Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1895-07-26
Oregon Has Jurisdiction Only to
the Center of the Columbia.
LONG CONFLICT IS ENDED
udgc Belliugcr 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-
isdction of the state extends.
Fish and Game Warden Mcclure and
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 a friendly suit in the habeas corpus
case of Herman Mattson, fishtrap OPP
orator of Astoria, who was arrested for
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
dshtrap during the weekly close season.
| that is, between the hours of 6 o'clock
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 G w Fulton, and for the state
of Washington Assistant Attorney Gen
era Haight For the state of Oregon
appeared Attorney General Idleman,
District Attorney W. n Barrett for the
Fifth district and j. II. Smith. state
senator of Clatsop county. Fish Pro
| tetctor Mcclure of oregon and Fish
| Commissioner Crawford of Washington
| were spectators. Judge Hanford
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 state, that it should nave "jurisdic>
! 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 an
! agreement between Oregon and the gem
| eral government, giving Oregon juris-
J diction for some purposes beyond the
! territorial limits of oregon, namely,
| the middle channel of the river, and
over territory of the United States. IT
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 to
Washington but its 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-rhat the words concurrent
| Jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases
on the river" are limited to jurisdiction
concerning things floating on the water.
It 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 its
| own boundaries. The object was to give
to each state jurisdiction to punish
| crimes committed on the water, that is
on floating thing, and 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 legisate to some extent
the legislation must pe 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 channe
was as much the property of Washing.
ton as the upland, and that it could alb
solutely control 1t and authorize, as II
has in this case, one of its citizens tc
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 tina
fish are the property of the state il
whose waters they are to be found
and that the state has the same righ
to control and regulate the taking
thereof as it has to sell it's lands, tim
Der or any other property, and this /!
an exclusive right in the state; a RICH
invested in the original states and con
| sequently vested in each new state al
IL Is admitted upon an equal foot
ing with the original states" And II
support of the proposition that the stat
owns the beds of rivers within its ter
ritorial limits and the fish in the waters
thereof, he cited the case of Nc
Cready VS.. virginia., "a United States
supreme court report, 1911. He therefor,
contended that Washington has tn,
same exclusive control of the fisheries
within her territorial limits as ha
every other state. He further contend
ed that if even Oregon could regulate
fishing north of the middle channel
that would not allow it to go into Ba
ller's bay as that water is wholly with
In the state of Washington. 1t is blu
an arm of the sea- or al best tributar,
| of the Columbia, as is Young's bay II
Oregon.
The state of Oregon opposed tn
granting OF the petition. The stat
claimed that In opposition to the ques
tons raised by the petitioner. the stat
of Oregon was granted concurrent ju
risdiction over the waters of the Colum
bia by the enabling act passed by tn
United States congress upon its ad
| mission into the Union. This is include
in and was adopted as a part of tn
states organic laws in the constitution
and is, after defining the boundarie
of the state as follows: Including ju
l t.. f,,affa oil GO