OCR Text |
Show REPORT OF THE COXMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. 73 L lpil of the United States, the fourth article of which treaty provides as follows : The Indians herein named agree, when the agency house and other buildings shsll he constmcted ou their reservations named, they will make said reservations their permsnent home snd they will make no permanent settlement elsewhere; but they shall have the right to hunt on t,he unoccupied lands of the United States so long as gamemay he found thereon end 80 long a8 peace subsists among the whitea and Indisna on the borders of the hunting districts. The Shoshone and Bannock Indians knew nothing about what is known now in the game laws of the various States as a "close season," during which hunting is prohibited by law. Their treaty must be con-strued therefore as to mean that these Indians should have the right to hunt on unoecupied lands of the United States where game may be found and at any and all times of the year. The laws of the State of Wyoming which prohibit hunting within that State for certain kinds of game during certain months must be construed in the light of the treaty granting rights to these Indians to hunt on the unoccupied lauds within the State, so far as they apply to the Shoshone, and Bannock Iudians. It is not competent for the State to pass any law which would modify, limit, or in any way ambridgteh e right of the Iudians to hunt as guaranteed by thetreaty. The fact, as shown in theofficialoorrespond-ence above quoted, that the Bannock Indians, against whom complaint was made and against whom the people of Jacksons Hole country have been so threatening in their demonstrations, were encamped 35 or 40 miles from any settlement in a wild and almost impenetrable country would indicate that this section of country was nuoccupied lands of the United States, and that the Indians therefore had a perfect right, and violated no law, in being there to hunt game for subsistence. It is shown by the official reports from Agent Teter and army offi-cers that the Bannock Indians were not engaged in a wanton killing of game, but that they were in that section of country for the pnr-pose of hunting for subsistence and to prepare against the approach-ing winter. This they had a perfect right to do, and the action of the authorities of Wyoming in arresting some of them under provisions of the laws of that State and imposing fines under Baid laws was unlaw-ful, as was held by the Supreme Court in Hauensteiu v. Lynham: '1 If the law of a State is cont rar~to a treaty it is void?' Therefore for the purpose to which the laws of Wyoming were applied by the authori-ties of that St,ate, viz, to prohibit the Bannock Iudians from hunting on unoecupied lands of the United States therein and to punish them therefor, the game laws of the State of Wyoming are absolutely null and void, and the authorities of the State took this action on their own re~ponsibilitya nd were trespassers on the rights of the Indians to that extent. (See Poindexter v. Greenhow, Virginia coupon cases, 114 U. S., 270.) The fines imposed upon them, the confiscation of their property, and the imprisonment of some ake all illegal, for which the United Statea would seem to be responsible to the Indians under |