Dec, 30, i8gg.]' 
ham of bear, venison tongue, buffalo tongue, Roast- 
Loin of buffalo, mountain sheep, wild goose, quail, red- 
head duck, jack rabbit, blacktail deer, coon, canvasback 
duck, English hare, bluewing teal, partridge, widgeon, 
brant, saddle of venison, pheasants, mallard duck, prairie 
chicken, wild turkey, spotted grouse, black bear, opos- 
sum, leg of elk, woodduck, sandhill crane, ruffed grouse, 
cinnamon bear. Broiled— Bluewing teal, jacksnipe, black- 
birds, reed birds, partridge, pheasants, quail, butterball 
duck, English snipe, rice birds, redwing starling, marsh 
birds, plover, gray squirrel, buffalo steak, rabbits, veni- 
son steak. Entrees— Antelope steak, rabbit braise, fillet 
of grouse, venison cutlet, ragout of bear, hunter style; 
oyster pie. Salads — Shrimp, prairie chicken, celery. 
Ornamental dishes — Pyramid of game, en Bellevue. 
Boned duck, au naturel. Pyramid of wild goose liver in 
jelly. The coon out at night. Boned quail, in plumage. 
Redwing starling on tree. Partridge in nest. Prairie 
chicken en socle. Among the guests was Long John 
Wentworth, who had been present at the first dinner, 
thirty-one years ago. * 
At the above di nner Mr. Hallock was the guest of 
honor, and he makes the following comment, with some 
description of his earlier wanderings, which show him 
to^have been something of an old-timer himself: 
"This is interesting especially to me, as I was a guest 
at the third of these game dinners, which was given at the 
old Briggs House in Chicago in the early fall of 1858. 
I think it was about Oct. i. Don't remember the exact 
date. I had just returned from northern Minnesota, hav- 
ing footed it all the way from St. Paul to the Red River 
of the North. Buffalo meat was still possible at the date 
of the twenty-first annual dinner in 1886, though be- 
coming quite scarce. I was Mr. Drake's guest of honor, 
as my trip was considered quite an adventure. I wrote 
it up for Harper's Magazine same year. There were no 
settlement north of St. Joseph, except a Catholic Indian 
mission, then located twenty miles from St. Cloud, and 
ninety-five miles north of St. Paul. Indians were some- 
what troublesome even then, but did not break out until 
the- massacre of 1862. After the insurrection was sup- 
pressed thirty-six _ of the red ringleaders were hung at 
Shakopee at one time. A friend of mine on the frontier 
lost his wife and family during his absence from home — 
all tomahawked._ He afterward evened up with the In- 
dian by bayoneting him and taking his entire scalp, ears 
and all. This specimen came into my hands later on, 
and after some years I donated it to the Long Island 
Historical Society of Brooklyn, where it is now. Quite a 
curiosity." 
An Operatic Singing Mouse, 
Mr. Earnest Seton Thompson, the well-known nat- 
uralist and artist, wi-ites me regarding an operatic sing- 
ing mouse, which seems to have annexed itself to his 
menage: "Since last I wrote you, an operatic singing 
school has moved into our rookery. To-day our Erse 
domestic remarked: 'It's just wonderful how that there 
singing mouse has improved since the operatic school 
tuk the lower flat.'" 
Dog in a Bag. 
You see all sorts of funny things in a city. This morn- 
ing as I was going down to my office I saw a woman 
carrying a rat terrier. The air was sharp with the first 
cold wave we have had, and the woman had inserted the 
dog carefully into a paper bag, out of which its head pro- 
truded very comfortably. This was really not at all a 
bad idea, as any one can testify who ever wore a paper 
vest. E. HouGu. 
480 Caxton Building, Chicago, 111. 
New England, 
Boston, Dec. 23. — The big-game season on the Me- 
gantic preserve was a good one. Mr. L. Dana Chapmau, 
secretary and treasurer, finds that fully 100 deer were 
taken on the lands of the preserve during the open season 
by members and in-\^ited guests. Partridge shooting was 
the best for years, with duck shooting good. It will be 
remembered that the fishing season was a particularly 
-satisfactory one, and the club management is doing 
everything possible to keep the fishing up, and even to 
greatly improve it. Mr. Chapman himself has made a 
late trip to the preserve, and has landed more salmon 
there than any other member, or anybody else in fact. 
