The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1895-07-27

within her territorial limits as has
every other state He further contend
ed that If even Oregon could regulate
fishing north Of the middle channel.
that would not allow 1t to go into Ba-
ker's bay. as that water is wholly with
in the state of Washington. 1t is but
an arm of the sea, or at best a tributary
of the Columbia, as Is Young's bay in
Oregon.
The state OF Oregon opposed the
granting of the petition. The state
claimed that, in opposition to the ques-
tons raised by the petitioner. the state
of Oregon was granted concurrent Ju-
risdiction over the waters of the Column
bia by the enabling act passed by the
United States congress upon it's ad-
mission into the Union. This is included
in and was adopted as part Of the
states organic laws in the constitution
and is, after defining the boundaries
of the state as follows: Including ju-
risdiction in civil and criminal cases
upon the Columbia river and Snake
river, concurrently with state and ter
ritories of which those rivers form a
boundary in common with this state"
Also, in section of the same act of
1.-THE said state of Oregon shall have
concurrent jurisdiction on the Columbia
and all other rivers and waters border
ing on the said state of Oregon, so far
as the same shall form a common boun-
dairy to said state, and any other state
or states now or hereafter to be formed
or bounded by the same" 1t was claim
ed that the language Is susceptible of
but one construction, and that is that
upon the admission of Oregon, 1t was
granted this jurisdiction. and 1t was
embodied in the state constitution. and
the legislature of Oregon accepted and
ratified the same on February IA, 1859.
Thus the jurisdiction became a COM
pact between the United States and the
state of Oregon. and. after this power
had been once conferred upon the state
of Oregon by the act of congress and
accepted, it partakes Of the nature of
a compact, and oregon cannot be di-
vested of this power of jurisdiction
without its express consent.
Many authorities were submitted
showing the application of the principle
of concurrent jurisdiction upon the
Mississippi st. Croix and Ohio rivers.
where the states bordering upon the OPP
posite shores of the river have jurisdic-
ton clauses similar to the one in the
Oregon constitution. 1t was admitted
that Washington under the acts above
referred to, and the act admitting it.
either has or is entitled to accept the
concurrent jurisdiction to the Oregon
shore, and, while it is contended thai
refusal to accept such jurisdiction
could not affect a prior grant of juris
diction to Oregon, Washington has mo-
refused to accept the jurisdiction, bu
so far has merely failed. either by over
sight or otherwise. to act. 1t was alsC
claimed that fish trap is not such ;
fixture as could in any manner modif.
the effect of the concurrent jurisdiction
but the limit of the concurrent jurisdic
ton is the north shore of the Columbia
which is specifically defined in the en-
: abling act and the constitution.
, Concurrent jurisdiction, as referrin
to the claims of Oregon. seems to be
q misnomer. Washington only elaine
: jurisdiction over half of the river. Will
: 1t was urged that Oregon has jurtsdic
, ton over the whole river, and that,
Washington has a law conflicting wit
the laws Of Oregon, and citizen c
o Washington put this law in force o
his own side of the river, he can be al
4 rested by Oregon officers and punishe
7 for violating the laws of Oregon.