94, GAME COMMISSIONS AND WARDENS. 



venison. It was claimed that the deer were kUled on the reserva- 

 tion by tribal Indians during the open season and bought by one of 

 the Indians, Julia Selkirk, who held them to sell to Indians on the 

 reservation, no part of the meat having been removed or having been 

 intended to be removed from the reservation. The supreme court of 

 Minnesota decided that the relationship of Indians to the Federal Gov- 

 ernment and certain special circumstances connected with the White 

 Earth Reservation gave the Indians the right to hold and deal among 

 themselves in deer meat on the reservation at a time wken the posses- 

 sion and sale of such meat were prohibited by the State >kw. The court 

 was not unanimous, however. Two of the live justices, including the 

 chief justice, dissented from this opinion, holding that the State had 

 the right to reclaim its own property. They said: 



In view of the fact that tribal Indians who have not adopted the habits of civihzed 

 life are accustomed to depend largely on the fruits of the chase for their food, it may 

 be necessary that they should be allowed to kill game for that purpose on their 

 reservations all the year, irrespective of the closed season, under State laws. But 

 there is no necessity that they should be allowed to kill it for the purpose of sale to 

 others. 



And further: 



It may be that the remedies of the State for the enforcement of these laws are 

 incomplete, so far as the persons of the Indians are concerned; but, if so, it is not 

 because the laws do not apply to Indians, but because of the exclusive guardianship 

 of the Federal (government over tribal Indians on a reservation." 



While the exemption of tribal Indians on reservations from the 

 State laws protecting fish and game seems thus to be generally main- 

 tained, on the other hand, the jurisdiction of the State authorities 

 over Indians committing offenses off' their reservations and nontribal 

 Indians anywhere seems to be no less strongly upheld. In 1898 the 

 supreme court of Minnesota maintained the right of State game officials 

 to seize in transit game that had been killed on the White Earth 

 Reservation by Indians during the open season and sold to an Indian 

 on the reservation, who undertook to ship it out of the State. The 

 court stated, in deciding this case: 



It is unnecessary to and we do not decide whether the State may or may not 

 interfere with game which is unlawfully in the possession of Indians on the reserva- 

 tion. But we do hold that when, as in this case, game is once off this reservation, 

 and in the possession of any person or corporation in violation of the law, it may be 

 seized and confiscated by its proper officers, without reference to where or by whom 

 it was killed. ^ 



The well known case of Ward v. Race Horse (70 Fed., 598; 163 

 U. S. , 504) ' was decided along this same line. Race Horse, a member 



"State v. Cooney (Selkirk intervening) 80 N. W., 696 (Minn., 1899). 

 '^ Selkirk v. Stevens, 75 N. W., 386 (Minn., 1898). 



cSee also account of this case by Hon. W. A. Richards, governor of Wyoming, 

 in Recreation, Vol. 12, pp. 44:3-447, 1900. 



