OCR Text |
Show REPORT OF THE COMMISBIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. 93 ments in Utah 81.25 per acre out of the proceeds arising from the sale of their reservation in Dolorado. Messrs. James Jeffreys, Ross Gaffin, and Howell P. Myt~nha ve been appointed commissioners under the act of 1894, and have entered npon their duties under instructions from this office dated August 25,1897, approved by the Department August 27,1897. FISHFJRIES IN WABHLNGTON. A report to the Attorney-General, dated March 15,1897, from William H. Brinker, United States attorney for the district of Washington, states that upon the request of certain Indians of the Lummi tribe he was directed by the Department of Justice to cooperate with Messrs. Eerr & McCord in the commencement and prosecution of a suit against the Alaska Packers' Association et al., to prevent interferenee by that association with the fishery rights of the Lummi Indians at the ancient fisheries located ou the reef at Point Roberts, Washington, which were secured to them by the treaty of January 22,1855 (12 Stat., 928). A suit was commenced to enjoin the defendants from interfering with the Indians in fishing at such fisheries, a large amount of testimony was taken, and the case was finally submitted to the United States district court upon the pleadings and proofs. The court, on March 13, 1897, decided the case, finding that the ohargcs in the bill had not been sustained, and that the defendants were licensed nuder the laws of the State of Washington to fish in those waters, and that no rights of the Indians had been interfered with. Mr. Brinker considers this a very important case, which shonld not be permitted to rest upon the deoision of a merenisiprius court. There is another case pending in the southern division of his district entitled The United States w. Winans Brothers, for a violation of the fishery rights of the Yakima Indians secured to them by treaty of June 9,1855 (12 Stat., 951), and there are a large number of Indian tribes in Wash-ington with which treaties have been made from time to time by the Government concerning whose rights under the treaties there is liable to be more or less litigation. He therefore thinks it important that this c;we shonld be appealed and an authoritative decision construing thesetreaties rendered which wonld be binding on all parties j especially so as the provisions of the treaties npon fishery questions are all sub-stantially the same, and a construction of one treaty by the Supreme Court wonld perhaps put an end to further litigation. Mr. Brinker disagrees with Judge Hanford upon his construction of these treaties and insists that the language of the treaty with the Lummi Indiana-"that there is hereby secured to said Indians the right to take fish in all accustomed fishing places'l-means aomethiug more than the mere right to fish in all the waters of the State in common with other citizens; and that it was intended to secure to them in all events the right to fish at their usual and accustomed fishing places. Otherwise the provision of the treaty would be meaningless, and the con- |