Newspaper Archive of
Shelton Mason County Journal
Shelton, Washington
Get your news here
News of Mason County, WA
Mason County Journal
September 9, 1971     Shelton Mason County Journal
PAGE 16     (16 of 24 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
PAGE 16     (16 of 24 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Full Size Image
September 9, 1971

Newspaper Archive of Shelton Mason County Journal produced by SmallTownPapers, Inc.
Website © 2021. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information.     Terms Of Use.     Request Content Removal.

The full text of a memorandum dated August 26 from the Portland regional solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior, setting forth a legal opinion which confirms the contention of the Skokomish Indian Tribal Council that the entire portion of the Skokomish River adjacent to their reservation boundary is part of the reservation and the United States are not foreign nations; S.Ct. 183, 60 L.Ed. 425; United States v. though distinct political communities, they Romaine. supra are in a dependent condition; and Chief "** * Justice Marshall's description, that "they are "It may not be said that the United States in a state of pupilage," and "their relation to held these lands in trust for the state when the United States resembles that of a ward to admitted. While it held the land, the United his guardian" has become more and moreStates had the right to grant for appropriate appropriate as they have grown less powerful purposes, titles, or rights in the land below the villages may have been determined by adjacent weir sites, as with yila 'lqo, the chief Skokomish settlement, but annually used weir sites also existed, at least on the Skokomish, without any nearby village." (at 64) (That particular site is slightly upstream of the existing Skokomish Reservation. However, other weir sites were located on the portion of precondition to statehood, a requirement that the people of the state forever disclaim all right and title to all lands owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and shall remain under the IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllllll on subject to tribal control of non-Indian fishing, and more dependent. * * * high-water mark or tidewater, and, the United the river that was within the reservation. See absolute jurisdiction and control of Congress. is as follows: "'In construing any treaty between the States having acted in accordance with the Id. at pp. 33-34.) ,, Act of February 22, 1889, Sec. 4, 25 Stat. United States and an Indian tribe, it must interests of the Indians and the object for Promises under Indian treaties must be 676. Washington accepted this requirement i To: Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs. always (as was pointed out by the counsel for which the right was reserved, and, in this interpreted as they would have understood and incorporated it into Article XXVI of the communities are to From: Office of the Regional Solicitor, the appellees) be borne in mind that the connection, I think the court may judically them.' Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma. supra. State Constitution. See State v. Edwards, doubtful expressions Portland. negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on know that the Indians subsisted during this The language of the Executive Order estab- supra (Swinomish Reservation); Jones v. of the Indians Choate v. Subject: Skokomish Indian Reservation - the part of the United States, an enlightened time by hunting and fishing, and the tidelands lishing the reservation describes one of its Cailvert, 32 Wash. 616, 73 P. 701 (1903) 675, 56 Led.'941,945, river boundary, and powerful nation, by representatives were a necessary prerequisite to the enjoyment boundaries as "Beginning at the mouth of the (Tulalip,. Reservation);. Unitedt States v. and cases cited." (pp. 87 You have asked whether the lower portion skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written of fishing, and which was evidenced by the Skokomish River; thence up said river***." O Bnen, 170 F. 508 (Cir. C . D. Wash. W.D. The Skokomish Exe of the Skokomish River, including the portion language, understanding the modes and forms proclamation of the President carrying the - There are only three interpretations that 1940) (Squaxin Island Reservation). contrasted with tlil within Secs. 6, 7 and 12, T. 21 N., R. 3 W., of creating the various technical estates reservation to low water, and this treaty could possibly be placed upon that language. As recently as 1970 the U. S. Supreme establishing the Hoh R! W.M., is within and a part of the Skokomish known to their law, and assisted by anyaving been