OCR Text |
Show - 14 objection on that grour,&. Union & Plantoro Bank v. Memphis, 139 U. S. 71, 75. •Under the just and reasonable construction of this agreement with the Indians, considered in the light of all tho circumstanoes and of its oxprcss purposo, the Indians did not thcroby oodo or relinquish to tho United States tho right to appropriate tho wators of Milk Rivor nocesrary to their uso for agricultural and other purposes upon the reservation, but retained this right, as an appurtenance to the land which thoy rotaincd, to the full extent in which it had been vested in thorn under formor troaties, and tho right thus retained and vested in them under the agreement of 1888, at a time whon Montana was still a Territory of tho Unitod Statos, could not bo divested under any subsequent legislation either of tho Territory or of the State. Vihilo the Unitod Statos may itself abrogate rights granted to the Indians under a treaty with them, it alone has this power, and unless such rights aro abrogated by tho United Statos itself by subooquont loaislation it is well sottlod that all rights acquired by the Indians under tho treaty arc to bo fully protected against inva; ion by othor parties. The Choro-kee ITation v. Goorgia, 5 Pet. 1; United StatcB v. Cook, 19 Wall.591. |