United States v. Winans

SCOTUSCase
Litigants= United States v. Winans
ArgueDate=April 3, 4
ArgueYear=1905
DecideDate=May 15
DecideYear=1905
FullName=United States v. Winans
USVol=198
USPage=371
Citation=
Prior=
Subsequent=
Holding= Treaty includes the Indians’ individual right to fishing, hunting and other privileges.
SCOTUS=1903-1906
Majority=McKenna
JoinMajority=Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Brown, Peckham, Holmes, Day
Dissent=White
JoinDissent=
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. art. II § 2 cl. 2 (The Treaty Clause)

"U.S. v. Winans", ussc|198|371|1905ref|citation, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the Treaty included the Indians’ individual right to fishing, hunting and other privileges.

Background

This is a 1905 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution, in light of the 1859 treaty with the Indians of the Yakima Nation. Respondents acquired title to property on the Columbia River, and obtained a license from the State of Washington to operate a fish wheel, a device that could catch salmon by the ton. This effectively obstructed the Indians from exercising their fishing rights and other privileges granted by the treaty. The legal dispute revolved around the treaty language that secured to the Indians “the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with the citizens of the territory,” Yakima Treaty of 1859, art. 3, ¶ 2, 12 Stat. 951. The Indians brought suit to enjoin the respondents from using the fish wheel. The United States Circuit Court for the District of Washington ruled for the respondents based on their exclusive rights to private property. The Supreme Court reversed.

Legal Analysis

The Court looked at the substance of the treaty and construed the disputed language as “that unlettered people understood it." In writing for the majority, Justice McKenna stated that a “Treaty between the United States and the Indians . . . is not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them—a reservation of those granted." The Court noted the historical and traditional importance of fishing and hunting to the Indians, and viewed these rights as part of a larger bundle of rights preserved under the treaty.

The Court observed that the treaty foresaw the contingency of future ownership, and secured the Indians’ rights and privileges both against the United States and its grantees and against the state and its grantees. Therefore, the grant of a license to operate a fish wheel gave the respondents no power to exclude the Indians from fishing. In other words, the State of Washington could not use common law property rights to absolutely exclude the Indians from fishing on the Columbia River.

Relying on its earlier decision in "Shively v. Bowlby", 152 U.S. 1 (1894), the Court also dismissed the argument that the Indians’ treaty rights were subordinate to the powers acquired by the state upon its entry into the Union. The Court upheld the Indians' right of access to respondent's private property, thus protecting their privileges under the treaty.

Dissent

Justice White was the lone dissenter, but did not write a dissenting opinion.

ee also

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 198

External links

[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=198&page=371] Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com

[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=443&page=658] "Washington v. Fishing Vessel Assn.", 443 U.S. 658 (1979); Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com

[http://www.uhuh.com/laws/indhunt.htm] Tribal Hunting and Fishing Rights: Congressional Testimony on research by Representative Jim Buck of the Washington State Government.