Home/Supreme Court/Hynes, Regional Director, Fish & Wildlife Service v. Grimes Packing Co.

Hynes, Regional Director, Fish & Wildlife Service v. Grimes Packing Co.

337 U.S. 86, 69 S. Ct. 968, 93 L. Ed. 2d 1231, 93 L. Ed. 1231, 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2954, 12 Alaska 348
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 31, 1949
Docket24
StatusPublished
Cited by152 cases

This text of 337 U.S. 86 (Hynes, Regional Director, Fish & Wildlife Service v. Grimes Packing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hynes, Regional Director, Fish & Wildlife Service v. Grimes Packing Co., 337 U.S. 86, 69 S. Ct. 968, 93 L. Ed. 2d 1231, 93 L. Ed. 1231, 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2954, 12 Alaska 348 (1949).

Opinions

Mr. Justice Reed

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Secretary of the Interior on May 22, 1943, issued Public Land Order 128. It is set out in full below.1 In this case the significant part of No. 128 is that the Secretary included in the reservation, by paragraph 2, adjacent tidelands and coastal waters along tht entire shore line of the uplands that touched Shelikof StrL H between Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula. The authority of the Secretary to utilize presidential power in the designation of this reservation out of public lands in Alaska flows from a delegation to the Secretary of presidential power to withdraw or reserve public lands and revoke or [90]*90modify prior reservations. Executive Order No. 9146, of April 24, 1942, 1 C. F. R., Cum. Supp. 1149. The presidential power over reservations is made specific by the Act of June 25, 1910. 2 Another statutory provision, however, is the principal basis for Order 128. This is [91]*91§ 2 of the Act of May 1-, 1936, 49 Stat. 1250. This act was passed to extend to Alaska the benefits of the Wheeler-Howard Act of June 18, 1934, 48 Stat. 984, and to provide for the designation of Indian reservations in Alaska. As § 2 is important in our discussion, the pertinent provisions are set out in full:

“Sec. 2. That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to designate as an Indian reservation any area of land which has been reserved for the use and occupancy of Indians or Eskimos by section 8 of the Act of May 17, 1884 (23 Stat. 26), or by section 14 or section 15 of the Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1101), or which has been heretofore reserved under any executive order and placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior or any bureau thereof, together with additional public lands adjacent thereto, within the Territory of Alaska, or any other public lands which are actually occupied by Indians or Eskimos within said Territory: Provided, That the designation by the Secretary of the Interior of any such area of land as a reservation shall be effective only upon its approval by the vote, by secret ballot, of a majority of the Indian or. Eskimo residents thereof who vote at a special election duly called by the Secretary of the Interior upon thirty days’ notice:'"'. . . .’’

The Native Village of Karluk held a meeting on May 23, 1944, and accepted “the proposed Indian Reservation for this village. The adoption of said Reservation' passed by a vote of 46 for and 0 against. 11 of the eligible voters were absent.” See note 26, infra. Under § 19 of the Wheeler-Howard Act the Alaskan aborigines are classified as Indians.

On March 22 and August 27, 1946, the Secretary of the Interior amended the Alaská Fisheries General Regu[92]*92lations, 50 C. F. R., 1946 Supp., § 208.23, that related to the commercial fishing for salmon in the Kodiak Area Fisheries by the addition of a subsection (r), reading as follows:

“(r) All waters within 3,000 feet of the shores of Karluk Reservation (Public Land Order No. 128, May 22, .1943), beginning at a point on the east shore of Shelikof Strait, ,on Kodiak Island, latitude 57°32'30// N., thence northeasterly along said shore to a point 57°39'40".
“The foregoing prohibition shall not apply to fishing by natives in possession of said reservation, nor to fishing by other persons under authority granted by said natives (49 Stat. 1250; 48 U. S.-C. 358a). Such authority shall be granted only by or pursuant to ordinance of the Native Village of Karluk, approved by the Secretary of the Interior or his duly authorized representative.” 11 Fed. Reg. 3105, 9528.

The authority for the regulation is given as 34 Stat. 263 and 478, as amended by the Act of June 6, 1924, 43 Stat. 464, an Act'for the protection of the fisheries of Alaska, known-as the White Act.3 As the controlling section of this statute also is important, it is set out here,4 44 Stat. 752:

“Section 1. That for the purpose of protecting and conserving the fisheries of the United States in all waters of Alaska the Secretary of Commerce from time to time may set apart and reserve fishing areas in any of the waters of Alaska over which the United [93]*93States has jurisdiction, and within such areas may establish closed seasons during which fishing may be limited or prohibited as he may prescribe. Under this authority to limit fishing in any area so set apart and reserved the Secretary may (a) fix the size and character of nets, boats, traps, or other gear and appliances to be used therein; (b) limit the catch of fish to be taken fro.m any area; (c) make such regulations as to time, means, methods, and extent of fishing as he may deem advisable. From and after the creation of any such fishing area and during the time fishing is prohibited therein it shall be unlawful to fish therein or to operate therein any boat, seine, trap, or other gear or apparatus for the .purpose of taking fish; arid from and after the creation of any such fishing area in which limited fishing is permitted such fishing shall be carried on only during the time, in the manner, to the extent, and in conformity with such rules and regulations as the Secretary prescribes under the authority herein given: Provided, That every such regulation made by the Secretary of Commerce shall be of general application within the particular area to which it applies, and that no exclusive or several right of fishery shall be granted therein, nor shall any citizpn of the United States be denied the right to take, prepare, cure, or preserve fish or shellfish in any area of the waters of Alaska where fishirig is permitted by the Secretary of Commerce. . . .” (See for definition of “several,” 2 Bl. Com. 39-40.)

