaty of Hell Gate. This t r e a t y was executed on July 16, 1855 a t Hell Gate i n the B i t t e r Root Valley. Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian a f f a i r s f o r the Territory of Washing- ton represented the United States. Representative c h i e f s , headmen, and delegates of the Flathead, Kootenay, and Upper Pend d t O r e i l l e s Indian Tribes signed f o r them. Through the provisions of A r t i c l e I of t h i s t r e a t y , the Lndians ceded a l l t h e i r lands t o the United States: "ARTICLE I. The said confederated t r i b e s of Indians hereby cede, relinquish, and convey t o the United S t a t e s a l l t h e i r r i g h t , t i t l e , and i n t e r e s t i n and t o the country occupied o r claimed by them, bounded and described a s follows * * *." The t r e a t y further provided t h a t i n exchange f o r the cession of t h e i r lands the Indians were t o receive a reservation and monetary compensation. I n addition A r t i c l e I11 of t h e Treaty provided t h e Indians were t o receive: "The exclusive r i g h t of taking f i s h i n a l l the streams running through o r bordering s a i d reserva- t i o n i s further secured t o said Indians; a s a l s o t h e r i g h t of taking f i s h a t a l l usual and accustomed places, i n common with c i t i z e n s of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings f o r curing; cogether with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and b e r r i e s , and pasturing t h e i r horses and c a t t l e upon open and unclaimed land." (Emphasis added). rhFs Court speaking of the Treaty of Hell Gate of July 16, 541, 1855 i n S t a t e v. McClure, 127 Mont. 534,5391 268 P.2d 629, recog- nized t h a t , when they signed the treaty: "* 2k * the Flathead and other p r a i r i e Indian nations' primary i n t e r e s t was t o protect and reserve t h e i r hunting r i g h t s and grounds which provided t h e i r major food and clothing. * * *, "* * * Also assured was the Indians's right to hunt and take game outside the reservation on all open and unclaimed lands. * * *I1 The state argues the Montana Territorial Act of May 26, 1864, 13 Stat. 85, has in some way abrogated or affected the rights reserved to the Tribes by the Treaty of Hell Gate. This is not the case. The language of that Act statesin pertinent part: "That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining to the Indians in said territory so long as such rights shall remain unextinghished by treaty between the United States, and such Indians J.' * *." The application of the provisions of the Treaty of Hell Gate to a fact situation such as the instant case is a matter of first impression in this jurisdiction. I t is clear however that the provisions of the treaty must be considered as a reservation by the Indians, rather than a grant by the federal government. Therefore, the Indians, at the time of the treaty, reserved the right to hunt on open and unclaimed lands outside their present day reservation, but within their aboriginal hunting territory. The determination remaining to be made is--to what extent does this reservation of right remain unextinguished? Idaho courts have decided the instant question in that jurisdiction. In view of the striking similarities of the fact pattern of the Idaho cases with the instant case, these cases will be discussed here. State v . Arthur, 74 Idaho 251, 261 P.2d 135, 143, involved an attempt by the state of Idaho to enforce its hunting laws against a member of the Nez Perce Tribe who killed a deer out of season on National Forest land. The incident occurred outside the boundaries of the reservation, but within the area ceded to the federal government by the Tribe. The treaty provisions involved i n Arthur were identical t o Article I11 of the Treaty of Hell Gate. The Supreme Court of Idaho rejected the s t a t e ' s attempt t o enforce the hunting laws upon the Indian-defendant: " W e are not here concerned with the wisdom of the provisions of the treaty under present conditions nor with the advisability of imposing upon the Indians certain regulatory obligations i n the interest of con- serving wild l i f e ; that i s for the Federal Government, the affected t r i b e , and perhaps the State of Idaho t o resolve under appropriate negotiations; our concern here i s only with reference t o protecting the rights of the Indians which they reserved under the Treaty of 1855 t o hunt upon open and unclaimed land without - limitation, restriction or burden. " W e hold that the rights reserved by the Nez Perce Indians i n 1855, which have never passed from them t o hunt upon open and unclaimed land still e x i s t un- impaired and that they are entitled t o hunt a t any time of the year i n any of the lands ceded t o the federal government though such lands a r e outside the boundary of t h e i r reservation, * *" State v. Tinno, 94 Idaho 759, 497 P.2d 1386, 1391, is i n accord with Arthur. I n Tinno a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes was charged with taking a chinook salmon with a spear i n violat ion of Idaho fishing regulations. The Idaho Supreme Court found the Tribes' treaty gave the right t o hunt and f i s h on un- occupied lands of the United States even though fishing was not specifically mentioned i n the language of the treaty: "The signatory Indians had roamed a t w i l l and essentially i n peace among themselves. They did not i n a s t r i c t sense occupy the land they roamed; they harvested game, fish, and berries, camas roots, and other natural foods and moved about with the seasonal changes. I n agreeing t o s e t t l e on a permanent basis they s t i l l were expecting rights t o harvest food on the unsettled lands a s a means of subsistence and a s an integral part of t h e i r way of l i f e . "* * * I n order t o be f a i r we must attempt t o give effect t o the terms of the treaty as those terms were understood by the Indian representatives* * *." State v. Coffee, (Idaho 1976), 556 P.2d 1185, was decided i n November 1976. I n Coffee a member of the Kootenai Tribe was charged with the k i l l i n g of two deer out of season on private property. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the d i s t r i c t court con- viction on the grounds the ~ r i b e ' s aboriginal hunting right only applied t o open and unclaimed lands and not t o lands owned by private parties. W e find the Idaho cases interpreting Indian t r e a t i e s con- taining language dealing with Indian hunting rights common t o the Treaty of Hell Gate persuasive i n the instant case. Article 1 1 1 of the Treaty of Hell Gate reserves for present day members of the tribes signing that document the right t o hunt game animals free from s t a t e regulation on lands ceded by the tribes t o the , federal government. However, it is clear t h i s right is limited t o land which i s open and unclaimed a t the time of the incident, Land owned o r occupied by private parties i s i n no way open and un- claimed within the contemplation of t h i s treaty. Prima facie, a l l persons within t h i s s t a t e are subject t o i t s criminal laws and come within the jurisdiction of its courts. I f an exception exists it must be shown by the defendant. State / c3& v. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont. 33, 55 P. 4 3 3 % State v. Buckaroo Jack, 30 Nev. 325, 96 P. 497. Therefore i n the instant case defendant had the burden of proving the alleged offense was committed a t a location which deprived the s t a t e of jurisdiction t o prosecute. I n State v. Arthur, 74 Idaho 251, 261 P.2d 135,141, the term "open and unclaimed lands" was interpreted as: "* * *lands a s were ,not settled and occupied by the whites under possessory rights o r patent or otherwise appropriated t o private ownership and was not intended t o nor did it exclude lands t i t l e t o which rested i n the federal government * * *." W e find t h i s definition persuasive i n light of the fact t h a t the treaty interpreted i n Arthur was identical t o the Treaty of Hell Gate. W e find the National Forest lands involved herein are open and unclaimed lands. State v. Arthur, supra; Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Res. v. Maison, 262 F.Supp. 871 (D.Ore.1966), affirmed i n Holcomb v. Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Res., 382 F. 2d 1013 (9th C i r . 1967). The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. F /-- \ - --- h~~ c_ -p-rl . , W d Justice / W e Concur: Chief Justice