United States v. Winans
Decision Date | 31 March 1896 |
Citation | 73 F. 72 |
Parties | UNITED STATES et al. v. WINANS et al. |
Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Washington, Southern Division |
Wm. H Brinker, U.S. Atty.
F. P Mays, for defendants.
The bill of complaint in this case claims for the Yakama Indians an unlimited right to take fish from the Columbia river at a certain specified place, and a right of ingress and egress to and from said place, and a right to erect temporary buildings for curing fish, and for the habitations of said Indians during each fishing season, to the same extent as if such rights were especially granted and conferred by a patent from the proprietor and sovereign of the country. The basis for the claims is to be found in the reservations contained in the treaty between the United States and the Indians of the Yakama Nation, whereby the said Indians ceded to the United States the Indian title to certain lands. The provisions of the treaty material to be considered are as follows:
'Article 1. The aforesaid confederated tribes and bands of Indians hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the United States all their right, title, and interest in and to the lands and country occupied and claimed by them. * * *
'Art 2. There is, however, reserved from the lands above ceded for the use and occupation of the aforesaid confederated tribes and bands of Indians, the tract of land included within the following boundaries, * * * all of which tract shall be set apart, and, so far as necessary, surveyed and marked out, for the exclusive use and benefit of said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as an Indian reservation; nor shall any white man, excepting those in the employment of the Indian department, be permitted to reside upon the said reservation without permission of the tribe and the superintendent and agent. And the said confederated tribes and bands agree to remove to, and settle upon, the same, within one year after the ratification of this treaty. In the meantime it shall be lawful for them to reside upon any ground not in the actual claim and occupation of citizens of the United States; and upon any ground claimed or occupied, if with the permission of the owner or claimant. 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. * * * * * * '
It is plain that the treaty, whether considered as a grant from the United States government to the Indians or as a reservation by the Indians, secures to the Indians rights of two kinds viz. exclusive rights and rights to be enjoyed in common with citizens. The rights of fishery within the tract set apart for the Indians, and in streams bordering the same, are exclusive in favor of the Indians; while the right to take fish at usual and accustomed places, outside of reservations, is to be enjoyed in common with citizens of the territory. This common right of fishery...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hough v. Porter
... ... encouraged and acquiesced in by the government for many years throughout the Pacific Coast states, until in recognition there [98 P. 1090] of Act Cong. July 26, 1866, c. 262, 9, 14 Stat. 253, 7 ... Broder v. Water Company, 101 U.S. 274, 25 L.Ed. 790; United States v. Rio Grande Irr. Co., 174 U.S. 690, 19 Sup.Ct. 770, 43 L.Ed. 1136; Gutierres v ... Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 Sup.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089. In that case a suit was brought to enjoin the owners ... ...
-
McKnight v. United States
... ... The right and duty of the government to protect such ... conditional ownership of the Indians does not admit of doubt ... United States v. Flournoy Live Stock & Real Estate Company ... (C.C.) 69 F. 886; Id ... 71 F. 576; United States ... v. Mullin (D.C.) 71 F. 685; United States v. Winans ... (C.C.) 73 F. 72; Beck v. Real Estate Co., 65 F ... 30, 12 C.C.A. 497; Truscott v. Hurlbut Land & Cattle ... Company, 73 F. 64, 19 C.C.A. 374, and cases supra ... The act ... conferring citizenship, with its accompanying rights, upon ... Indian women who marry white ... ...
-
United States v. Gray
...it has capacity to sue to enforce and protect the treaty right of Indians to fish in waters outside Indian reservations. United States v. Winans (C.C.) 73 F. 72, 75. breach by lessees of their covenants in leases with Indian allottees, the terms and conditions of which were prescribed and a......
-
United States v. Colvard
...4th) 53 F.(2d) 300; United States v. Boyd (C.C.A.4th) 83 F. 547; Id. (C.C.) 68 F. 577; In re Celestine (D.C.) 114 F. 551, 552; U. S. v. Winans (C.C.) 73 F. 72, 75; United States v. Flournoy Live-Stock & Real-Estate Co. (C.C.) 71 F. 576, 579; Id. (C.C.) 69 F. 886, 894. And particularly is th......
-
Protecting habitat for off-reservation tribal hunting and fishing rights: tribal comanagement as a reserved right.
...to Yakama. This Article will respect the Nation's usage and refer to the Nation as the Yakama throughout. (26) See United States v. Winans, 73 F. 72, 75 (D. Wash. (27) Winans, 198 U.S. at 381. (28) Id. at 380-81 (finding that, at treaty time, the tribes were sovereigns whose rights over the......
-
The spirit of the salmon: how the tribal restoration plan could restore Columbia basin salmon.
...notes 387-97 and accompanying text (tribes as comanagers). (368) 198 U.S. 371 (1905). (369) Id. (370) Id. at 379; United States v. Winans, 73 F. 72, 75 (D. Wash. (371) Winans, 198 U.S. at 381. (372) Id. at 381-82: [T]he future of ownership of the lands, therefore, was foreseen and provided ......