Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons^™

Brief For Amici Curiae - United States V. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 To 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))

United States v. Washington, Docket Nos. 74-2414, 74-2437 to 74-2440, 74-2567, 74-2602, 74-2705 (520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1975))

No abstract provided.

State Taxation Of Indians—Federal Preemption Of Taxation Against The Backdrop Of Indian Sovereignty—Mcclanahan V. Arizona State Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164 (1973); Mescalero Apache Tribe V. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973); Tonasket V. Washington, 411 U.S. 451 (1973), Clydia J. Cuykendall

Washington Law Review

Over the years, the policy of the federal government toward American Indians has vacillated between attempts to assimilate them into American society on the one hand and efforts to preserve their independence and cultural identity on the other. Like a pendulum, this policy, as expressed in congressional legislation, has swung from efforts in 1887 to break up the reservations by transferring tribal lands to individual Indians in fee, to the halting in 1934 of further such alienation, and then back again since the 1950s to renewed efforts to end tribal existence. The legal theories and canons of construction generated by …

The States Versus Indian Off-Reservation Fishing: A United States Supreme Court Error, Ralph W. Johnson

Washington Law Review

Pacific Northwest Indian tribes signed treaties with the United States in the mid-1850's which guaranteed them the permanent right to fish at their usual and accustomed fishing sites off the reservations. The Indians believe these treaties mean that those states which did not exist in 1855 have no power to regulate Indian off-reservation fishing under any circumstances. State officials, on the other hand, have consistently argued that Indian off-reservation fishing is subject to the same state regulation as non-Indian fishing. The United States Supreme Court has basically accepted the states' position, holding that states can regulate off-reservation fishing when "necessary …

The States Versus Indian Off-Reservation Fishing: A United States Supreme Court Error, Ralph W. Johnson

Articles

Pacific Northwest Indian tribes signed treaties with the United States in the mid-1850's which guaranteed them the permanent right to fish at their usual and accustomed fishing sites off the reservations. The Indians believe these treaties mean that those states which did not exist in 1855 have no power to regulate Indian off-reservation fishing under any circumstances. State officials, on the other hand, have consistently argued that Indian off-reservation fishing is subject to the same state regulation as non-Indian fishing. The United States Supreme Court has basically accepted the states' position, holding that states can regulate off-reservation fishing when "necessary …

Too Little Land, Too Many Heirs—The Indian Heirship Land Problem, Ethel J. Williams

Washington Law Review

The poverty of the American Indian has been intensified by a number of long-established federal land policies which have resulted in the progressive fractionation of land ownership so that much Indian land cannot be used effectively. This comment describes the origins and present dimensions of the Indian land heirship problem and the existing laws concerning the devolution of Indian land, and concludes with an analysis of the various statutory solutions which have been proposed to alleviate the problem.

Indians—Criminal Procedure: Habeas Corpus As An Enforcement Procedure Under The Indian Civil Rights Act Of 1968, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1302-1303, Anon

Washington Law Review

The Indian Civil Rights Act, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, extended portions of the Bill of Rights to individual Indians as against their tribal governments and provided federal habeas corpus relief to review alleged violations of these rights. The Indian Bill of Rights marked the culmination of a complete reversal in federal recognition of Indian constitutional rights. Until 1965 federal courts had recognized Indian tribes as quasi-sovereign entities. Individual Indians were guaranteed their constitutional rights in relations with federal and state governments, but not with their tribal governments. The only rights Indian governments recognized when dealing …

Regulation Of Treaty Indian Fishing, Anon

Washington Law Review

On December 26, 1854, the Treaty of Medicine Creek was concluded between the United States and nine western Washington Indian tribes. The Indians ceded to the United States all rights in a large portion of their tribal lands, but reserved the "right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations ... in common with all citizens of the Territory." Whatever the representatives of the United States or the Indian chiefs meant by this clause has been lost in antiquity. It is certain that they could not have foreseen the acrimony or the legal battles that it would …

Regulation Of Treaty Indian Fishing, Anon

Washington Law Review

On December 26, 1854, the Treaty of Medicine Creek was concluded between the United States and nine western Washington Indian tribes. The Indians ceded to the United States all rights in a large portion of their tribal lands, but reserved the "right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations ... in common with all citizens of the Territory." Whatever the representatives of the United States or the Indian chiefs meant by this clause has been lost in antiquity. It is certain that they could not have foreseen the acrimony or the legal battles that it would …

Brief Of The Association On American Indian Affairs, Amicus Curiae - Department Of Game V. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

No abstract provided.

