Court Opinion

ID: 9659874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:56:41.940822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:12.342409
License: Public Domain

Lindemer, J.
(dissenting). With Justice Williams we agree that the Treaty of 1836 granted the Chippewa Indians the right to fish in Pendills Bay.
We cannot conclude, however, that that treaty secured that right indefinitely. The rights arising under Article Third were limited "for the term of five years from the date of ratification of this treaty, and no longer, unless the United States shall grant them permission to remain on said *67lands for a longer period”. We are in agreement with Justice Williams that those rights were extinguished by the Treaty of July 31, 1855.
In like manner, the rights established by Article Thirteenth were limited by the language "until the land is required for settlement”. Our understanding that these rights were meant to be temporary is also supported by the language of Article Eighth.
"It is agreed, that as soon as the said Indians desire it, a deputation shall be sent to the southwest of the Missouri River, there to select a suitable place with the final settlement of said Indians, which country, so selected in reasonable extent, the United States will forever guaranty and secure to said Indians. * * * When the Indians wish it, the United States will remove them, at their expense, provide them a year’s subsistance in the country to which they go, and furnish the same articles and equipments to each person as are stipulated to be given to the Pottowatomies in the final treaty of cession concluded at Chicago.”
Article Eighth is a reflection of the United States’ policy of removing Indians from their native lands in order to make available new territories for white settlements and to avoid conflicts between Indians and settlers. In light of the Federal government’s removal policy and those limitations placed in the treaty, we must conclude that the fishing rights secured under the Treaty of 1836 were temporary in nature and meant to expire in a short time.
Article Thirteenth fishing rights arise from the language "usual privileges of occupancy, until the land is required for settlement”. In our opinion, Article Thirteenth is susceptible of only one interpretation, that is, settlement of the land terminates all usual privileges of occupancy associated with the land. In construing Article Thirteenth to *68include the right to fish we had to conclude that fishing was a usual privilege of occupancy of land. To hold that "the ceded water areas of the Great Lakes have obviously not been required for settlement, and therefore the fishing rights reserved by the Chippewas in these areas have not been terminated” is logically inconsistent and strains the treaty language beyond the breaking point. We seriously doubt that the Chippewas would have understood the term "usual privileges of occupancy” to have two different meanings. Nor, considering the Indians’ way of life, do we believe that the Chippewas would have thought that the privilege of fishing in a body of water could be separated from the privilege of using the land surrounding or abutting it.
We further conclude that Article 3 of the Treaty of July 31, 1855, extinguished any fishing rights that existed pursuant to Article Thirteenth of the Treaty of 1836. Article 3 reads:
"The Ottawa and Chippewa Indians hereby release and discharge the United States from all liability on account of former treaty stipulations, it being distinctly understood and agreed that the grants and payments hereinbefore provided for are in lieu and satisfaction of all claims, legal and equitable on the part of said Indians jointly and severally against the United States, for land, money or other thing guaranteed to said tribes or either of them by the stipulations of any former treaty or treaties, excepting, however, the right of fishing and encampment secured to the Chippewas of Sault Ste. Marie by the Treaty of June 16, 1820.”
We wholeheartedly agree with the circuit judge’s opinion in that "[sjince the Treaty of July 31, 1855 specifically provided that grants and payments were in lieu and satisfaction of all claims for land, money or other thing guaranteed by the *69'stipulations’ of any former treaty, it is difficult to conceive how it could have been made more clear that any special right provided for in a 'stipulation’ in the treaty of 1836 was canceled”.
The Treaty of July 31, 1855, reflects a marked departure from the policy of removal of the 1836 treaty. The Treaty of 1855 provides for the dissolution of the tribal structure of the Chippewa, sums of money and individual allotments of land to individual Indians, and assistance in the settlement and assimilation of the Chippewa into their new life style as settlers. It provides them with schools, blacksmith shops, agricultural implements, carpenter’s tools, household furniture, building materials and cattle.
In Tulee v Washington, 315 US 681; 62 S Ct 862; 86 L Ed 1115 (1942), the United States Supreme Court examined the negotiations preceding the treaty agreement therein reached and was "impressed by the strong desire the Indians had to retain the right to hunt and fish in accordance with the immemorial customs of their tribes”. 315 US at 684. Here, we have examined the treaty negotiations and find they are bereft of any mention of fishing rights, immemorial or otherwise. Rather, both parties anticipated that the Chippewa were no longer to live as they historically had.
That the Chippewa were to adopt the life style of the citizens of Michigan is indicated not only by the language of the treaty, but also by the expressed anticipations of both parties during the treaty negotiations. Indian agent Henry C. Gilbert told the Indians that it was the object of the government "to induce you to settle upon the soil, & procure a livelihood by agriculture”. The Indi*70ans expressed great concern in selecting the lands they were to receive and securing good title to those lands. As-sa-gon, an Indian negotiator, observed that many of his native lands were not good. He added:
"Much of them are heavy and swampy & we must select only such as are good for agriculture.”
Another Indian negotiator, Was-son, remarked:
"We have all come to the question in regard to the lands. We know our great father will give us these lands for a homestead. I have abandoned the woods for a maintenance & am now a farmer. I no longer go into the woods & look for wild animals when I want to eat; but I kill one of the cattle I raise for myself.”
Was-son’s remarks were the only reference to hunting or fishing during the treaty negotiations.
The Chippewa clearly expected that they were to be assimilated into the white society. As-sa-gon expressed concern over the slow progress of the Indian children in learning the English language and requested that more competent schoolmasters be hired. Mene-a-du-pe-na-se asked that additional educational funds be earmarked for college tuition for the Indian boys.
The intent of both parties was to plan for the future in light of present realities. "We are”, Assa-gon stated, "now acting for our children”. The future contemplated was an end to the traditional life style of the Chippewa. The reason no hunting or fishing rights were retained by the treaty was that such rights were not intended to be retained.
We would affirm the convictions.
Coleman, J., concurred with Lindemer, J.