promulgated and these rights The reservation boundary could run up the Court reaffirmed "well settled" holdings that describes that reservati~ Indian Reservation and whether fishing by interpreter employed by themselves; that the having been enjoyed by the Indians from time north bank of the river, up the middle of the the United States can dispose of landsa point in the middle of the non-lndians on said portion is subject to the treaty is drawn up by them and in their own immemorial and until after the admission of river, or up the south bank. If interpretation underlying navigable waters and said that the River, Jefferson CountY; provisions of 18 U.S.D. Sec. 1165. In our language; that the Indians, on the other hand, the territory as a state and to the present, the of an agreement with an Indian tribe were not question was whether it intended to convey runnin thence up said ~ opinion the answer to both questions is "yes." are a weak and dependent people, who have defendants may not complain. Shively v.involved, such choice of words would (or perhaps more accurately in the Skokomish chann~g thereof one mile,~ 18 U.S.D. Sec. 1165 provides: no writ,en language and are wholly unfamiliar Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 14 S.Ct. 548, 38 LEd. probably denote a boundary up the middle of case, to reserve) title to the river bed to the the south bank of said rivet "Whoever, without lawful authority or with all forms of legal expression, and whose 331 ; United States v. Romaine, supra, the river unless they were used to describe a Indians - citing Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. Order of Sept 11, 1893;e~t permission, willfully and knowingly goes only knowledge of the terms in which the "**"* * * The allotments of the u land did conveyance to a private party in which case United States, 248 U.S. 78, 87 (1918) If it were intendedtO~ upon any land that belongs to any Indian or treaty is framed is that imparted to them by P ' the boundary would be along the near side (Annette Island Reservation); Moore v United Indians to only a ortion 0t Indian tribe, band, or group and either are the interpreter employed by the Unitednot release the abutting tidelands from the "" - P 0I held by the United States in trust or are States; and that the treaty must therefore be reserved right as long as the land is used by the high water mark (meander line). The evidence States, 157 F.2d 760, 763 (9th Cir. 1946) so essential to their way subject to a restriction against alienation construed, not according to the technical Indians, as here." (pp. 620-621) supports a conclusion that this portion of the (Quileute Reservation); Donnelly v. United a feature in determining imposed by the United States, or upon any meaning of its words to learned lawyers, but The Indians were assured that they would Skokomish River is a navigable waterway. A States, 228 U.S. 243, 259 (1913) (Hoopa reservation, and whose tel' lands of the United States that are reserved in the sense in which they would naturally be not have to leave their home at the mouth of 1941 Corps of Engineer map for an Valley Reservation, Extension). prominentlvj in the treat ! for Indian use, for the purpose of hunting, understood by the Indians.' Jones v. M,eehan, the Skokomish River, the principal salmon authorized Flood Control Survey shows the Acknowledging that such 'disposals by the surely this intent would head of navigation at a point about in Sec. 14, United States during the territorial period are recisel ex ressed - as itl trapping, or fishing theIeon, or for the 175 U.S. 1, 20 S.Ct. 1, 5, 44 LEd. 49.' State river for the entire Hood Canal area. They P Y P removal of game, peltries, or fish therefrom, v Edwards et al., 188 Wash 467 62 P 2dwere assured they would not have to give up T. 21 N., R. 4 W., which is within thenot lightly to be inferred, and should not be the Hoh Reservation. , . , .... reservation but above the point involved here. regarded as intended unless the intention was What the WashingtOn , shall be fined not more than $200 or 1094 at 1095 (1936). their old modes of living and places of But this was not a private conveyance, el e imprisoned not more than ninety days, or Light is shed on the meaning of the treaty seeking food ', that the Great Father will e v both, and all game, fish and peltries in his to the Indians by the official records of the "protect you in taking fish", that the treaty This was a treaty reservation, 'a reservation of ~f~ Yh: ~a:e~ :rvOeelW~: vmad:d ~hYe tbOU~xtehc:ttiermReseVve Order"lw water.f~ (rights) not granted (to the United States)." c,!rcumstances of the grant to the tribe and Indian de"~i possession shall be. forfeited.", negotiations, which, were