Red Lodge picket. [volume] (Red Lodge, Mont.) 1889-1907, 1895-07-27
THE FISH TRAP LAW
Oregon Has Jurisdiction OILY to
the Center Of the Columbia,
LONG CONFLICT IS ENDED
udge Bel!inger Gives His Decision in
the Matter Contention OF Horh
States Explained.


Bellinger Of the United States court
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 Mcclure ana
all the state authorities have contended
that by virtue of the law passed when
the state Of Oregon was organized Ore
gon 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 friendly suit in the habeas corpus
case Of Herman MattsOn, a fishtrap Op-
orator of Astoria, Who was arrested for
operating Il tishtrap 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 opeared his
fshtrap during the weekly close season,
that is, between the hours of O'Clock
p. m Saturday and 6 o'clock p. m. Sun
day. "A writ OF ha beas 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
1tioner c. w. Fulton, and for the state
of Washington Assistant Attorney Gen
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
We're spectators. Judge Hanfor6
was induced by Judge Bellinger to sii
In the case, as 1t was one Of much i'm
portance to the state of Washington
WAsHINGTON's CASE.
Mr. Fultons contention for the petit
fioner was:
F'irst-That the provision in the act
providing for the admission of Oregon
as state, that it should have "jursdic>
ton In civil and criminal cases upon the |
Columbia river concurrently with states |
and territories of which the river forms |
Il common boundary" was simply ar |
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, ana !
over territory of the United States. It |
was argued that such concurrent jurs~
diction has been revoked by the act OF
congress providing for the admission OF |
Washington, inasmuch as such concur
rent jurisdiction is not reserved to
Washington, but It's boundary is de-
clared to be the middle of the river.
Mr. Fulton, however, did not assume
TO state this proposition with confidence
but simply suggested it to the court
He did, however, contend with conf
dence:
SecOnd-That the words Concurrent |
jurisdiction In civil and criminal cases
on the river are limited to jurisdiction
concerning things floating on the water
1t was not intended to interfere with
the exclusive rights Of each state to
regulate and control Its own property
and all fixed things situated within it's
own boundaries. The object was to give
to each state jurisdiction to punish
crimes committed on the water, that is,
on floating thing, aud to regulate civil
matters and contracts involving prop
erty rights in relation to movable, float
ing or transitory things on the river.
OREGON'S CONTENTION.
1t was claimed that while this con
current jurisdiction probably carried
the power to legislate to some extent,
the legislation must ue such as was
consistent with the exercise of similar
powers over the same portions Of the
river by the other state, which could
not be the case If each possessed the
power to regulate fishing within the
same territory.
Mr.. Fulton contended that the bed of
the river north Of the middle channel
was as much the property of Washing
ton as the upland, and that 1t could alb
solutely control it and authorize, as it
has In this case, one Of its citizens to
locate upon any part Of it and drive
piles and build structures therein, sub
ject only to the right Of congress to pre-
vent any structure that would interfere
with navigation.
The attorney also contended that
fish are the property of the state in
whose waters they are to be found,
and that the state has the same right
to control and regulate the taking
thereof as 1t has to sell its lands, tim Z
ber or any other property, and this is
an exclusive right in the state; a right
invested in the original state. and con
sequently vested in each new state as
it Is admitted upon an equal foot
Ing with the original states" And in
support Of the proposition that the state
owns the beds Of rivers within its ter
ritoral limits and the fish in the waters
thereof, he cited the case of Nc
Cready VS.. Virginia., "a United States
supreme court report, 391. He therefore
contended that Washington has the ,
same exclusive control Of the fisheries
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 a 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 ,
t1ons raised by the petitioner, the state {
VI olSSoIl wa dlllCO SoituIi ClIl Jd- |
risdiction over the waters Of the Colum- t
bia by the enabling act passed by the {
United States congress upon its ad-
mission into the Union. This is included l
In and was adopted as a 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 :
congress occurs the following language:
'"The said state Of Oregon shall have
jurisdiction on the Columbia /
and all other rivers and waters border |