| OCR Text |
Show It may at once be conceded that the words "unoccupied lends of the United State~tes,Ni f they stood alone, and were detached from the other provisions of the treaty on the same subject, would convey the meaning of lands owned by the United Staterr, and tho title to or occupenwy of which had not been disposed of. But in intemreting. these words in the treat.y the.y can not be considered alone. but must be construe; with reference to the context in which they are found. bdkptiug this elementarymethod, it becomes at once clear that the unoccupied lands contemplated were not all such lands of the United States wherever situated, but were onlylmdr ofthat character embraced within what the treaty denominates as hunting districts. This view follows aa a. necessary reanlt from tho provision which aaye that the right to hunt on the unaooupied lands shall only be availed of as long as peace snb-sists on the borders of the hunting districts. Unless the distriots thus referred to be taken as controlling the words nnocoupied lands, then the reference to the hunt-ing distriots would became wholly meaningleas, and the cardinal rule of interpreta-tion would he violated whioh ordains that such eonstruotion be adopted as gives effect to all tho lan-e usre of the statute. Nor oan this oonseuuenoe be avoided bv sayingthot the words "hunting districts" simply sipifiedphces wheregamewmto (be) found, for thia would read out of the treaty the provision as "topeaoe on the bor-ders" of s;ch districts. which clearl"v minted to tG faot that tho territurv referred - " to was one beyond the borders of the white settlements. The unoccupied lands referred to being therefore cantained within the hnnting. tlistricta, bg tho ssoertsin-ment of the lattter the former will he neoeaszwily determined, as the iesr is contained in the greater. The eluoidation of this issue will be msde plain by an appreciation of the situation existing at the time of the adoption of the treaty, of the neoeasitias which brought it into being, aud oP the purposes intended to be by it accomplished. When, in 1868, the treaty was framed the progress of the white settlements west-ward had hardly, except in a very scattered way, reaahed the oonfines of the plsoe selected for tho Indisn reservation. Whilst thia was true, the march of adraucing oiviliaation foreshadowed the faot that the wilderness which lay on all sides of tho point selected for the reservation was destined to he occupied and settled by the white man, hence interfering with the hitherto untrammeled right of occupancy of the Indian. For thia reason, to protest his rights and to preserve for him a home where his tribal relations might be e~ljoyed under the shelter of the anthority of the United Stateq the roservstion was created. Whilst can5ing him to the reser-vation, andin order to give him the privilege of hunting in the designa6ed districts, so long ss the neeavaities of civilization did not require otherwise, the provision in question wua doubtless adopted, oare being, however, taken to make the whole enjoyment in this regard dependent absolutely upon the will of Congress. To pre-vent thirr privilege from becoming d s n g m s to the peaoe of the new ssttloments na they advanoed, the proviaion allowing the Indian to avail bimself of it only whilst pectooroigned on the borders was inserted. To suppose that the words of the treaty intended to give to the Indian the right to enter into already established States and seek out every portion of unocoupied Government lmd and there exerciso tho right of hunting, in violation of the municipal law, would be to presume that the treaty was 80 drawn as to frnstrate the very object it had in view. It would also render necessary theassumption that Congress, whilat preparing the way, by the treaty, for new settlements and new Stabs, yet crested a provision not only detrimental to their future well-being, but also irreconcilably in conflict with the powers of the States already exiating. It is undoubted that the place in the State of ITyoming where the game in question was killed vas at the time of the treaty, in 1868, embrsoed within the hunting districts therein referred to. But this fact does not justify theimplication that the treaty authorized the continued enjoyment of the right of killing game therein when the territory oel~sed to be a part of the hunting districts and came within the authority and jurisdiction of a State. The right to hunt given by the treaty clearly oantemplated the disappearance of the conditions theroin speoilicd. Indeed, it msde %he right depend on vhether the land in the hunting districts was unooanpied publio land of the United States. |
