| OCR Text |
Show Determining, by the light of theae principles, the question whethar the provision of the treats zivine the right to hunt on imoccupied lands of the United States in the hunting distriEts is repealed in so far as t i e lsncls in such rlistricts are now embraced within the limits of the State of Wyoming, it becomes plain that the reoeal m d t s from the ooofliot between the troats and tho sct admittine that State into the Union. The two fazts, the privilege conferred and the act of admission, are irreconcilsble in the aenae that the two nuder no reasonable hypothesis can he con-strued as coexiatmng. The power of all the States to regulate the killing of game within their border will not be gsinadd, yet, if the treaty applies to the nnoooupied 1anA of the United States in the State of Wyoming, that State wonld be bereft of suoh power, since every isolated piece of land belonging to the United State8 ns a private owner, so lon-e as i t continued to be nnocouded land, wolxld be exempt in this reeard *om the authority of the State. Wyoming, then, will have been admitted into the Union, not asanequalmember, hut as one shorn of a legislative power vested in all the other States of the Union, n, power rasnlting from thefact of Gatehood and incident to its plenaryexistenoe. Nor need we atop to consider tho argument advanced et bar, that as the United States, under the authority delegated to it by the Constitut,ion in relation to Indian tribes, has a right to deal with thst auhjeot, therefore it has the power to esempt from the operation of State game laws enoh particular pieoe of land owned by it in private ownership within u. State, for nothing in this oase ahows that this power has been exerted by Congress. The enahling act declares thst the State of Wyoming is admitted on equal term with the other States, end this deole-ration, whioh ia aimply sn expression of the general rule, which presupposes that States, when admitted into the ITnion, are endowed with powera and attributes eaual in scooe to those en"joy.ed h"r the States a l r e a d~a dmitted.. reo- els env oresumn- " - tion that in thia partiaolar case Congrese intended to admit the State of Wyoming with diminished governmentd authority. The silence of the aot admitting. X V.s a-minz into the ~ n i o n&B to the reeervation of riehts in favor of thn In".ians is -ei ven increased significance by the fact that Congress in creating thu Territory expressly reserved such rights. Nor would this case he nffeotetl by oonoedin,n that Con.cre ss,. during the exiatenon of therrerritory,h all full authority in the escr~i seo f it8 treaty-making power to charge the Territory, or the land therein, with suoh eontrnetual burdens were deemed best, and that when they were imposed an n Territaryit would he dso within the power of Coogmss to continue them in the State on its admission into the Union. Here the enibliog act not only contains no expression of theintention of Congress to continue the burdens in question in the State, hut, on the contrary, its intent,ion not to do so is conveyed by the express terms of the aot of admission. Indeed, it may be further, for-the sake of the argument, conoeded thst where there are rigbta created by Congrass during the existence of n Territory whioh are of suoh s. nature as to imply their perpetuity, and the consequent purpose of Congress to continue them in the State, after its admission, such continustion will, as s matter of con-struction, be upheld, although the enabling act does not expressly so direct. Hare fhe nature of the right oreated gives rise to no such implioation of oontinnance, ainee, byits terms, it shows thst the burden imposed on theTerritorywaa esaantially perishable and intended to be of s. limited duration. Indeed, the whole argument of the defendant in error reats on the assumption that there was a perpetual right conveyed by the treaty, when in fact the privilege given was temporary and preca-rious. But the are-n ment e-o ea further than this. since it insist8 that. nlthou"ah hv" the treaty the hunting privilege was to cease henev ever the United States partad' merely with the title to any of ita lands, yet that pr ivi le~ew as to continue, although the United StStes Darted with its entire author& ove; the caotnre and killinrof game. Nor is there force in the suggestion that the cases of the Icanaas Indiana (5WaIlll7.,3 7) and the New York Indians (5 Wall., 761) s re in oonflict with these views. The tirst oase (that of the Kaness Indians) involved the right of the State to tax mo 96-6 |
