Source: https://m.openjurist.org/663/f2d/906/blake-v-g-arnett
Timestamp: 2018-02-19 00:08:52
Document Index: 553995635

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1151', '§ 1162', '§ 71', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 8', '§ 1', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 1']

663 F2d 906 Blake v. G Arnett | OpenJurist
663 F. 2d 906 - Blake v. G Arnett
663 F2d 906 Blake v. G Arnett
663 F.2d 906
Harold BLAKE and Margaret Carlson, Plaintiffs-Appellants and
G. Ray ARNETT, et al., Simpson Timber Company, a
corporation, Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff and Appellee.
Nos. 79-4484, 80-4276.
Appellants Blake and Carlson are Yurok Indians. The case concerns their claimed rights to enter and cross lands of Simpson Timber Company to exercise Yurok hunting and fishing rights. The lands involved are part of the old Klamath River Indian Reservation in California, a strip of territory commencing at the Pacific Ocean and extending one mile in width on each side of the Klamath river for a distance of approximately 20 miles up river. We refer to this strip as "the Reservation." It is the lower part of a similar strip, over 40 miles long, running from the Ocean to the original Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation at the confluence of the Klamath and Trinity rivers, and now known as the Hoopa Valley Reservation Extension. The history of the Reservation is described in Mattz v. Arnett, 1973, 412 U.S. 481, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 37 L.Ed.2d 92, in which the Court held that the Reservation had not been terminated, "and that the land within the boundaries of the reservation is still Indian country, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1151." (Id. at 506, 93 S.Ct. at 2258). A map of the Hoopa and Klamath reservations is an appendix to the court's opinion. After the Mattz decision the California Court of Appeal held that the state has no authority to regulate hunting and fishing by the Yuroks within the Reservation. Arnett v. Five Gill Nets, 1975, 48 Cal.App.3d 454, 121 Cal.Rptr. 906, cert. denied, 1976, 425 U.S. 907, 96 S.Ct. 1500, 47 L.Ed.2d 757. As a result of this decision, plaintiffs no longer seek relief against the other defendants, Arnett, O'Brien, and Snell.
Blake and Carlson argue that the Yuroks' right to hunt and fish on the Reservation lands was not extinguished by the acts of 1887 and 1892. They point to the long settled policy that statutes be liberally interpreted to favor the Indian tribes, to the fact that fishing and hunting rights can survive even the termination of a tribe (Menominee Tribe v. United States, 1968, 391 U.S. 404, 88 S.Ct. 1705, 20 L.Ed.2d 697), and to the fact that no language in the statutes of 1887 or 1892 explicitly extinguished the hunting and fishing rights. They rely heavily on United States v. Winans, 1905, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089. On the other hand, Simpson points to the language of its deeds and patents and to the language and purpose of the acts of 1887 and 1892. It would distinguish United States v. Winans as involving Indian rights based on treaty rather than on statute or executive order.
The plaintiffs might prevail on either of two theories. One theory is that when the United States made allotments and granted patents it gave no better title than it had, and its title was encumbered by a prior grant of or reservation of a fishing and hunting interest to the Indian tribe or its members, or both. This first theory did prevail in United States v. Winans, supra. There the Yakima Nation had by treaty in 1858 ceded certain territories but reserved to itself "the right of taking fish in all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them." 198 U.S. at 378, 25 S.Ct. at 663. The Court reasoned that the treaty reserved the rights and thus imposed a servitude on the land in the "usual and accustomed places."
In its opinion, the Winans Court pointed out that the Indians had possessed hunting and fishing rights long before the white man came, and that hunting and fishing rights "were not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed" (198 U.S. at 381, 25 S.Ct. at 664). The same could be said of the Yurok Indians in this case at the time when the Reservation was first created. The Court next construed the treaty as reserving the rights rather than granting them. It held that the rights were "intended to be continuing against the United States and its grantees.... The construction of the treaty disposes of certain subsidiary contentions of respondents. The Land Department could grant no exemptions from its provisions. It makes no difference, therefore, that the patents issued by the Department are absolute in form. They are subject to the treaty as to the other laws of the land." Id. at 381-82, 25 S.Ct. at 664.
