United States v. Lineas Winans
Decision Date | 15 May 1905 |
Docket Number | No. 180,180 |
Citation | 49 L.Ed. 1089,25 S.Ct. 662,198 U.S. 371 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, Thomas Simpson, and White Swan, Appts. , v. LINEAS WINANS and Audubon Winans, Partners, Doing Business under the Firm Name of Winans Brothers |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Solicitor General Hoyt for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 371-375 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Charles H. Carey, F. P. Mays, and Huntington & Wilson for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 375-377 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:
This suit was brought to enjoin the respondents from obstructing certain Indians of the Yakima Nation, in the state of Washington, from exercising fishing rights and privileges on the Columbia river, in that state, claimed under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and the Indians, made in 1859.
There is no substantial dispute of facts, or none that is important to our inquiry.
The treaty is as follows:
'Guaranteeing, however, the right to all citizens of the United States to enter upon and occupy as settlers any lands not actually occupied and cultivated by said Indians at this time, and not included in the reservation above named. . . .
'The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where running through or bordering said reservation is further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land. . . .
The respondents or their predecessors in title claim under patents of the United States the lands bordering on the Columbia river, and under grants from the state of Washington to the shore land which, it is alleged, fronts on the patented land. They also introduced in evidence licenses from the state to maintain devices for taking fish, called fish wheels.
At the time the treaty was made the fishing places were part of the Indian country, subject to the occupancy of the Indians, with all the rights such occupancy gave. The object of the treaty was to limit the occupancy to certain lands, and to define rights outside of them.
The pivot of the controversy is the construction of the second pagagraph. Respondents contend that the words 'the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with the citizens of the territory' confer only such rights as a white man would have under the conditions of ownership of the lands bordering on the river, and under the laws of the state, and, such being the rights conferred, the respondents further contend that they have the power to exclude the Indians from the river by reason of such ownership. Before filing their answer respondents demurred to the bill. The court overruled the demurrer, holding that the bill stated facts sufficient to show that the Indians were excluded from the exercise of the rights given them by the treaty. The court further found, however, that it would 'not be justified in issuing process to compel the defendants to permit the Indians to make a camping ground of their property while engaged in fishing.' 73 Fed. 72. The injunction that had been granted upon the filing of the bill was modified by stipulation in accordance with the view of the court.
Testimony was taken on the issues made by the bill and answer, and upon the submission of the case the bill was dismissed, the court applying the doctrine expressed by it in United States v. Alaska Packers' Asso. 79 Fed. 152; United States v. The James G. Swan, 50 Fed. 108, expressing its views as follows:
The remarks of the court clearly stated the issue and the grounds of decision. The contention of the respondents was sustained. In other words, it was decided that the Indians acquired no rights but what any inhabitant of the territory or state would have. Indeed, acquired no rights but such as they would have without the treaty. This is certainly an impotent outcome to negotiations and a convention which seemed to promise more, and give the word of the nation for more. And we have said we will construe a treaty with the Indians as 'that unlettered people' understood it, and 'as justice...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robinson v. Salazar
...v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681, 684-85, 62 S.Ct. 862, 86 L.Ed. 1115 (1942) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 380-81, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905) ("we will construe a treaty with the Indians as 'that unlettered people' understood it, and 'as justice and ......
-
No Oilport! v. Carter, Civ. A. No. C80-360M
...number of rights. It guarantees the Tribes physical access to their "usual and accustomed" fishing grounds. United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905); Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation v. Alexander, 440 F.Supp. 553 (D.Or.1977). It guarantees ......
-
Apache Stronghold v. United States
...which courts have found individual Indian fishing and/or hunting rights reserved in treaties. (Doc. 51 at 3-4) (citing 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905) ). But sovereign nations cannot fish or hunt. They can, however, hold title to land. Compare, e.g. , Bess v. Spitzer , 459 ......
-
United States v. Washington
...515, 528, 8 L.Ed. 483 (1832) ; Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 577, 28 S.Ct. 207, 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908) ; U.S. v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905). Finally, treaties must be “viewed in historical context and given a ‘fair appraisal’,” in light of how treaty lan......
-
Native Treaties and Conditional Rights After Herrera.
...County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251, 269 (1992); United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 380-81 (1905). (44.) See Worcester, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) at 582 (McLean, J., concurring). (45.) Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 675 (1912); David M. B......
-
Idaho nibbles at Montana: carving out a third exception for tribal jurisdiction over environmental and natural resource management.
...United States v. Washington line of cases, beginning with the infamous Boldt decision in 1974, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974)). (157) 198 U.S. 371 (158) Id. at 378 (quoting Treaty with the Yakamas, June 9, 1855, art. 3, 12 Stat. 951, 953, 2 KAPPLER 698, 699). (159) Id. at 381. (160) Id.......
-
Fulfilling the executive's trust responsibility toward the native nations on environmental issues: a partial critique of the Clinton administration's promises and performances.
...the four Columbia Basin treaties). (143) Washington State Commercial Passenger, 443 U.S. at 685-87. (144) See United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381-82 (1905). (145) The Columbia River Basin salmon runs, once the largest in the world, have declined over 90% from historical levels. CRITF......
-
Conflict comes to roost! The Bureau of Reclamation and the federal Indian trust responsibility.
...564 (1908). (62) Id. at 576-77. (63) Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404, 412-13 (1968); United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371,381 (1905) (stating a treaty is "not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant from them--a reservation of those not (64) United States v.......