Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/310832496/Mattz-v-Arnett-412-U-S-481-1973
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:34:31+00:00

Document:
Argued March 27 and 28, 1973.
established by Executive Order in 1855 and included the area in question.
the Interior may reserve from settlement, entry, or purchase any tract . . .
Indian country, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151. Pp. 494506.
S.Ct. 424, 7 L.Ed.2d 346. Pp. 496497.
which had just recently been included in the Hoopa Valley Reservation.
the Indians failed completely. Pp. 499504.
circumstances and legislative history, neither of which obtained here. Pp.
undisposed-of ceded lands in the reservation. P. 505.
20 Cal.App.2d 729, 97 Cal.Rptr. 894, reversed and remanded.
Lee J. Sclar, Berkeley, Cal., for petitioner.
by special leave of Court.
Roderick Walston, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
the river, and within 20 miles of the river's mouth.
existence of Indian fishing rights there.
denied a petition for hearing. See 20 Cal.App.3d, at 735, 97 Cal.Rptr., at 898.
applicable decisions of this Court.
reservation status will be addressed. We intimate no opinion on those issues.
reservation between 1855 and 1892.
the reservation be made, as proposed.' Kappler 817.
discontinued. Act of July 27, 1868, 15 Stat. 198, 221.
thence afterward shall be held subject to sale at private entry.' Id., at 40.
or specific congressional action, continued, certainly, in de facto existence.
dicta and not essential to the decision of the case before the court.' Crichton v.
Shelton, 33 I.D., at 215.
River Reservation was obscure and uncertain. The petitioner in his brief here, p.
from 'the present limits' of the Hoopa Valley Reservation to the Pacific Ocean.
made part of the Hoopa Valley Reservation, as extended.
1876, and certainly by 1891, four reservations already had been so set apart.
reservation along the Klamath River was not permissible under the 1864 Act.
255259, 33 S.Ct. 449, 452454, 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913), reh. denied, 228 U.S.
708, 33 S.Ct. 1024, 57 L.Ed. 1035, and is not challenged here.
consequently, the current status of the reservation.
against a continuation of such reservation status.' Brief for Repondent 3.
from the overview of the earlier General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 388.
open reservation land for allotment; he merely had the discretion to do so.
368 U.S. 351, 357358, 82 S.Ct. 424, 427429, 7 L.Ed.2d 346 (1962).
Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243, 33 S.Ct. 449, 57 L.Ed. 820 (1913).
terminate the reservation in 1892.
recommitted and no further action was taken. 10 Cong.Rec. 3126 (1880).
Sess.; 17 Cong.Rec. 370 (1885). No action was taken on either bill.
the Hoopa Valley Reservation being considered the place of removal.
(1890). It died in the Senate.
Act was introduced. H.R. 38, 52d Cong., 1st Sess.; 23 Cong. Rec. 125 (1892).
Sess. (1892). The bill was then passed and became the 1892 Act.
denying allotments to the Indians failed completely.
defining Indian country 'notwithstanding the issuance of any patent' therein.
circumstances and legislative history. See Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U.S.
Indian country, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151.
State . . . has jurisdiction over offenses committed elsewhere within the State . .
Treaties 817 (1904) (hereinafter Kappler).
See Pet. for Cert., App. B 45.
Commissioner of Indian Affairs 249250 (hereinafter Report).
issue of their removal seems to disappear.' 1885 Report 266.
the whole responsibility upon me.
(Report of Commissioner, Court of Claims, 1972).
only by Executive Order dated June 23, 1876. Kappler 815. See Appendix map.
Secretary of the Interior, quoted in Crichton v. Shelton, 33 I.D., at 211.
errors in the public surveys.' Ibid.; 1885 Report XLVIII.
to this (Ex.Doc. 140, pp. 1, 2).' Quoted in Crichton v. Shelton, 33 I.D., at 212.
practical purposes the tract in question constitutes an Indian reservation?
management of Indian affairs and the administration of the public land system .
section three of the act of 1864. Is this so?
reservation as hereby extended.' Kappler 815.
824; Crichton v. Shelton, 33 I.D., at 209210.
the Klamath River Reservation. Pub.L. 85420, 72 Stat. 121.
amended and codified as 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.
the Act of Mar. 22, 1906, 34 Stat. 80 (Colville Reservation), and Seymour v.
344 F.Supp. 777 (SD 1972).
in fact and in law, had already been terminated.
greater the likelihood of its being thrown open to settlers.' Id., at 2.
Missouria Indian reservations be, and the same are hereby, abolished').
opened to settlement' (emphasis in original).
Cong., 1st Sess., 15532 (1934).
construing earlier statutes, United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.