The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1895-07-27
Oregon Has Jurisdiction Only to
the Center of the Columbia.
LONG CONFLICT IS ENDED
Judge BeIlingcr Gives His Decision In
the Matter Contention OF Botn
States Explained.

who decreed that Oregon has not the
power or right to regulate salmon fish
ing on the whole width of the Columbia
river. but only to the middle of the chan
mel Of the river to which point the jur-
isdiction of the state extends.
Fish and Game Warden Mcguire and
all the state authorities have contended
that by virtue of the law passed when
the state of Oregon was organized ore
gen was given jurisdiction over the en-
tire river. The conflict of authority be-
tween the states of Washington and |
Oregon has been going on for years, but
the point has never before been brought
into court.
The matter was brought In the way |
of a friendly suit in the habeas corpus
case of Herman Mattson. a fishtrap OPP
orator of Astoria, who was arrested Tor
operating a fishtrap in Bakers bay, on
the north side of the Columbia river, by
Clatsop county's sheriff, Hare, and Fish
Protector Mcclure, who has been en-
deavoring for months to get the issue
before the courts. The specific charge
against Mattson is that he opearted his
fishtrap during the weekly close season,
that is, between the hours of O'Clock
p. m. Saturday and o'clock p. m. Sun
day. A writ of habeas corpus had been
issued commanding Sheriff Hare to pro
duce the body Of Mattson in court, but
the appearance of the petitioner was
waived by the attorneys on both sides.
There appeared as counsel for the pc
titioner c. w. Fulton, and for the state
of Washington Assistant Attorney Cen
eral Haight For the state of Oregon
appeared Attorney General Idleman,
District Attorney w. N. Barrett for the
Fifth district and J. H. Smith, state
senator of Clatsop county. Fish Pro
tetctor Mcclure of oregon and Fish
Commissioner Crawford of Washington
were spectators. Judge Hanferd
was induced by Judge Bellinger to sit
in the case, as it was one of much i'm
portance to the state of Washington.
wASHINGTON'S CASE.
Mr.. Fulton's contention for the petit
toner was:
First-That the provision in the act
providing for the admission Of Oregon
as a state, that it should have "jurisdic>
ton in civil and criminal cases upon the
Columbia river concurrently with states
and territories of which the river forms
a common boundary" was simply an
agreement between Oregon and the gen.
eral government, giving Oregon juris-
diction for some purposes beyond the
territorial limits of Oregon, namely,
the middle channel of the river, and
over territory of the United States II
was argued that such concurrent juris-
diction has been revoked by the act OF
congress providing for the admission OF
Washington, inasmuch as such concur
rent jurisdiction is not reserved tc
Washington, but it's boundary is de
clared to be the middle of the river.
Mr.. Fulton, however, did not assume
kI.s. ff-v. n nnraf
but simply suggested 1t to the court
He did, however, contend with conf
dence:
Second-That the words "concurren
Jurisdiction in civil and criminal case
on the river are limited to jurisdiction
concerning things floating on the water
1t was not intended to interfere witt
the exclusive rights of each state t
regulate and control its own propert,
and all fixed things situated within 1T
own boundaries. The object was to Civ
to each state Jurisdiction to punisl
crimes committed on the water, that If
on a floating thing. and to regulate civ
matters and contracts involving prop
erty rights in relation to movable, float
ing or transitory things on the river.
OREGON's CONTENTION.
It was claimed that while this ''cor
current 1ur1SQlCIlOn probably carrie
the power to legislate to some exten
the legislation must De such as wa
consistent with the exercise of simila
powers over the same portions of III
river by the other state, which coul
not be the case IL each possessed tn
power to regulate fishing within tn
same territory.
Mr.. Fulton contended that the bed {
the river north of the middle chann
was as much the property of Washing
ton as the upland, and that it could al
solutely control it and authorize, as
has in this case, one Of its citizens
locate upon any part of it and DRY
piles and build structures therein, SUI
ject only to the right of congress to pr
vent any structure that would interfe
with navigation.
The attorney also contended tn
fish are the property of the state
whose waters they are to be foun
and that the state has the same rig
to control and regulate the takii
thereof as II has to sell its lands, til
Der or any other property, and this
an exclusive right in the state; rig
invested in the original states and co
sequently vested in each new state
II is admitted upon an equal fox
ing with the original states" And
support of the proposition that the sta
owns the beds of rivers within Its Il
ritorial limits and the fish In the wate
thereof, he cited the case OF N
Cready vs. Virginia., "a United Stai
supreme court report, 391. He thereto
commended that Washington has
same exclusive control OF the fisher