OCR Text |
Show - 1 9 - The language of counsel is that "any reservation in the agreement v.ith the Indians, oxpros; od or implied, whoroby tho wators of Milk Rivor wore not to be subject of appropriation by tho citizons and inhabitants of said State, was repealed by tho act of admission." But to establish tho repeal counsel rely substantially upon the same argument that they advanoe agoinst tho intention oT the agrooment to rcsorvo tho wators. The power of the Government to rcsorvo tho waters end exempt them from appropriation under the State laws is not denied, and could not be. The United States v. The Rio Grande Ditch & Irrigation Co., 174 U. S. 690, 702; United Statos v. V.'inans, 198 U. S. 371. That the Government did reserve them wo havo decided, and for a use whioh would be necossarily continued through years. This was done May 1, 1088, and it would be extreme to bcliovc that within a year congress destroyed tho • reservation and took from tho Indians the consideration of their grant, loaving them a barren waste-took from thorn tho moans of continuing thoir old habits, yot did not loavn thorn $ the power to change to now ones. Appellants' argument upon the incidental repack of tho agrooment by the admission of Montana into tho Union and tho power over the wators of Milk River which tho State thcroby Required to disporc of them under its lavra, is elaborate and able, but our construction of the agreement and its effoct make it unnecessary to answer tho argument in detail. For tho Eame reason wo have not discussed the doctrine of riparian rights urged by the Govornmcnt. |