He landed 5,000 there on his last trip, though it was m the 
midst of the close season. They were little fellows, how- 
ever, and landed into the waters for restocking. Mr. 
Chapman then went over to Jo Merry Lake, and was 
fortunate enough to have just the right fall of snow the 
night he arrived. But the next morning was Sunday, and 
legal close time. In the afternoon he was out with iiis 
guide. Soon they saw what the guide at first pronounced 
to be a cow moose in the thicket, but turning abouj it 
proved to be a big buck deer. This one was located, and 
early Monday morning Mr. Chapman had him. The 
next day he shot another, and was much pleased with his 
trip. Good tracking snow did the business. 
The weather is against the pickerel fishermen in this 
State. Not a particle of ice, and little signs of any. The 
water is also very low in the pickerel ponds. ChristrnaS 
day the fishermen cannot have their lisual sport fishing 
through the ice. But some of them are bound to try;. 
They have pro.vided themselves with "bobs," and will 
set their lines from boats. The line is attached to the 
float or bob by means of a little I'ever that projects from 
one side. Nearly opposite this' lever is attached a little 
flag. When the 'fish is on and pulls the lever down the 
flag is up. Indeed, all the jerky motions of biting and 
swallowing the bait are communicated to the flag, and 
those who follow the flags with a boat say thai the 
sport is really more exciting than ice fishing. A big 
pickerel will run with bob and all, and often the pursinl 
with the boat is very exciting. 
The ponds in Maine are generally frozen over, though 
the larger lakes are not, and although the water Is 
very low. some good catches of pickerel are being made 
A couple of fishermen went from Lewiston to a pon'l in 
Turner the other dav and returned with forty-one 
pickerel. They claim that_the very low water makes the 
pickerel more hungry the Winthrop and Monmo'ith 
ponds have scarcely been frozen over sufiiciently strong 
for pickerel fishing, though some ice fishing has been 
done, with good results. . Ss&3M* 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
The Minnesota Indian Case. 
St. Paul, Minn., Dec. 22.— Editor Forest and Stream: 
I send you the text of the decision of our Supreme Court 
in the Indian hunting case. It is almost a reversal of the 
former decision in the Selkirk case. Our able Attorney- 
General, W. B. Douglass, ftilly believes with Justices 
Mitchell and Start, and says the decision will not stand. 
Of course, the Attorney-General had nothing to do with 
prosecuting the case; that was done by Mr. Donley, the 
attorney of the Game and Fish Commission, who, when 
the verdict was against him, ought to have moved for a 
rehearing, but instead let the matter drop. I believe with 
the Attorney-General that when a chance is presented to 
again try a similar case the verdict will be as Messrs. 
Mitchell and Start have written it. F. 
State of Ml^fNEsoTA, Supreme Court, October Term, 
A. D. 1899. No. 18. 
State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. Al Cooney, Defendant ; 
Julia Selkirk, Intervenor-Respondent. 
Syllabus. 
While the State authorities have a very extensive 
jurisdiction over the territory included in the White 
Earth Indian reservation in this State, held, the tribal In- 
dians on the reservation have under their treaties with 
the United States, and the acquiescence of the State for 
over thirty years, a license to hunt and fish on the reserva- 
tion in their usual and traditional manner in order to pro- 
cure food for themselves, notwithstanding that the Slate 
laws prohibit such fishing and hunting. 
Order aMrmed. 
Opinion, 
This is an action of replevin for the meat of fourteen 
deer. The action is brought in the name of the State by 
authority of the Board of Game and Fish Commissioners, 
under the claim that such meat was in the possession of 
the defendant after five days after the close of the open 
season, contrary to Sec. 14, Chap. 221, L. 1897. Julia 
Selkirk intervened, and in her complaint of interven- 
tion alleges that at the time of the seizure of the game 
under the writ of replevin herein, .such game was on the 
White Earth Indian reservation in this State, and she 
was in the possession of the same and the owner thereof; 
that she is an Indian by birth and a member of one of the 
tribes of Chippewa Indians dwelling on said reservation, 
and was both at the time of the seizure of said game 
under the writ and at the time she acquired the same, 
authorized by the United States to trade and barter with 
the Indians on the reservation. That during the time 
when the killirig and possession of deer is authorized by 
the laws of this State, certain tribal Indians lawfully be- 
longing upon the reservation killed the deer thereon and 
during such open season, bartered the same to her, and 
that she held the same for the purpose of bartering the 
same to the Indians on the reservation and of supplying 
the children attending the Indian school thereon with 
ineat. and that no part of the meat was ever removed or 
intended to be removed from the reservation except by 
plaintiff under said writ. 
