Mattz v. Arnett

412 U.S. 481, 93 S. Ct. 2245, 37 L. Ed. 2d 92, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 57
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided June 11, 1973·No. 71-1182·Published·Cited by 281 cases

Opinion

MR. Justice Blackmun

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Our decision in this case turns on the resolution of the narrow question whether the Klamath River Indian Reservation in northern California was terminated by Act of Congress or whether it remains “Indian country,” within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. § 1151. 1 When established, the reservation was described as “a strip of territory commencing at the Pacific Ocean and extending 1 mile in width on each side of the Klamath River” *484 for a distance of approximately 20 miles, encompassing an area not exceeding 25,000 acres. This description is taken from President Franklin Pierce’s Executive Order issued November 16, 1855, pursuant to the authority granted by the Act of March 3, 1853, 10 Stat. 226, 238, and the Act of March 3, 1855, 10 Stat. 686, 699. 2

Petitioner Raymond Mattz is a Yurok, or Klamath River, Indian who, since the age of nine, regularly fished, as his grandfather did before him, with dip, gill, and trigger nets, at a location called Brooks Riffle on the Klamath River. On September 24, 1969, a California game warden confiscated five gill nets owned by Mattz. The nets were stored near Brooks Riffle, approximately 200 feet from the river, and within 20 miles of the river’s mouth.

The respondent Director of the Department of Fish and Game instituted a forfeiture proceeding in state court. Mattz intervened and asked for the return of his nets. He alleged, among other things, that he was an enrolled member of the Yurok Tribe, that the nets were seized within Indian country, and that the state statutes prohibiting the use of gill nets, Cal. Fish & Game Code §§8664, 8686, and 8630, therefore were inapplicable to him. The state trial court, relying on Elser v. Gill Net Number One, 246 Cal. App. 2d 30, 54 Cal. Rptr. 568 (1966), found that the Klamath River Reservation in 1892 “for all practical purposes almost immediately lost its identity,” 3 and concluded that the area where the *485 nets were seized was not Indian country. The court thereby disposed of petitioner's primary defense to the forfeiture. It did not reach other issues bearing upon the application of the California statutes to Indian country and the existence of Indian fishing rights there.

On appeal, the State Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that, inasmuch as the area in question had been opened for unrestricted homestead entry in 1892, the earlier reservation status of the land had terminated. 20 Cal. App. 3d 729, 97 Cal. Rptr. 894 (1971). The Supreme Court of California, one judge dissenting, denied a petition for hearing. See 20 Cal. App. 3d, at 735, 97 Cal. Rptr., at 898. We granted certiorari, 409 U. S. 1124 (1973), because the judgments of the state courts appeared to be in conflict with applicable decisions of this Court.

We now reverse. The reversal, of course, does not dispose of the underlying forfeiture issue. On remand, the questions relating to the existence of Matiz’ fishing rights and to the applicability of California law notwithstanding reservation status will be addressed. We intimate no opinion on those issues.

I

While the current reservation status of the Klamath River Reservation turns primarily upon the effect of an 1892 Act of Congress which opened the reservation land for settlement, the meaning and effect of that Act cannot be determined without some reference to the Yurok Tribe and the history of the reservation between 1855 and 1892.

The Yurok Indians apparently resided in the area of the lower Klamath River for a substantial period before 1855 when the Klamath River Reservation was established. Little is known of their prior history. There are sources, however, that provide us with relatively *486 detailed information about the tribe, its culture, living conditions, and customs for the period following 1855. 4 That the tribe had inhabited the lower Klamath River well before 1855 is suggested by the name. Yurok means “down the river.” The names of the neighboring tribes, the Karok and the Modok, mean, respectively, “up the river” and “head of the river,” and these appellations, as would be expected, coincide with the respective homelands. Powers 19; Kroeber 15. 5

*487 By the Act of March 3, 1853, 10 Stat. 238, the President was “authorized to make five military reservations from the public domain in the State of California or the Territories of Utah and New Mexico bordering on said State, for Indian purposes.” The Act of March 3, 1855, 10 Stat. 699, appropriated funds for “collecting, removing, and subsisting the Indians of California ... on two additional military reservations, to be selected as heretofore . . . Provided, That the President may enlarge the quantity of reservations heretofore selected, equal to those hereby provided for.” President Pierce then issued his order of November 16, 1855, specifying the Klamath River Reservation and stating, “Let the reservation be made, as proposed.” Kappler 817.

The site was ideally selected for the Yuroks. They had lived in the area; the arable land, although limited, was “peculiarly adapted to the growth of vegetables,” 1856 Report 238; and the river, which ran through a canyon its entire length, abounded in salmon and other fish. Ibid.; 1858 Report 286. 6

In 1861 nearly all the arable lands on the Klamath River Reservation were destroyed by a freshet, and, upon recommendation of the local Indian agent, some of the Indians were removed to the Smith River Reservation, established for that purpose in 1862. Only a small number of Yuroks moved to the new reservation, however, and nearly all those who did move returned within a few *488 years to the Klamath River. Crichton v. Shelton, 33 I. D. 205, 208 (1904); Kappler 830; 1864 Report 122. The Smith River Reservation was then discontinued. Act of July 27, 1868, 15 Stat. 198, 221.

The total Yurok population on the Klamath River Reservation in the 1860’s cannot be stated with precision. In 1852, based in part on a rough census made by a trader, it was estimated at 2,500. Kroeber 16-17. 7 *489 The effect of the 1861 flood cannot be firmly established; but it is clear that the tribe remained on the Klamath thereafter. 8 For later years, Kroeber estimated that the population in 1895 was 900, and, in 1910, 668. Kroeber 19.

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

Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 93 S. Ct. 2245, 37 L. Ed. 2d 92, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 57 (1973).

412 U.S. 481 (Mattz v. Arnett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

GRAYSON v. STATE
2021 OK CR 8 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 2021)
Oneida Nation v. Village of Hobart, Wisconsin
968 F.3d 664 (Seventh Circuit, 2020)
Pueblo of Jemez v. United States
350 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (D. New Mexico, 2018)
State of Wyoming v. EPA
Tenth Circuit, 2017
Nebraska v. Parker
577 U.S. 481 (Supreme Court, 2016)
David Robinson v. Sally Jewell
790 F.3d 910 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Robinson v. Salazar
838 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (E.D. California, 2012)
Yellowbear v. WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL
636 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (D. Wyoming, 2009)
Yellowbear v. State
2008 WY 4 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2008)
State v. Romero
2004 NMCA 012 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2004)
Seneca Nation of Indians v. New York
206 F. Supp. 2d 448 (W.D. New York, 2002)
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Matt Gaffey
188 F.3d 1010 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)
Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah
935 F. Supp. 1473 (D. Utah, 1996)
State v. Davids
534 N.W.2d 70 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1995)
Parravano v. Babbitt
861 F. Supp. 914 (N.D. California, 1994)
Hagen v. Utah
510 U.S. 399 (Supreme Court, 1994)
United States v. Washington
18 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (W.D. Washington, 1993)
Sokaogon Chippewa Community v. Exxon Corp.
805 F. Supp. 680 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1992)