1398 NORTH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



were secured will be found on p. 2 of the print with which the Tri- 

 bunal has been supplied: 



"Article 5. The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed 

 grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians in common 

 with all citizens of the territory, and of erecting temporary houses 

 for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting and 

 gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands; pro- 

 vided, however, that they shall not take shell fish from any beds 

 staked or cultivated by citizens," 



Afterwards the State of Washington adopted some regulations 

 respecting fish traps, and under its licence the Alaska Packers' Asso- 

 ciation, the defendants in this action, constructed certain traps by 

 which, it was said, the rights of the Indians in respect of their fish- 

 ing were interfered with. Action was instituted by the United 

 States, on behalf of the Indians, against the Alaska Packers' Asso- 

 ciation, in order to obtain an interpretation of this treaty. The 

 contention of the United States was that the State of Washington 



had no power to regulate the Indians, while the contention 

 844 of the Alaska Packers' Association, on the other hand, was 



that the State had perfect power to pass such regulations as 

 would regulate merely, and not destroy altogether, the right which 

 the Indians had. It is a case, as the Tribunal will see, singularly 

 like the present, and, curiously enough, arising upon a treaty in the 

 United States. That being the position, I shall ask to read some 

 little passages from the copy, commencing in the first place at p. 3. 

 I may summarise, perhaps, what appears on that page by saying that 

 there was a contention that the effect of the treaty was to give to the 

 Indians certain exclusive privileges in certain places ; but the learned 

 judge decided that point against them. Then, going on a little 

 further, at p. 4, we find the following : 



" The case, therefore, presents a controversy between the Indians 

 claiming rights guaranteed by a treaty made with the national gov- 

 ernment and a corporation claiming rights conferred by the laws of 

 the state; and it becomes necessary to determine, in the first place, 

 the validity of these conflicting claims by an interpretation of the 

 treaty, and, in the second place, whether the fish traps, as constructed 

 and maintained, do infringe the lawful rights of the Indians, and, 

 if so, which of the contending parties has the paramount right." 



The learned judge then proceeded to discuss the object of the 

 treaty, and his conclusion is to be found at the middle of p. 5, as 

 follows : 



" I conclude, therefore, that the rights guaranteed by the fifth 

 article are only such as might be, after the date of the treaty, enjoyed 

 by all citizens in common, and valid laws effective to abridge the 

 fishing rights of citizens are equally effective as against the Indians. 

 In decisions heretofore rendered, both for and against the govern- 

 ment, I have given the same interpretation to similar treaties with 