Plaintiff demurred to this complaint on the ground 
that it does not state either a cause of action or a defense, 
and appealed from an order overruling the demurrer. In 
our opinion, the order appealed from should be affirmed. 
In Selkirk vs. Stephens, 72 Minn., 335, we had occasion to 
go into the history of the White Earth reservation. The 
territory covered by the reservation ceased to be Indian 
country in 1855, as it was in that year ceded by the Indians 
to the United States, and the laws of the United States 
and of the Territory of Minnesota were then extended over 
the ceded lands, which remained in that condition until 
after Minnesota was admitted as a State in 1858, and 
until 1864, when a new treaty was made with the Indians, 
and 1867, when another treaty was made, whereby these 
ceded lands were set apart as a reservation, and the In- 
dians have since resided and maintained their tribal re- 
lations upon the same. 
We are of the opinion that while under those circum- 
stances the jurisdiction of the State authorities over the 
territory covered by this reservation is very extensive, it 
is not so extensive as to enable the State authorities to 
destroy or impair the efficacy of the guardianship of the 
United States Government over the Indians, or destroy 
the effect of the treaties of the United States Government 
with the Indians. To prohibit the Indian from fishing 
and hunting in order to procure food for his own con- 
sumption, would undoubtedly impair or destroy such 
efficacy. He is less vicious, more contented and more 
easily controlled when he is allowed to follow his tradi- 
tional habits. 
He acquires the habits and learns to follow the pur- 
suits of civilized man but .slowly. By compelling him 
suddenly to break off his old habits and attempting to 
compel him to form new ones, he becomes a loafer and a 
vagabond, both dangerous and criminal, who is a menace 
to the safety and well-being of all the civilized communi- 
ties in the vicinitv of his reservation. The State has 
without objection for more than thirty years permtted the 
tribal government to exist within its borders on this 
reservation, and we are of the opinion that the State can- 
not at this late day do anv act which will practically 
destroy that government. Though they are both con- 
nected with the Federal Government, the tribal govern- 
ment and the State Government are rather foreign to 
each other, and the rights as against each other, of 
governments foreign to each other, usually grow up out 
of acquiescence and traditions. We do not wish to be 
tmderstood as holding that as between the State Govern- 
ment and the tribal government, tradition and acqui- 
escence will have any such an extensive effect as it will 
between governments wholly foreign to each other; bitt 
still, we think such tradition and acquiescence as be- 
tween the State Government and the tribal government 
may have stifficient effect to give the tribe a license to 
hunt and fish within the boundaries of the reservation, as 
this peculiar right is practically indispensable to the main- 
tainmg of the tribal relation 
By the course of things for more than thirty years, it 
must be inferred that the LViited States Government as* 
sumed that the Indians had a right to hunt and fish on 
the reservation, and the State Government has acquiesced 
331 
in that assumption. It is said in U. S, vs. Halliday, 3 
Wall, 407 (419) : "In reference to matters of this kind, it 
is the rule of this court to follow the action of the execu- 
tion and other political departments of the Government, 
( whose more special duty it is to determine such affairs. 
If by them the Indians are recognized as a tribe, this 
court must do the same." After thirty years of the mutual 
recognition by both the Federal and State governments of 
the right of these Indians to do something so esseaiial 
to their tribal relations, we are of the opinion that the 
courts should follow this mutual recognition and hold 
that while the title to all the wild game is in the State, Lhe 
Indians have a license to hunt on the reservation in their 
usual and traditional manner in order to procure food for 
themselves. In Selkirk vs. Stephens, supra, we held: 
"This limitation of the power of the State does not arise 
from the fact that the laws of the State are not operative 
upon this reservation, but it grows out of the personal 
relations of such Indians to the general Government. 
They are its wards, and under its guardianship and con- 
trol, and the State may not interfere with or impair the 
efficacy of such guardianship." 
