The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-03-15


cgpancy % thu different tribes respect
lively. and 70 agree with the indians ~ 70
their con- Dsu@a tiOE for the lands cedrfi,
an8 TO biish peace and friendly fsla-
ffors with the Indians Having il view
the general scope ard ohtscs Of the treaty.
and thu particular provisions contained IN
the. different articles | am unAo.e 70 20
affh article 20 create IN favor OF the IN
dams. rese~ya tons OF any particular
places for fishing purposes, or sites lor
Their habI;ations. or as places for dryinS
fish As ! have already intlmaIed. the
words OF this article indicate purpose
TO secure 20 The Indians equality OF rignls
c0-equai with the rights Of citizens. and
uos exclusive rights at any particular
places Instead OF reserxlng places f0r
permanent Use for curing hsh, the artAcle
secures 10 the Indians only 2 rgnt 20
erect temporary houses for the purpose
OF curing ana thar right "a coupled Win
the privilege OF hunting add gathering
roots and berries on open aAd IN
claimed lands. Nov. a. the government
contemplated the settlement Of Washing
ron territory. and the acquisition Of titles
TO the pubic lands BY individuals NNAeF
the general laws proyiding Tor the cosi-
yeyauce BY the United states OF titles N
Zee simple. II "a unreasonable 10 suppose
that article i've WAS intended 10 reserve
from sale and disposition ny the govern
Fneut any particular tracts, not paFLlcu-
larry described, and not included within
the reserva lions which are described IN
the treaty, and IL Is equally uHFeaSoi IA DIE
TO suUfsDse fhaT ali the NA0iE adiaE ~
Washington territory adjacent 10 waters
where fish may De taken are. by the hith
article OF the treaty permanently iHi-
pre- ssed with an easement IN favor OF me
Indians / conclude therefore, that the
rights guaranteed by the fifth article, are
only such as might be, after the date OF
the treaty. enjoyed By ali CITIZENS II com
mon. and valid laws effective to aorlage
the fishing rights OF citizens. are equally
effective as against the Indians. IN de-
cissons heretofore rendered. both for and
against the government, ! have given the
same Interpretation 20 similar tfeaties
with other tribes OF Indians in Washing
80 Fed. Rep los. U. 5. v. winans. % Fed.
Rep. y. Up 70 the present ua4e sf4sse 49,
cislons stand unreyersed-
TO construct permanent fish traps and
fixed appliances In such a manner as 10
wholly deprive the Indians Of any chance
to take fish for their own use. at any
usCai or accustomed fishing place. as the
bill OF complaint in this case charges that
the Alaska Packers Association has done
tuid certainly Dc an infringement OF the
rights guaranteed 10 the Indians by the
treaty. But the answer raises an issue as
TO whether or not the fish traps In ques-
ton do constitute such an interference as
the bin charges. / find from the evidence
bearing upon this disputed question. that
since the FISH traps now owned by the
Alaska Packers Association. were put in
place. the Indians have been successful
a 3 fishermen, in the vicinity OF Point
Roberts during all seasons. when the dif-
ferent varieties OF salmon are running.
and have obtained an abundance for their
own use. and surplus OF thousands OF
fish which they have been able % sell 10
the cannerfes at a good price. To inter
fere with the Alaska Packers Associa-
ton in such a way as TO render its bus
iress Improbable and drive 1t away from
Point Roberts would be a serious injury.
rather than benefit 10 the Indians, for
they would then be obliged TO sell their
fish elsewhere and. by removal OF this
competitor the market would be affected
20 the injury OF those engaged in catch
ing fish for sale. Including these same IN
dams who are Joined as complainants
with the United States In this case The
testimony fails 70 convince me that these
Indians are unable 10 make use OF APP
piiances or means for taking fish. other
than nets Of inferior quality, such as they
were able 10 manufacture previous 20 the
coming OF white people Ia this country.
on the contrary, IL Is shown that they are
able 10 obtain and use better material
for fish nets and that they are able 20
operate In deep wafer and. rotwithstand-
ing the fish traps complained of. there IS
stin ample room for them TO engage in
fishing. and that they can do so success
fully In all seasons.
''Concefing that the fish traps COM
planned OF do impede the nshinE opera
TORS OF the Indians 20 the extent Of re-
str.ctlnz them in the choice OF means Tor
taking fish. or even 10 the extent OF de-
pFiving them Of the choice OF locations
upon the fishing grounds, by ohstrucung
they have formerly been accustomed TO
anchor their nets. stil IL must be con-
sidered that tho FISH traps as constructed
are authorized and licensed by the state
government pursuant 10 laws enacted for
the purpose % regulating nsheFies within
the state. The treaties made with the
several indian tribes are not TO 0e re-
garled as conveYanres Of the title "a
lands within Washington territory from
1 the Indians. ss rroprietors, with llmita-
items and reservations % easements. The
government OF the United States does not
I deraign tiile 10 Us public lands from the
: Indians. The national government Is the
primary source OF title. and as original
I proprietor st had the power 20 dispose OF
public lands even within an Indian reser-
walton. without the consent 81 the In
dams Johnson v Mefrtosh. s Wheat
54s-6ot: United states Y. Cook. Ia Wall
3 59I-5gT In the opinion Of the supreme
court. hy Mr Justice White in the case
I or Spaulding rs. Chandler. leo L. : E9i
/ to3 the doctrine held by the supreme
{ court Is stated as follows.
/ Ut has been settled by repeated al
/ Indications % this court that the Zee OF
/ the lands 81 this country ID the original
/ occupation OF the Indian tribes was from
{ the time q che formation u this govern
/ meat vested iu The United states. The
I Indian title as against the United States
{ was merely title and RIGHT TO the per
E petual occupancy or the lard with the
4 privilege % using 81 IN such mode as ,hey
. saw SD until such right 81 occupation had
I h.en surrendered "a tho government
I When Indian reservations Vera created
+ either bv treaty or executive order she
j Indians haIf TIA land ny the anne charBc-
{ fer OF rtfc to-w{t che TlGhE 90 possess
/ ard occupN Tn lands for Jhe uses and
! purposes designsted'
/ 'EFgn N The treaty should b. regarded
( as making reservation 90 asnlns grounds
1 ana lands adjacent necessary for che use
; ~ are ln&l ANS. congress 4til had abe
/ power 90 make other dis00titicus ~ the
/ same groands. uotS ithstandlBg the ireaty
! The supreme court. ln tht same opinion