Opinion ID: 1592875
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Does the right to fish include the right to fish in Lake Superior?

Text: The trial court determined that although the 1854 treaty did grant the Indians the right to fish, such right did not extend to the waters of Lake Superior. It ruled that such right did extend to the waters within the reservation. Since the alleged violations apparently occurred on Lake Superior, and not on the reservation, we are not concerned on these appeals with the extent of the appellants' fishing rights within the reservation. In concluding that the fishing rights did not extend to the waters of Lake Superior, the trial court reasoned that since Wisconsin was admitted to the Union in 1848, in 1854 the federal government did not have the power to give the Chippewa fishing rights in Lake Superior because the lake was under the jurisdiction of the state. We disagree. The enabling act which created the state of Wisconsin is an Act of Congress which can be superseded by a treaty. [29] Even though Wisconsin was created by 1848 legislation, Congress still had the power which it exercised in the 1854 treaty to convey fishing rights to the Chippewa. In Menominee Tribe v. United States , [30] the same argument was made that the federal government could not extend to the Indians what the state of Wisconsin owned. The United States Supreme Court rejected this proposition: If any hiatus in title to the reservation lands in question occurred between 1848 and 1854, any jurisdiction that the State may have acquired over those would not have survived the Treaty of 1854. The Treaty of Wolf River was, under Article VI of the Constitution, the `supreme law of the land,' and the exercise of rights on reservation lands guaranteed to the tribe by the Federal Government would not be subject to state regulation, at least in absence of a cession by Congress. Cf. Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U. S. 504, 514. In this connection it should be noted that in 1853 the Wisconsin Legislature consented to the establishment of the Menominee Reservation subsequently confirmed by the 1854 Treaty (1853 Wis. Jt. Res., c I), an action which can be fairly construed as a disclaimer of any jurisdiction the State may have possessed. We find no valid distinction and none is asserted for holding that the Indians may fish in reservation waters but not on the waters of Lake Superior, their traditional fishing ground. On this issue the Michigan case of Jondreau [31] is directly in point. In that case it was pointed out that the Chippewa would never have consented to such a provision in their treaty because of the long ties between the tribe and Lake Superior. The court said that the Indians would assume that the right to fish meant the right to fish [in Lake Superior]. [32] In deciding whether the fishing rights granted by the treaty include fishing rights in Lake Superior, again the intent of the parties is important. The precise question of adjacent waters to an Indian reservation was reached by the United States Supreme Court in Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States. [33] In that case it was concluded that the fishing rights extended to the adjacent waters for the following reason: . . . The Indians could not sustain themselves from the use of the upland alone. The use of the adjacent fishing grounds was equally essential. Without this the colony could not prosper in that location. The Indians naturally looked on the fishing grounds as part of the islands and proceeded on that theory in soliciting the reservation. They had done much for themselves and were striving to do more. Evidently Congress intended to conform its action to their situation and needs. The same circumstances apply here. Whether the right to fish in Lake Superior is denominated off-reservation rights or interpreted to be inherent rights under the treaty, the result is the samethe Chippewa are entitled to the right to fish Lake Superior. The Memorial of 1854 is also important because, as noted in the cited portion of the Menominee decision, such a memorial may be construed as a disclaimer by the state of jurisdiction over the lands or waters involved. There is nothing to suggest, as the attorney general argues, that this Memorial was intended to limit the Chippewa's rights to fish in Lake Superior. We conclude, therefore, that the fishing rights granted by the 1854 treaty do extend to Lake Superior.