Brief Of The United States, Amicus Curiae - Department Of Game V. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Respondent - Department Of Game V. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae, American Civil Liberties Union Of Washington - Department Of Game V. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae On Behalf Of The State Of Idaho Fish And Game Department - Department Of Game V. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Appellants - Department Of Game V. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Appellant, The Individual Members Of Puyallup Tribe Of Indians - Department Of Game V. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc., Docket No. 38611 (70 Wash. 2d 245 (Jan. 1967))

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Respondent - State V. Mccoy, Docket No. 36224 (63 Wash. 2d 421 (Dec. 19, 1963))

State v. McCoy, Docket No. 36224 (63 Wash. 2d 421 (Dec. 19, 1963))

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Appellant - State V. Mccoy, Docket No. 36224 (63 Wash. 2d 421 (Dec. 19, 1963))

State v. McCoy, Docket No. 36224 (63 Wash. 2d 421 (Dec. 19, 1963))

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae - State V. Mccoy, Docket No. 36224 (63 Wash. 2d 421 (Dec. 19, 1963))

State v. McCoy, Docket No. 36224 (63 Wash. 2d 421 (Dec. 19, 1963))

No abstract provided.

Respondent's Brief - Makah Indian Tribe V. Schoettler, Docket No. 12751, 192 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1951)

Makah Indian Tribe v. Schoettler, Docket No. 12751, 192 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1951)

No abstract provided.

Appellants' Opening Brief - Makah Indian Tribe V. Schoettler, Docket No. 12751, 192 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1951)

Makah Indian Tribe v. Schoettler, Docket No. 12751, 192 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1951)

No abstract provided.

Transcript Of Record - Makah Indian Tribe V. Schoettler, Docket No. 12751, 192 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1951)

Makah Indian Tribe v. Schoettler, Docket No. 12751, 192 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1951)

No abstract provided.

Appellants' Reply Brief - Mccauley V. Makah Indian Tribe, Docket No. 9924, 128 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1942)

McCauley v. Makah Indian Tribe, Docket No. 9924, 128 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1942)

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Appellees - Mccauley V. Makah Indian Tribe, Docket No. 9924, 128 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1942)

McCauley v. Makah Indian Tribe, Docket No. 9924, 128 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1942)

No abstract provided.

Appellant's Brief - Mccauley V. Makah Indian Tribe, Docket No. 9924, 128 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1942)

McCauley v. Makah Indian Tribe, Docket No. 9924, 128 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1942)

No abstract provided.

Transcript Of Record - Mccauley V. Makah Indian Tribe, Docket No. 9924, 128 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1942)

McCauley v. Makah Indian Tribe, Docket No. 9924, 128 F.2d 867 (9th Cir. 1942)

No abstract provided.

Treaty With The Quinaielt, Etc., 1855 (Treaty Of Olympia)

Treaties with Tribes in Washington State

Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded by and between Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian of the Territory of Washington, on the part of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the different tribes and bands of the Qui-nai-elt and Quil-leh-ute Indians on the part of said tribes and bands, and duly authorized thereto by them.

ARTICLE 3. The right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed ground stations is secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of …

Treaty With The Wallawalla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855

Treaties with Tribes in Washington State

Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at the treaty ground, Camp Stevens, in the Walla-Walla Valley, this ninth day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, by and between Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washington, and Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs for Oregon Territory, on the part of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs, head-men, and delegates of the Walla- Walla, Cayuses, and Umatilla tribes, and bands of Indians, occupying lands partly in Washington and partly in Oregon Territories, and who, for the purposes …

Treaty With The Yakima, 1855

Treaties with Tribes in Washington State

ARTICLE 3 . And provided, That, if necessary for the public convenience, roads may be run through the said reservation; and on the other hand, the right of way, with free access from the same to the nearest public highway, is secured to them; as also the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways.

The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams, where running through or bordering said reservation, is further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all …

Treaty With The Makah, 1855 (Treaty Of Neah Bay)

Treaties with Tribes in Washington State

Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at Neah Bay, in the Territory of Washington, this thirty-first day of January, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-five, by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the said Territory, on the part of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs, head-men, and delegates of the several villages of the Makah tribe of Indians, viz: .Neah Waatch., Tsoo-Yess, and Osett, occupying the country around Cape Classett or Flattery, on behalf of the said tribe and duly authorized by the same.

ARTICLE 4. The right of taking fish and …

Treaty With The Dwamish, Suquamish, Etc. 1855 (Treaty Of Point Elliott)

Treaties with Tribes in Washington State

Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at Muckl-te-oh, or Point Elliott, in the Territory of Washington, this twenty-second day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the said Territory, on the part of the United States, and the undersigned · chiefs, head-men and delegates of the Dwamish, Suquamish, Sk-tahl-mish, Sam-ahmish, Smalh-kamish, Skope-ahmish, St-kah-mish, Snoqualmoo, Skai-wa-mish, N'Quentl-ma-mish, Sk-tah-le-jum, Stoluck-wa-mish, Sno-ho,-mish, Skagit, Kik-i-allus, Swin-a-mish-Mee-see-qua-guitch, Cho-bah-ah-bish, and other allied and subordinate tribes and bands of Indians occupying certain lands situated in said Territory of Washington, on behalf of said tribes, and …