United States v. Cutler, 2547.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 2547.,2547. |
| Citation | 37 F. Supp. 724 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CUTLER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
John A. Carver, U. S. Dist. Atty., and E. H. Casterlin and Paul S. Boyd, Asst. U. S. Dist. Attys., all of Boise, Idaho, for plaintiff.
Ben W. Davis and Ralph H. Jones, both of Pocatello, Idaho, for defendant.
An information was filed against the defendant, charging him with a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty of August 16, 1916, 39 Stat. 1702, and the Act of July 3, 1918, as amended, 16 U.S.C.A. § 703 et seq., which is a treaty between the United States and Great Britain, in the killing of a wild duck after 4 P. M.
A motion to quash and a demurrer were presented by the defendant, which assert that the information fails to state a public offense against the laws of the United States.
The principal and controlling question presented is; Can Congress, after the adoption of the original treaty of July 3, 1868 and ratified February 16, 1869, 15 Stat. 673, between the United States and the Shoshone (Eastern Band) and Bannock Tribes of Indians, make it an offense, by statute, to kill "at any time or in any manner," any migratory bird included within the terms of the convention between the United States and Great Britain on August 16, 1916, 39 Stat. 1702, and as amended July 3, 1918, by an Act of Congress?
The original treaty as ratified, and which has not been modified, expressly, and in plain words, provides that an Indian shall have the right to hunt on unoccupied lands of the United States so long as game may be found thereon, within the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, which was set apart for their use. The nature of the grant embodied in the treaty was not one to the Indians, but was one from them to the United States, and all rights not specifically granted were reserved to them. Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 28 S.Ct. 207, 52 L.Ed. 340; United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089. It contains no provisions that the United States shall have the right by statute or regulation to prohibit the Indians to hunt, at any time and in any manner, any birds. That right was reserved to the Indians in the grant from them, which was an exclusive one within the reservation, and when in considering treaties with Indians and Acts of Congress relating to their rights, we should not forget the well known liberal application of the principle, that grants by them should be regarded "strictissimi juris" and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. White
...tribal hunting rights. Based upon the congressional silence which underlies the statute's enactment and upon United States v. Cutler, 37 F.Supp. 724 (D.Idaho 1941), the trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3731, the government appeals the dismissal. W......
-
People of State of Cal. v. Quechan Tribe of Indians
...hunt to the same extent as can a Quechan Tribal member. The latter is probably immune from these restrictions. See United States v. Cutler, 37 F.Supp. 724 (D.Idaho 1941). 5 No case discussing whether the grant of jurisdiction under PL 280 carries with it the right of a state to send its per......
-
U.S. v. Tawahongva
...treaty right was not clearly abrogated in the MBTA); United States v. Abeyta, 632 F.Supp. 1301, 1307 (D.N.M.1986); United States v. Cutler, 37 F.Supp. 724, 725 (D.Idaho 1941). This Court is not bound by the holding of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals or other District Courts, but is boun......
-
United States v. State of Washington
...897 (9th Cir. 1956); 338 F.2d 307 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 924, 85 S.Ct. 1558, 14 L.Ed.2d 683 (1964) United States v. Cutler, 37 F.Supp. 724 (D.Idaho 1941) United States v. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S. 506, 60 S.Ct. 653, 84 L. Ed. 894 (1940) United States v. Holliday, 70......