United States v. O'Brien
| Decision Date | 24 September 1903 |
| Docket Number | 849. |
| Citation | 170 F. 508 |
| Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Washington |
| Parties | UNITED STATES et al. v. O'BRIEN et al. |
P. C Knox, Atty. Gen., Wilson R. Gay, U.S. Dist. Atty., and Edward E. Cushman, Asst, U.S. Dist. Atty.
J. W Robinson, for defendants.
W. B Stratton, Atty. Gen., for intervener.
On Demurrer to Bill of Complaint.
It is my opinion that the whole of the Squaxon Island was lawfully reserved for the use of the Indians, and that by the treaty referred to in the bill of complaint, and the laws of the United States, it has always been unlawful for white men to reside upon or occupy any part of said island. The Indians for whose use the island was reserved, used and occupied the entire island, including the beach and shore, at the date of the enabling act and the adoption of our state Constitution, and by the terms of the enabling act, and the compact between the people of this state and the United States government, contained in the Constitution, this state entirely disclaimed 'all right and title * * * to all lands * * * owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes.'
This disclaimer applies not only to lands owned by the Indians, whether patented or unpatented, but also to all lands held-- that is to say, occupied and used-- by individual Indians or by tribes.
It is my opinion that the proposed sale of a rim encircling this island reservation is not only an injustice to the Indians, but an unwarranted exercise of power by officers of the state government, and that the defendants have acquired no rights whatever by virtue of the contracts under which they claim.
Demurrer overruled.
On Motion for Judgment on the Bill of Complaint and Answer.
All of the defendants have joined in an answer to the bill of complaint herein, which answer contains a full and candid admission of all of the facts set forth in the bill of complaint which in the opinion of the court are material. By denial of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, the answer makes an issue as to whether the Squaxon Indians have worked or cultivated oyster beds or clam beds in tide waters surrounding the island; but I hold that it is immaterial whether the Indians did or did not work or cultivate oyster beds or clam beds, since enough is admitted to make certain that the Indians by their continued exclusive possession and use of the whole island held and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Taylor
...Oil & Gas Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 77, 43 S. Ct. 60, 67 L. Ed. 140; United States v. Romaine (C. C. A.) 255 F. 253; United States v. O'Brien (C. C.) 170 F. 508; United States v. Partello (C. C.) 48 F. 671; Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. Alaska, 249 U. S. 53, 39 S. Ct. 208, 63 L. Ed. 474......
-
North Side Canal Co. v. Twin Falls Canal Co.
...198 U. S. 371, 49 L. Ed. 1089; United States v. Rio Grande Irr. Co., 19 S. Ct. 770, 174 U. S. 690-703, 43 L. Ed. 1136; United States v. O'Brien (C. C.) 170 F. 508. Section 8 of the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 390, Comp. St. § 4707, "Nothing in this act shall be construed as a......
-
U.S. v. Aam
...the subject tidelands were "held" by the tribe in 1889 and accordingly, Washington was required to disclaim title. See United States v. O'Brien, 170 F. 508, 508-09 (C.C.W.D.Wash.1903, 1904) (holding that beaches and shores of reservation island were being used by an Indian tribe and therefo......
-
In re Farmers' Supply Co.
...unless the circumstances were such that the giving and acceptance of the mortgage constituted a preference under sections 60a and 60b of [170 F. 508.] the bankrupt act, or was with the intent to injure, delay, or defraud the company's creditors, or any of them, in violation of section 3 of ......
-
Table of Cases
...1524 (9th Cir. 1993):12.4(3) United States v. Consol. Mines & Smelting Co., 455 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1971):20.6 United States v. O'Brien, 170 F. 508 (C.C. Wash. 1903): 18.7(5) United States v. Washington, 694 F.2d 188 (9th Cir. 1982), cert. denied sub nom. State Dep't of Game v. United States......
-
§ 18.7 - Points of Discussion on the Public Trust Doctrine
...Washington state include tidelands and portions of navigable rivers and lakes within their boundaries. See, e.g., United States v. O'Brien, 170 F. 508 (C.C. Wash. 1903) (holding the tidelands around Squaxin Island are included within the reservation and enjoining the state from selling said......