These are the statutes and orders that created the situation that led to this litigation.

The issuance of the White Act regulation of March 22, 1946, brought concern to the commercial fishing, interests of Alaska. This w{is because of its drastic penalties. Sep note 49, infra. The native village of Karluk [94]*94spoken of in Order No. 128 establishing the reservation is situated ón the Karluk; River, long recognized as one of the most important salmon spawning streams of Alaska. The natives live at its mouth on Shelikof Strait. There the salmon must congregate from the Strait to enter the channel of the river leading to their spawning grounds in the interior of Kodiak Island. The waters included in the reservation are those, stretching eight miles along the coast north and south of the mouth, 3,000 feet into the -Strait. Thus the best of the Karluk salmon fishery is put into the reservation by Order ,No. 128.5 For an understanding of the locality, a sketch map is appended.

The importance of the Karluk fishery will be appreciated by reference to a few of the facts in connection with ' When Russia ceded Alaska to the United. States in 1867, 15 Stat'. 539, Karluk was already well known as an abundant salmon fishery.6 By 1885 the salmon canneries were flourishing and Bancroft reports the Karluk pack at 36,000 cases out of a total of 65,000.7 The production continued large.8 The red salmon was most prolific. There were variations in the catch but it was [95]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Newmont USA Ltd.
504 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (E.D. Washington, 2007)
Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group Ltd. Richard B. Wingfield v. United States
442 F.3d 177 (Third Circuit, 2006)
Karuk Tribe of California v. Carol McConnell Ammon, Leslie Ammon, Elsie McCovey Bacon, Julia Lauretta Bartow, Ollie Roberts Foseide, Bonita Bacon Green, Janice M. Green, Dorothy Williams Haberman, Richard L. Haberman, Evelina Hoffman, Mary Gist Jackson, Martin Kinder, Sr., Rachel L. Knight, Ernest Lewis, Jr., Annie Mitchell Love, Ardith McConnell Michael McConnell Robert B. McConnell Walter C. McKinnon Thelma W. McLaughlin Steven J. Metcalfe, Edward E. Mitchell, Veta Gillespie Mitchell, Gertrude v. Mollier, Edward Moore David E. O'neill, Herbert L. O'neill, Barbara E. Orcutt, Lawrence E. Orcutt, David Eric Severns, Maria E. Tripp, and Kathryn Ichelson Wild,plaintiffs-Appellants, and Yurok Indian Tribe v. United States, and Hoopa Valley Tribe
209 F.3d 1366 (Federal Circuit, 2000)
State of Alaska v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, Katie John v. United States of America
72 F.3d 698 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Anna Jordan v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
892 F.2d 482 (Sixth Circuit, 1989)
Mendelsohn v. Meese
686 F. Supp. 75 (S.D. New York, 1988)
United States v. Articles of Drug Consisting of 203 Paper Bags, Etc.
818 F.2d 569 (Seventh Circuit, 1987)
PEOPLE v. CLARK
746 F.2d 572 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
People of Village of Gambell v. Clark
746 F.2d 572 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
Swim v. Bergland
696 F.2d 712 (Ninth Circuit, 1983)
State v. Lowe
327 N.W.2d 166 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1982)
United States v. Felter
546 F. Supp. 1002 (D. Utah, 1982)
Harold Blake and Margaret Carlson, and Cross-Defendants v. G. Ray Arnett, Simpson Timber Company, a Corporation, Cross-Plaintiff And
663 F.2d 906 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)
Downstate Stone Company, an Illinois Corporation v. United States of America
651 F.2d 1234 (Seventh Circuit, 1981)
Munoz v. County of Imperial
510 F. Supp. 879 (S.D. California, 1981)
Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald
619 F.2d 801 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
William Daniel Nicholson, Iii, Cross-Appellant v. Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense, Cross-Appellees
599 F.2d 639 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)
Johnson v. DIST. COURT OF SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL
576 P.2d 167 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1978)
Union Elec. Co. v. EPA
450 F. Supp. 805 (E.D. Missouri, 1978)
United Shoe Workers of America, Afl-Cio v. Catherine Bedell, Chairman
506 F.2d 174 (D.C. Circuit, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
337 U.S. 86, 69 S. Ct. 968, 93 L. Ed. 2d 1231, 93 L. Ed. 1231, 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2954, 12 Alaska 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hynes-regional-director-fish-wildlife-service-v-grimes-packing-co-scotus-1949.