Document:
Settler v. Lameer

 
"The exclusive right of taking  [**2]  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 usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them; . . . 12 Stat. 951, 953.

 
"Any Tribal Game Warden or any Tribal Law Enforcement Officer shall be authorized to enforce the provisions of this and any other regulation of the Yakima Tribe governing the exercise of Treaty fishing rights whether on or off the Yakima Reservation and where violations are committed in his presence, he shall arrest the offender, take him into custody, and seize all fishing gear, boats or motors used by said offender." (emphasis added).

 
"In the main, at the time of the treaty, the Indians who were parties to the Yakima Treaty lived in a food gathering culture. They existed on game, fish, roots, berries and some cultivated vegetables. Of these foods fish was a major food and they landed salmon, steelhead, trout, mussels, eel, and other miscellaneous fish. Salmon, however, both fresh and cured, was a staple in the food supply of these Indians. It was annually consumed by these Indians in the neighborhood of 500 pounds per capita." (emphasis added). Findings of Fact No. 151.

 
"The Yakima Indians have been and continue to be very dependent on anadromous fish to sustain their way of life. They live close to the poverty level and have not reached economic or social parity with non-Indian citizens of the State of Washington. Anadromous fish are vital to the Indians' diet with approximately 2,000 of the enrolled members fishing for personal consumption." Findings of Fact No. 163.

 
"Since, however, the vast majority of Indians at the treaty councils did not speak or understand English, the treaty provisions and the remarks of the treaty commissioners were interpreted . . . to the Indians in the Chinook jargon and then translated into native languages by Indian interpreters. Chinook jargon, a trade medium of limited vocabulary and simple grammar, was inadequate to express precisely the legal effects of the treaties, although the general meaning of treaty language could be explained." Findings of Fact No. 22.

 
"The treaty was dictated by white conquerors of a subjugated race. It is inconceivable that there was the kind of arms-length bargaining as to terms which would have made relevant as ascertainment of the Indian intention (sic). Naturally the Indians wanted the unattainable -- to be left alone. It is doubtful that the untrained Indian mind understood the ambiguities of Article III even though the white representatives went to some pains to explain the provision. A great and unbridgeable void existed between the language and culture of the two races. When one considers that the meaning of Article III was sufficiently in doubt as to require the interpretative services of the Supreme Court and several lesser courts in subsequent years, one can readily forgive the Indians for any lack of perspicacity or, indeed clairvoyance."

 
"implicit in these treaty terms, as it was in the treaties with the Cherokees involved in Worcester v. Georgia, was the understanding that the internal affairs of the Indians remained exclusively within the jurisdiction of whatever tribal government existed."

 
"The right to fish 'at all usual and accustomed' places may, of course, not be qualified by the State, even though all Indians born in the United States are now citizens of the United States. . . . But the manner of fishing, the size of the take, the  [**19]  restriction of commercial fishing, and the like may be regulated by the State in the interest of conservation, provided the regulation meets appropriate standards and does not discriminate against the Indians." (emphasis added).

 
"The uncontradicted evidence shows that for a considerable time the Quinault and Yakima tribes have adopted and effectively enforced tribal fishing regulations which in some material respects are more restrictive than the regulations of Fisheries and Game. To a considerable extent those tribes have consulted and cooperated with Fisheries and Game in matters pertaining to responsible regulation of Indian fishing."

 
§ 1302. Constitutional rights.

No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall --

. . .

(3) subject any person for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy;

. . .

(6) deny to any person in a criminal proceeding . . ., and at his own expense to have the assistance of counsel for his own defense; . . .."

"As stated in the stipulation in No. 2454, (No. 74-1656, the Mary Settler case) the contention as to professional counsel has been withdrawn by counsel for Petitioner and is no longer at issue in this case, because the Yakima Indian Nation now permits tribal members to be represented by professional counsel in tribal court proceedings."

 
". . . the existence of the right in Congress to regulate the manner in which the local powers of the Cherokee Nation shall be exercised does not render such local powers Federal powers arising from and created by the Constitution of the United States. It follows that as the powers of local self government enjoyed by the Cherokee Nation existed prior to the Constitution, they are not operated  [**32]  upon by the Fifth Amendment, which, as we have said, had for its sole object to control the powers conferred by the Constitution on the National Government." Id. at 384.

 
"The right to be represented by counsel is protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. These amendments, however, protect these rights only as against action by the United States in the case of the Fifth and Sixth amendments, and as against action by the states in the case of the Fourteenth Amendment. Indian tribes are not states within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."