KLAMATH & MODOC TRIBES, ETC. v. Maison, Civ. A. No. 8081.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 8081. |
| Citation | 139 F. Supp. 634 |
| Parties | KLAMATH & MODOC TRIBES and YAHOOSKIN BAND OF SNAKE INDIANS OF THE KLAMATH RESERVATION in the State of Oregon, Seldon E. Kirk, Dibbon Cook, Delford Lang, Wernie Foster, Dice Crane, J. L. Kirk, Elnathan Davis, Boyd J. Jackson, Joe Miller, Jr.,—each on its or his own behalf and as representative of the Indians of the Klamath Reservation, Oregon, Plaintiffs, v. H. G. MAISON, individually and as Superintendent, Department of State Police, State of Oregon; J. H. Van Winkle, Chairman, Delbert Gildersleeve, Donald Mitchell, Kenneth G. Denman, and Elmer H. Balsiger,—each individually and as a member of the State Game Commission of the State of Oregon, Robert Y. Thornton, individually and as Attorney General of the State of Oregon, Defendants. The United States of America, Intervener. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
Mr. J. C. O'Neill, Klamath Falls, Or., and John W. Cragun (of Wilkinson, Boyden, Cragun & Barker), Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.
Charles F. Luce, Walla Walla, Wash., for Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation.
Arthur G. Higgs and John D. Nichols, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Oregon.
C. E. Luckey, U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for the United States.
The Court makes the following
1. Plaintiff Klamath & Modoc Tribes and Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians (hereinafter referred to as the "Klamath Tribe") is a recognized tribe or community of Indians organized under a constitution and by-laws approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and maintaining a tribal government and the ownership of tribal property in connection with the Klamath Reservation in the State of Oregon. Plaintiff Klamath Tribe entered into a treaty with the United States of America on October 14, 1864, 16 Stat. 707, hereinafter referred to as the "Treaty of 1864". The Klamath Tribe brought this suit on its own behalf as the owner of the hunting and trapping rights, privileges or immunities within the area of its aboriginal domain reserved to it by the Treaty of 1864, and as representative of its members who, in accordance with tribal law and custom have always exercised rights to hunt and trap within the said reserved area, herein referred to as the "reservation" or "Klamath Reservation".
2. In addition to the Klamath Tribe, nine individual members of the Tribe join as plaintiffs. Each is a member of the Executive Committee of the Klamath Tribe; and each owns or has exercised the right, privilege or immunity to hunt or trap on the Klamath Reservation pursuant to rights of the Tribe or its members referred to in Findings 5 to 9 and each sued on his own behalf and as representative of other members of the Klamath Tribe similarly situated. There are enrolled more than 1,800 members of the Klamath Tribe, each of whom has or asserts rights identical with those of the individual plaintiffs.
3. Defendants are officials or employees of the State of Oregon as follows: H. G. Maison is Superintendent, Department of State Police of the State of Oregon; J. H. Van Winkle is a member and is chairman and Delbert Gildersleeve, Donald Mitchell, Kenneth G. Denman and Elmer H. Balsiger are members of the State Game Commission; and Robert Y. Thornton is Attorney General.
4. At and long prior to the coming of the white man to their country, the aboriginal groups which compose the Klamath Tribe owned or occupied exclusively a vast domain of land in what are now the States of California and Oregon. There they exploited their domain in the manner of their culture, which was primarily a hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering culture. They derived an essential part of their livelihood from hunting and trapping, which they conducted at all seasons of the year without restriction other than that of their own needs and that imposed by their own tribal law or customs. The domain thus aboriginally owned, occupied and exploited included all the land later included within the Klamath Reservation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Adair
...to include, in addition, a grant of exclusive hunting and trapping rights. Kimball I, 493 F.2d at 566; Klamath & Modoc Tribes v. Maison, 139 F.Supp. 634, 637 (D.Or.1956), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 338 F.2d 620 (9th Cir.1964). As this court noted in Kimball The specific treaty provision ......
-
Anderson v. Gladden
...granted outright jurisdiction, such as it granted to Oregon and other states. Judge Solomon's opinion in Klamath & Modoc Tribes, etc., v. Maison, D.C.D. Or.1956, 139 F.Supp. 634, is not in conflict with my conclusions. The findings in that case dealt with the Indian treaty of October 14, 18......
-
Anderson v. Britton
...'at the earliest practicable time and in no event later than four years from the date of this Act.'' 1 In Klamath & Modoc Tribes, etc., v. Maison, D.C.1956, 139 F.Supp. 634, the U. S. District Court for Oregon held that Public Law 280 did not extend the hunting and trapping laws of the stat......
-
Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States
...with the consent and acquiescence of the State of Wisconsin. We are supported in our decision by the cases of Klamath & Modoc Tribes v. Maison, 139 F.Supp. 634 (D.Or.1956), Klamath & Modoc Tribes v. Maison, (unreported, United States District Court for the District of Oregon, No. 8081 (1963......
-
Protecting habitat for off-reservation tribal hunting and fishing rights: tribal comanagement as a reserved right.
...role" that hunting and trapping play in the lives of the Klamath tribal members and citing Klamath & Modoc Tribes v. Maison, 139 F.Supp. 634 (D. Or. (265) See discussion supra notes 166-81 and accompanying text. (266) See Vecsey, supra note 177, at 1-37 (describing role of religions bel......