answer is yes john because because the treaty right refers to travel it does not refer to trade there is no language in the treaty an r that refers to trade or that you would get trade out of the judged with donal's interpretation and judge mcdonald conclusion of law in his first conclusion of law he says it's for the purpose of carrying probable goods it is not in the treaty it is not in the tree thank you and  cigarettes were going to come into washington then those goods would have been legal that doesn't impact that maybe it impinges on the travel right but it does not abrogate the travel travel right and i would have to believe that the ninth circuit when it was choosing that language chose that for a reason that they're treated right has to be abrogated before the federal laws are will follow way and th number one does the treaty rights apply and number two do exceptions to the treaty apply in this case and it's important to understand the unique way in which  of only transporting tribal goods and it's not mentioned in the treaty and because it's not mentioned that that resolved in favor of the indians not in favor of the government because a treat preserved preexisting rights the treaties morning granted right from the federal government to the indian tribes the indian tribes before the treaties existed were allowed to travel wherever they wanted with whatever kinds of goods they wanted and at the time of the treaty is the title right was preserved by the treaty the travel light is as broad as anything the indians could have done at the time of the treaty and last specifically restricted by the treaty and in this case the only restriction on the right to travel is that it has to be in cigarettes we are not saying that a person tribal member can sell cigarettes without complying with us in washington state's castle's this is just a travel case not a case involving nonpayment of taxes to the state of before they can even travel before it and india can even go and travel to pick up goods or what have you they have to either preen or defy the state of washington or pay a tax very similar to what the supreme court found unconstitutional and truly before two we and fish he had to get a license and pay taxes under washington state law and because it occurred before he could even go do it that impinged on his treaty right and the supreme court had that it made him seem fair or a good idea tribes the c c a was primarily aimed at bootlegging and organized crime it was not specifically aimed towards the indians or not aimed at the indian soldiers it's basically neutral with respect to indians the only way in which  there's been no allegation that there's any reason for the cre not of occasional quiet except for to help the state of washington tracts track its finances and then for the first time in the government's reply brief the government also said it's also to help other businesses have an equal playing field but that's also an economic interest an interest in helping non indians making money rather than preserving the public good those are the types of proper time place and manner destructions and that are and in this case it's the requirement doesn't meet the regulatory purpose analysis and so you don't get to a minimal burden sort of way there's never been a minimal burn weighing in any case i've ever met has to do with a treaty claim as opposed to a weighing well on an indian reservation tries interests in governing itself or stronger but off the reservation not the treaty right applies regardless and it doesn't matter that the that the government may say well this isn't that much of a burden on the tree right it may impinge but not that much and to really as i stated earlier the supreme court's dad that although a licensed requirement although a few requirements ma court's well reasoned opinion just to court very carefully walked through the legal analysis of whether to apply a federal law or a general of flexibility to indians and then asking whether it was any one of the reservation in this case the court was absolutely right looking to the floor as cases and examining the treaty right to travel the court district court correctly decided that it infringes on the treaty right to travel for purposes of trade to require yakima members to call the state in advance of setting foot or vehicle on the public roads for return for having to move on to a piece of land that was about a tenth of that size the nation also agreed that the united states could build roads all over the reservation in return the tribe asked that if be able historians testified and original documents for example and it was so clear in the findings of fact that she tribal members were traveling extensively carrying for kinds of goods they were carrying shellfish those were challenge anyone to find shellfish on the acme indian reservation they were carting shellfish back and forth they were carting goods that were purchased from the called the whites shelves be other things that were not manufactured on the reservation absolutely not that is not how the tribe looks at it there are times where state regulation is appropriate this is not one of those times but there is appropriate state regulation of the right to travel if i case the reason being that the united states is urging this court the doctors to strip to start with a strict construction of the treaty the ramsey case cited by this court and other cases like it make clear that that is only appropriate if you have a federal taxation statute and you're trying to decide if that applies to indians then you start with strict construction but then but in all of the cases the donovan cases do not start there you ask ok you've pandora's box here there was transit there was travel of goods the only reason these goods relabel contraband is because the state wanted to keep track of them for purposes of generating taxes the tribe is the nation is not saying respect to the government's position and that the treaty only applies to travel in judge case opinion is an issue order dismissing he quoted from this cour honor i don't believe it's any question that the court and in this court in interpreting the decisions that affect the treaty clearly find that the treaty involved trade that purpose to the purpose of travel was for purposes of trade in fact there's an hour brief addresses this issue when counsel indicates that judgment donald's first order was restrictive that order was originally the order and summary judgment was originally overturned by this court the second order was much more expansive court the order entered by judge mcdonald and indicated in that order that the act must travel for purposes of social economic and trade purposes so that in the court in this court to make his decisions we'd ask the court understand the breadth of the of the purpose of travel the second argument your honor is with respect to the issue the minimal burden it's our position that we believe that the standard of minimal burden only applies in those instances when we're dealing with issues of sovereignty not issues are tracked by treaty rights and the julie case i believe clearly sets out the distinction between the two that minimum burden is an acceptable way of the roading rights if i may use that expression when we're dealing with sovereign rights but not only getting the treaty rights and the last point your honor is the law lenity in this particular case even if this court finds that there is ambiguity and we ask that that ambiguity be resolved and and imprisonment so that the particular factor in one way no on the other hand yes there is other ways to have addressed this issue that is the right to travel and if there are factors of violation there be more appropriate remedies then  in forcing a violation by virtue of a felony thank you thank you we're going to get paid for this so i guess they're probably in the paid for their courier were yes they were being seen that would be economic purpose i guess of the travel right that would be an economic purpose but it wasn't that wasn't law so that there that they have the right to travel and use of the public highways without the payment of fees when cherry incredible goods then in his first two findings of fact he says that not ambiguous it doesn't mention about korea right it doesn't say that they're going to be able to set out and be and carry things all over the united states it's when you're carrying tribal good reserve the right to be couriers there's nothing in the minutes that say that they were didn't think didn't have an ownership that the tried didn't have an ownership in the goods going back and forth when  things surely understood at that time that they couldn't carry anything they wanted that there were certain restrictions and so it's it's not impossible to say are and i think it's only logical to say that they would have understood at the time that there would be that there