conducted with the paperto be "secureSfor the Indians'Yur fish.",,use,,TheasreServatiOnwell as theirWaS Winans v. United States, supra. In the the countervailing rule of construction that term'ibegiatl'nnnmgls ateq the The Skokomish Indian Reservation was Clallams or S Klallams, Chemakums, and established pursuant to the Treaty of January -Sko-Komish or Too-an-hooch, also svelled occupation. Choctaw case, supra, the Supreme Court well-founded doubt should be resolved m the Skokomish River, then ut)~ .... noted: (Indians') favor" when construing grants Executive Order f0r~ 26, 1 855, with the "Skallams * * * To-an-hooch. These negotiations show thatThe evadence is clear that the Indians used "The grants to petitioners were pursuant to Indian treaties, as compelling it to Reservation" Skokomish, Toan-hooch and Chemakum several spokesmen for the Skokomish, or weirs which they constructed across the entire , Tribes,' 12 Stat. 933. This treaty, known as Too-an-hooch, Indians expressed concern wadth of the Skokomish River as one of the undoubtedly to them as a political society' hold that the river bed belonged to the tribe. " 'Low water mark Choctaw Nation v Oklahoma, supra " 1 ' in 187~,~ ne asked pnnc~pal means of taking salmon the Treaty of Point No Point, was ratified about selling their lands. O. ! . and any 'well founded doubt' regarding the techmca_ meaning d to, March 8, 1859, and proclaimed April 29, "What shall we eat if we do so? Our only ',* * * the salmon Were easily procured in boundaries must, of course, be resolved in The same conclusion is applicable in the executive order referre Where t e the rivers and creeks artlcularl in the their favor." case of the lower portion of the Skokomish assumed that the Indians'~ 1859. In it the aforementioned Indians ceded, food is berries, deer and salmon. , h n " , P " Y " relinquished and conveyed to the United shall we find these? * * * I don t like the Skokomish River, and were ordinarily caught It has long been well established that while River. See also United States v. Larry Haug, et affected, knew of any~ull: ' r us to live on I am there with traps The Indians had their basic States all their right, title and interest in place you have chosen fo ,, ' - . the United States held a domain as a territory, al., Misc. Crim. No. 511, U.S. Dist. Ct. understand the words as l er wllages up the rivers in sheltered wooded areas it may convey away the right to the bed of a Montana, Billings Div., June 9, 1971 other than that their tights and to certain described lands along the not ready to sign the pap . " " ' navigable river, not retaining that property for (unpublished ...... opinion), sustaining prosecution far as the water ever recedet~ n Hood Canal Another said close to the rivers and creeks where salmon Straits of Juan de Fuca a d . " , " under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1165 for fishing on a their peninsula " State v: / There was expressly reserved, "I do not want to leave the mouth of the abounded and othergame was readily transfer152 U.S.tl, 48a future(1894).state. Shively v. Bowlby, navigable river withintheCrow Indian 1095 " e~I ~: * * for the present use and occupation River. I do not want to leave my old home, procurable. We cannot doubt, therefore, that " See also United ! " Reservatmn Stat of said tribes * * the amount of six sections, and my burying ground. "* * . * * * " * Congress has the power to make grants of In The Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United By each of thetests 11 or 3,840 acres, situated at the head of Hood's The interpreter, a Mr. Shaw, "explained to "* * * the bulk of the salmon catch was lands below high-water mark of navigable States, supra, the Congress had set apart for Supreme Court in the firs Canal to be hereafter set apart and so far as them that they were not called upon to give made in rivers, with weirs, dip nets and necessary surveyed and marked out for their up their old modes of living and places of harpoons during late summer and fall runs. wheneverWaters in anYit becomesterritrYnecessaryf the Unitedto doStateS'so in Annettethe IndianSislands.,,"a bOdYTheOfsupremelands knowncourtasheldthe thefrmSkokomishthe AlaSkaRes.ervati 3~Pacific 1~! exclusive use." (Article 2) seeking food, but only to confine their houses Salt water trolling and netting was of minor order to perform international obligations, or that the reservation included the adjacent as including the enttre ~ Subsequently a specific tract of land along to one spot." importance, in particular to the Skokomish to effect the improvement of such lands for fishing waters and submerged land, tinding Skokomish River. Certl~i the Skokomish River was selected and