Congress can create a reservation, reserve rights to the Indians, and dispose of lands of the United States by statute as well as by treaty. Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co., 1949, 337 U.S. 86, 103-04, 69 S.Ct. 968, 979, 93 L.Ed. 1231. Thus, when a reservation is created by statute, or by Executive order under the authority of a statute, the Indians may be given a right in land. The history of the creation of the reservation here in question is complex. It was not created by treaty. The California Court of Appeal found that it was created by statute, at least for the purposes of the statutory phrase "immunity afforded under Federal ... statute." Arnett v. Five Gill Nets, supra (construing 18 U.S.C. § 1162(b)). Even so, whether a treaty or statute is to be read to create a right in land depends upon its language or purpose. Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co., supra.
We do not think that the distinction between a treaty and a statute has great significance. Before 1871, relations between the United States and Indians were frequently established by treaties with Indian nations which were held to be independent sovereign powers under the protection of the United States. E. g., Worcester v. Georgia, 1832, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 559-560, 8 L.Ed. 483. In 1871, Congress determined that "no Indian nation or tribe within the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty...." 16 Stat. 566, now 25 U.S.C. § 71.
However, first, both treaties and statutes are the supreme law of the land. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2. Second, the real power had lain with the United States alone long before 1871. Some at least of the treaties were the embodiment of orders imposed on Indians by the Executive. On occasion the United States invented tribes and appointed their chiefs. Washington v. Washington State Commercial Fishing Vessel Association, 1979, 443 U.S. 658, 664 n.5, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 3064 n.5, 61 L.Ed.2d 823. Third, the change from treaty to statute was at least in part the result of political infighting in Congress. The House was excluded from the treaty making process under Const. Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, and it wished to have a greater say in Indian policies. Antoine v. Washington, 1975, 420 U.S. 194, 202, 95 S.Ct. 944, 949, 43 L.Ed.2d 129. Fourth, as regards Indians, there is no clear cut distinction between treaties and statutes, nor any clear division between what was done by treaty and what was done by statute. Both treaties and statutes were worded in a wide variety of ways, some explicitly granting fee simple interests to tribes, some explicitly granting only Indian title (a right of occupancy at the pleasure of the United States), some saying no more than that land was reserved for Indian occupancy, some expressly reserving or granting rights, some silent on the subject. United States Department of the Interior, Federal Indian Law, 601-622 (1958). Finally, it is clear that Congress has the power to cancel unilaterally rights granted by Indian treaty. Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903, 187 U.S. 553-566, 23 S.Ct. 216-21, 47 L.Ed. 299; The Cherokee Tobacco, 1871, 78 U.S. (11 Wall) 616, 621, 20 L.Ed. 227. For all of these reasons we believe that whether the source of a right is in a treaty or in a statute is of little contemporary relevance.
To determine whether or not Simpson has an unencumbered title to the land it holds we look to the acts of 1887 and 1892. The wording of the federal patents does not settle the issue. United States v. Winans, supra; Choate v. Trapp, 1912, 224 U.S. 665, 32 S.Ct. 565, 56 L.Ed. 941. The statute of 1887, 24 Stat. 388, was applicable to nearly all Indian Reservations (§ 1) except a few specifically named (§ 8). It clearly applied to the Reservation here involved, and it authorized the granting of allotments "in severalty" (§ 1) and "for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made." (§ 5). After the trust period, the land was to be conveyed by patent, "in fee ... and free of all charge and incumbrance whatsoever." (§ 5). The purpose of the Act was to encourage assimilation of Indians to American cultural patterns. Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, 9 Cir., 1981, 647 F.2d 42, 49.
Under Winans, patents did not cut off the fishing and hunting rights there involved, which were expressly reserved by treaty. Here, whether we look to the Executive Order of 1855 that created the old Klamath River Indian Reservation (see Mattz v. Arnett, supra, 412 U.S. at 483-484, 93 S.Ct. at 2247) or to the Executive Order of 1891, which created the Hoopa Valley Reservation Extension (Id. at 493, 93 S.Ct. at 2252), we find no such express reservation or creation of fishing or hunting rights. This may be because all of the reservation, when created, was riparian to the Klamath River, thus affording complete access for fishing by the reservation Indians to the lower twenty miles of the river. It probably did not occur to anyone to mention fishing rights. Similarly, the tribe occupied the reservation and could of course hunt upon it, so long as no action by the United States prevented it.