The Federal courts have strongly maintained the right 
of the Federal Government to prevent any action by either 
the State or the private citizen which will impair the 
efficacy of the guardianship of the Federal Government 
over its Indian wards. See U. S. vs. Halliday, supra; 
U. S. vs. Boyd. 42 U. S. App,, 637; the Cherokee Nation 
vs. Georgia, 5 Pet., i ; Worcester vs. Georgia, 6 Pet., 515. 
The two latter cases are instructive and much in point 
here. Georgia was one of the thirteen original colonies, 
and clearly from the time of the treaty of peace with Eng- 
land (if not from the time of the declaration of inde- 
pendence) to the time the United States Constitution took 
effect, Georgia had jurisdiction over the Indians within 
her borders if any white man's government had such 
jurisdiction. But notwithstanding that, it was held in 
these two cases that such jurisdiction devolved on the 
United States Government. 
But if this game was killed or was being held, not for 
personal consumption by the Indians on the reservation, 
but for sale or disposal to persons other than the tribal 
Indians or for shipment off the reservation, then such 
game is not protected by the license of the Indians to 
hunt in their traditional manner, and may be seized by 
the State authorities whenever this can be done without 
interfering with the person of the Indian in whose custody 
or possession the game may be, even though it is so 
seized on the reservation. Whether the game here in 
question is protected by such license would ordinarily be 
a question for the jury, and cannot be determined on this 
demurrer. Canty, J. 
Order affirmed. 
Mr. Justice Collein and Mr. Justice Buck concur. 
Dissenting Opinion. 
I am unable to approve this opinion. 
It seems to me that in view of the history of this so- 
called reservation given in Selkirk vs. Stephens, 72 
Minn., 335, the only logical conclusion is that the State 
has full and complete jurisdiction of the territory, and 
that the right of the Indians to kill game upon it is subject 
to all the game laws of the State. 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 guardian- 
ship of the Federal Government over tribal Indians on a 
reservation. 
This, however, would not stand in the way of the State 
reclaiming its own property. 
I do not see any sufficient basis for the position that by 
tradition and acquiescence the State has given the Inaians 
a right to hunt and fish unrestricted by its game laws. 
Game laws were in force when the Government placed 
the Indians on these lands. If the State has in years past 
failed to enforce these laws as to Indians, the same is 
true as to white men. But if there is any such traditional 
license it does not extend beyond the right of an Indian 
to kill game on reservations, irrespective of State game 
laws, for his own personal consumption as food. It 
certainly cannot extend to the right to kill or keep game 
in violation of the law for the purpose of making it an 
article of commerce and sale. It is not the policy of the 
United States to perpetuate the tribal relation among 
Indians. On the contrary, its object is to induce the 
Indians to abandon their tribal relation and adopt the 
habits of civilized life as soon as possble. The only in- 
terest the Government can have is to preserve for their 
Indian wards such rights as are essential to their existence 
while they do maintain the tribal relation. In view of 
the fact that tribal Indians who have not adopted the 
habits of civilized life are accustomed to depend largely 
on the fruits of the chase for their food, it may be ueces- 
sary 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. It is a matter of common 
knowledge that these Indians realize very little from the 
game which they sell, and what little they do realize is 
quickly squandered. The idea of the.se Indians buying 
game from those who keep it for .sale will cause a smile of 
incredulity on the part of those who know them best ; but 
even if they do sometimes buy it, it is the Indian who kills 
and sells the game, or the trader who keeps it for sale, and 
not the Indian who buys it for food, who is benefited. If 
an Indian has the money with which to buy venison he is 
able to buy beef or some other article of food with his 
money. I know of no more effectual method of depleting 
game in both Indian reservations and the adjacent country 
than to hold that they may kill it for purposes of barter 
and sale, or that traders may buy and keep it for sale 
during the closed season. 
As far as I would be willing to go is that concedings 
without deciding, that a tribal Indian has the right to kill 
game on this so-called reservation during the closed 
season for consumption as food by himself and family, 
this is the limit of his right ; that the right does not eKtend 
TO kilHng or keeping it for sale, even to other Indians. ' 
Mitchell, J. ■ 
I concur in the views of Mr. Justice Mitchell. 
L Stabt^ C. J, 