with their large river runs of salmon,the promotion and convenience of commerce that the fishing grounds were essential to the Indians with their fisla w a 5 1874 the Governor Stevens stated "* * * surveyed On Febru ry 2 , , ,, . " " " " f 1 ese fish Kin with foreign nations and among the several subsistence and economic development of the dip nei' structures and Ih The Great Father wants to ut ou River flshm or al th President signed an Executive Order P Y g ( g' states, or to carry out other public purposes tribe and, accordingly, Congress must have needed to use the a~, with&awing from sale or other disposition where you cannot be driven away. The Great silver, humpback, dog and steelhead) was appropriate to the objects for which the intended to include them. Skokomish River, the J and setting*** apart, , Father besides giving you a home will give you primary, with weirs and associated dip .net. United States holds the territory." "As an appreciation of the circumstances livelihood and the t " for the use of the S Klallam Indians a school, protect you in taking fish, break up structures the most productive method, tPl ,~, , * * * ,, * ,, the following tract of country on Hood s your land, give you clothes . . Skokomish Indian Tribe v. France, 320 There can be no question that reservation in which words are used usually is conducive choice of location o ~, Canal in Washington Territory, inclusive of The Clallams apparently were then ready F.2d 205 at 209 and 211 (9th Cir. 1963) or grant of a river bed to an Indian tribe as and at times is essentiM to a ri~._ht., mise that "this paper gil,,r ~ ~ thesixsecti~nssituatedatthehead~fH~d~*`~.;t~ignt~treatybutth~~s~ig~J~[a~y (quoting findings of-District Cour4~,-gt,D. part of the agreement for cession of the tribe's understanding of them, it is important, in paper secures you . ~~k~Ja~.~tt~g~ Indians wogi~ rather wait until the ne~ ~f~" "Wisli~ B61dt,~Ju ,dge)~ .~ ~i,,,~ ~ .. , claim to-other lands and as part of a fede%al, app~oachin~ e~ solution of the ques~stated,~>', e'xpe:ted to be purpose to advance ~..the :welfare andto have in ~Ikid~/h~/~dirctiffi~ta~e~In--whiehrhe- -strbstantially""~/u~dtfi' lanuary ~6i ,~855 * * described "and .~uld talk~,t-,4~eri Accordingly the'~'~n~l ~' The Supe, rintendent o;f ir/diaii"A'~ffairsf6/ self-sufficiency of the Indians is carrying out reservation Wag created, '- tile' power of fldl[ifled; by a d,;sig~ bounded as follows: Beginning at the mouth was adjourned until the next morning, when Wasl~gton Territory, in" a report dated ,. of a public purpose.[l] It should be Congress in the premises, the location and come on to the p.nn,t of the Skokomish River; thence up said river Governor Stevens again addressed them and January 2, 1862, noted that the S'Klallams remembered that the peaceful extinguishment character of the islands, the situation and home to remove fish' to a point intersected by the section lines again assured them, in part" were dissatisfied with their lot on the reserva- of Indian claims by treaty was repeatedly needs of the Indians, and the object to be the Indians. between sections 15 and 16 of Township 21 "This paper gives you a home. * * * This tion, that many of them will not reside at the North, in Range 4 West, thence north on said line * * * thence southerly and easterly along said Hood's Canal to the place of beginning." The Executive Order was issued in fulfillment of a treaty obligation of the United States. In determining whether the reservation includes the entire width of the Skokomish River, certain rules of construction of Indian treaties should be kept in mind. "* * * these treaties are not to be considered as exercises in ordinary conveyancing. The Indian Nations did not seek out the United States and agree upon an exchange of lands in an arm's-length transaction. Rather, treaties were imposed upon them and they had no choice but to consent. As a consequence, this Court has often held that treaties with the Indians must be interpreted as they would have understood them, see, e.g., Jones V. Meehan, 175 US 1, 11,44 L Ed 49, 54, 20 S Ct 1 (1899), and any doubtful expressions in them should be resolved in the Indians' favor." Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 615, 620 (1970). "We will construe a treaty with the Indians as 'that unlettered people' understood it, and 'as justice and reason demand in all cases where power is exerted by the strong over those to whom they owe care and protection,' and counterpoise the inequality 'by the superior justice which looks only to the substance of the right without regard to technical rules.'" U.S.v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371,380 (1905). "But in the government's dealings with the Indians the rule (regarding strict construction of tax exemptions) is exactly the contrary. The construction, instead of being strict, is liberal; doubtful expressions, instead of being resolved in favor of the United States are to be resolved in favor of a weak and defenseless people, who are wards of the nation, and dependent wholly upon its protection and good faith. This rule of construction has been recognized, without exception, for more than a hundred years, * * *" Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 675(1912). "The language used in treaties with the Indians should never be construed to their prejudice. If words be made use of which are susceptible of a more extended meaning than their plain import, as connected with the tenor of the treaty, they should be considered as used only in the latter sense. * * * How the words of the treaty were understood by this unlettered people, rather than their critical meaning, should form the rule of construction." Worchester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Peters) 515,582 (1832). The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled in similar language: "Under well-settled law laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States, we are bound to construe the grant contained in the treaty, as fixed by the executive order, as it would naturally be understood by the Indians. '"The Indian tribes within the limits of Page 16 - Shelton-Mason County Journal paper secures your fish. Does not a father give fish to his children? Besides fish you can hunt, gather roots and berries * * * " Thereupon the Skokomish chief stated that "we have thrown away the feeling of yesterday and are now satisfied." Amid further expressions of good faith from the Government representatives, the Indians signed the treaty. The boundaries of the area to be set aside as the Skokomish Reservation were surveyed 18 years later and the survey was approved on December 2, 1873. (An additional tract on the north side of the reservation was added later.) Both the map accompanying.the survey and the field notes pertaining to it indicate that the survey extended only to the meander line on the left bank, or reservation side, of the Skokomish River. This, however, was in accordance with usual land surveying practices and is not relevant to what was promised to the Indians in consideration for their acceptance of the treaty. United States v. Romaine, 225 F. 253 (9th Cir. 1919); United States v. Stotts, 49 F.2d 619 (W.D. Wash. 1930) (both involving the Lummi Reservation). There the Treaty of Point Elliott, 12 Stat. 928, negotiated with other western Washington tribes by the same treaty negotiator four days before this treaty, used the same language with respect to surveying the reservation - "which tracts shall be set place and will "only make annual visits to *** catch fish at their old fishing grounds." Findings of Fact of the Indian Claims Commission in Docket No. 296, The Skokomish Tribe of Indians v. United States of America (1968), 6 Ind.Cls. Comm. 140. The Indian Claims Commission has found that the Skokomish Indians depended "upon a fish eating economy as the prime means of subsistence." Id. at 142. Edward S. Curtis in Volume IX of his publication "The North American Indian" (1913), observed, "The dominating cultural influence of the tribes (Salishan Tribes of the coast) * * * was their dependence upon seafood." Id. at 143. Dr. William W. Elmendorf, who has made extensive studies of the Twana Indians, has concluded, "Geographic location of winter village sites accorded with patterns of food economy." Id. at 144. The Government's expert witness in the Indian Claims Commission case, Dr. Carroll R. Riley, discussing the matter of exclusive use of areas, stated, "Your feelings of exclusiveness,. inasmuch as there was a feeling of exclusiveness, would be in the village area, the winter village area or perhaps a tiny spot peripheral to the village area * * * " Id. at 146. Dr. Elmendorf agreed: "Territorial interests were indistinguishable from subsistence interests, and these adhered to useable stretches of territory. The environs of a winter village apart, and so far as necessary surveyed and community settlement were used intensively marked out for their exclusive use." by and regarded as property of that (Emphasis added) The Executive Order community. Away from the village environs delineating the Luinmi Reservation was issued meant away from the local watercourse and November 22, 18731a few months ahead of the feeling of group ownership faded out as the Skokomish Reservation Order: The urve.y in that case also went only to the high water or meander line but the court in Romaine said: "The power to