The language of the Act of 1892, 27 Stat. 52, is less explicit. The land of the Klamath River Reservation is "declared to be subject to settlement, entry, and purchase under the laws of the United States granting homestead rights and authorizing the sale of mineral, stone, and timber lands...." (§ 1). Reference is also made to the Act of 1887. (Id.) There can be no real doubt that it was intended that non-Indian settler-purchasers would take a fee-simple in the Indian land. Patents issued under the acts referred to are said to be "the most accredited type of conveyance known to our law." (United States v. Cherokee Nation, Ct.Cl., 1973, 474 F.2d 628, 634, fn. 16). We have also held that a patent pursuant to the homestead laws conveys all incidents of title free from any implied easement. United States v. Clarke, 9 Cir., 1976, 529 F.2d 984. See also Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 1979, 440 U.S. 668, 99 S.Ct. 1403, 59 L.Ed.2d 677.
Although the recent decision in Montana v. United States, 1981, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981), is not directly in point, the discussion in Part III of Justice Stewart's opinion, of the Crow's attempt to regulate hunting and fishing by non-Indians on reservation land owned in fee by non-members of the Tribe (at ---- - ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1254-59), strongly supports the conclusion that we have reached in this case. See particularly fn.9 at ---- - ----, 101 S.Ct. at 1255-56 regarding the Allotment Acts. See also Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 1978, 435 U.S. 191, 98 S.Ct. 1011, 55 L.Ed.2d 209.
The judge found that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(1) and (2) were also met. As to requirement (1)(A), the judge found the possibility of varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Simpson. We doubt the validity of this finding. A final decision of this court (or of the Supreme Court if it were to grant certiorari) would settle the legal issue presented, and would presumably control the decision in any other case. However, the judge also found that the requirements of (2) are met, and, at least as to the Yuroks, we agree. Simpson's position is the same as to all of them, so that final injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.
Plaintiffs argue that the class is inappropriate because it does not include the Yurok and Hoopa tribes, which may have fishing and hunting rights on behalf of their members, different from those of individual Indians. They also remind us that the tribes, by reason of sovereign immunity, cannot be sued. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 1978, 436 U.S. 49, 58-59, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 1676-77, 56 L.Ed.2d 106; Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Dep't of Game of Washington, 1977, 433 U.S. 165, 172-173, 97 S.Ct. 2616, 2621, 53 L.Ed.2d 667. Therefore, plaintiffs say, the tribes cannot be made members of the class. They also say that the absence of the tribe will mean that the court cannot make an effective final determination of the question that Simpson seeks to litigate. To all of this there are answers.
Second, plaintiffs themselves are asserting personal rights, founded upon their status as Yuroks, to enter, cross, and use Simpson's lands for hunting and fishing. It is only similar rights of other Yuroks that Simpson seeks to have litigated in its cross-action. The fact that it cannot litigate against the Tribe, either because the tribe has sovereign immunity or because it does not exist, should not bar Simpson's cross-action. Obviously, the ultimate judgment cannot bar the tribe. But that does not mean that the action cannot be maintained against individual Yuroks. Puyallup Tribe, supra, 433 U.S. at 173, 97 S.Ct. at 2621.
In short, we conclude that the class action is appropriate as to the Yuroks. We also conclude, however, that it is not appropriate, as to the Hoopas. In the first place, there is no showing that any Hoopas have made claims similar to the claims of the Yuroks. In the second place, neither of the plaintiffs is a Hoopa, and there is evidence of some disagreement between the Hoopas and the Yuroks as to the rights that accrue to them in their capacities as reservation Indians. See Short v. United States, Ct.Cl., 1973, 486 F.2d 561, regarding conflicting claims of Yuroks and Hoopas to the profits realized from timber, the Yuroks claiming a share of profits from timber located on the old Hoopa reservation (the "Hoopa Square"). It appears also that there have been complaints by the Hoopas that the fishing activities of the Yuroks on the Reservation and the Connecting link are damaging the fishery in the Hoopa Square. We conclude that the evidence does not support the court's finding that "the interests of the Yurok and Hoopa Indians ... coincide precisely" in this case. Given that the two plaintiffs here are Yuroks, we must conclude that the finding that plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Hoopa members of the class is not supported by the evidence. Moreover, because the Hoopa Square had a quite different origin from the Reservation, and the Connecting Strip had a still different origin, and because the history of each is different, and because the Act of 1892 does not apply to the Hoopa Square or the Connecting Strip, we conclude that there is a sufficient likelihood of conflict of interest between the Yuroks and the Hoopas, and a sufficient likelihood of inadequate representation of the Hoopas by the plaintiffs, to make the inclusion of the Hoopas in the class an abuse of discretion.