survey the lands so reserved in the treaty was the power to cause the whole or any portion of the reserved lands to be surveyed into lots, and to assign the same to individuals or families for permanent homes. The land in controversy was not adapted to such individual use, and there was no occasion to survey it, or to take from the Indians on the reservation the common right to use it for the purposes of fishing and digging shellfish, or other purposes, and the surveyor general, in causing the survey to be made, had no authority to exclude any of the reserved lands from the boundaries of the reservation. The error in failing to extend the survey so as to include the lands in controversy cannot prejudice the rights of the Indians." And in Stotts the court said: "The right of the Indians to the lands of the reservation was a common right, and the allotment of a part of the reservation to some of the Indians does not destroy the common right to the enjoyment of the unallotted portion for any use to which it was adapted. And the fact that the survey did not include the tidelands cannot prejudice the rights of the Indians. Moss v. Ramey, 239 U. S. 538, 36 h)atershed drainage area boundaries were reached." Id. at 148. The Indians Claims Commission concluded, "Their economy rests primarily upon the seasonal uses of the bays and rivers * * *." ld. at 150. Dr. Elmendorf, in his extensive study "The Structure of Twana Culture", published as Monographic Supplement No. 2, Research Studies, Washington State University, Vol. XXVIII, No. 3, Supplement, September 1960, states: "The Twana placed five species of salmonid fishes in a single class and recognized them as the backbone of their subsistence and economy. * * * The five kinds were those usually denoted in western Washington .by the English terms king, silver, humpback, dog and steelhead. River fishing for all these fish was primary, with weirs and associated dip-net structures the most productive method. Salmon, as weil as other types of fish, were also trolled for with hook and line in canoes in salt water but this method furnished a relatively small proportion of the catch." (at 59-60, footnotes omitted) , Discussing the single-dam salmon weir, Dr. Elmendorf said: "These conditions' limited this type of weir in large rivers, such as the Skokomish, to fixed sites which became centers of seasonal congregation. The location of some winter - Thursday, September 9, 1971 mandated by Contress as a precondition to widespread settlement and granting of lands to settlers in the area. See, for example, the Act of August 14, 1848, 9 Star. 323, establishing the Oregon Territory, the Act of June 5, 1850, 9 Star. 437, authorizing the negotiation of treaties with Indians in the Oregon Territory west of the Cascade Mountains, the Act of March 2, 1853, 10 Star. 172, creating Washington Territory out of the then existing Oregon Territory, the Act of March 3, 1853, 10 Stat. 226,238, authorizing treaties with western Indian tribes, and the Act of July 31, 1854, 10 Star. 315, 380, making appropriations for negotiating treaties with Ind;an tribes in Washington Territory. The Act of August 14, 1848, provided that nothing contained in it "shall be construed to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining to the Indians in said Territory, so long as such rights shall remain unextinguished by treaty between the United States and such Indians* * *." Section 14 of that act extended the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 51, n. a, to the Oregon Territory. Article 3 of that Ordinace provides that "good faith shall always be observed toward the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent." The Act of June 5, 1850, authorized the appointment of commissioners to "negotiate treaties with the several Indian tribes in the territory of Oregon (which then included the area now comprising the State of Washington), for the extinguishment of their claims to lands lying west of the Cascade Mountains * * ,, The Organic Act of March 2, 1853, created Washington Territory, provided that the territorial governor should also be Superintendent of Indian Affairs, and provided that nothing in it "shall be construed to affect the authority of the Government of the United States to make any regulation respecting the Indians of said territory, their lands, property, or other rights, by treaty, law, or otherwise, which it would have been competent to the Government to make if this act had never been passed." The ApPropriation Act of March 3, 1853, authorized the President to enter into negotiation with Indian tribes west of the States of Missouri and Iowa "for the purpose of securing the assent of said tribes to the settlement of the citizens of the United States upon the lands claimed by said Indians, and for the purpose of extinguishing the title of said Indian tribes in whole or in part to said lands; * * * " The Appropriation Act of July 31, 1854, authorized use of appropriations for making treaties in several territories, including Washington, prior to July 1, 1855. And in 1946 Congress, in recognition that some lands were taken without Indian consent, or for an inadequate consideration, enacted the Indian Claims Commission Act, 60 Star. 1049, to make belated recompense. Moreover, Congress imposed on Washington and several other states, as a attained. "That Congress had power to make the reservation inclusive of the adjacent waters and submerged land, as well as the upland, needs little more than statement. All were the property of the United States and within a district where the entire dominion and sovereignty rested in the United States, and over whch Congress had complete legislative authority. National Bank v. Yankton County, 101 U.S. 129, 133, 25 L. ed. 1046, 1047; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1,47, 48, 58, 38 L. ed. 331, 348, 349, 14 Sup.Ct. Rep. 548; United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 383, 49 L. ed. 1089, 1093, 25 Sup.Ct.Rep. 662. The reservation was not in the nature of a private grant, but simply a setting apart, 'until otherwise provided by law,' of designated public property for a recognized public purpose, - that of safeguarding and advancing a dependent Indian people dwelling within the United States. See United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375,379 et seq., 30 L. Ed. 228,229, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1109; United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 437, 47 L. ed. 532, 536, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478. "* * * While bearing a fair supply of timber, only a small portion of the upland is arable, more than three fourths consisting of mountains and rocks. Salmon and other fish in large numbers frequent and pass through the waters adjacent to the shore, and the opportunity thus afforded for securing fish for local consumption and for salting, curing, canning, and sale gives to the islands a value for settlement and inhabitance which otherwise they would not have. "The ourpose of the Metlakahtlans in going to the islands was to establish an Indian colony which would be self-sustaining and reasonably free from obstacles which attend the advancement of a primitive people. They were largely fishermen and hunters, accustomed to live from the returns of those vocations, and looked upon the islands as a suitable location for their colony, because the fishery adjacent to the shore would afford a primary means of subsistence and a promising opportunity for industrial and commercial development. ',* * * "The purpose of creating the reservation was to encourage, assist, and protect the Indians in their effort to train themselves to habits of industry, become self-sustaining, and advance to the ways of civilized life. * * * "The circumstances which we have recited shed much light on what Congress intended by 'the body of lands known as Annette islands.' The Indians could not sustain themselves from the use of the upland alone. The use of the adjacent fishing grounds was equally essential. Without this the colony could not prosper in that location. The Indians naturally looked on the fishing grounds as part of the islands and proceeded on that theory in soliciting the reservation. * "This conclusion has support in the general rule that statutes passed for the benefit of dependent Indian tribes or We cannot state the Ninth Circuit Annette Island case v. United States (9th 281). There, ar here, aside for the use of the. their home. .i :.: "What use? agriculturalists * fishermen and living by fishing fishing in waters Island. The island habitation of these obtaining their food immediately The fact that secures the right reservation and usual and areas, where theY non-lndians impair of exclusive use aside for them Although it factor in construing worthy of note Department of acknowledges that part of the the Skokomish River from mouth of Skokomish Department of general rule, excl open areas Department of hand, make no or off the purport to open under state game Conclusion: Indian treaties they be construed them. The about their source that the treaty their fish. TheY, river for their fishing require control over the and facts to the Executive Order, the the border of the part of the For the George D. Assistant [ 1 ] The policy reaffirmed by Lands Act o exempted from "such lands any interest in States for the group, of Indians (Act of May U.S.C. Sec. 131