United States v. Brookfield Fisheries, Inc.

24 F. Supp. 712, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1744
CourtDistrict Court, D. Oregon
DecidedAugust 23, 1938
Docket9276
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 24 F. Supp. 712 (United States v. Brookfield Fisheries, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Brookfield Fisheries, Inc., 24 F. Supp. 712, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1744 (D. Or. 1938).

Opinion

*713 JAMES ALGER FEE, District Judge.

This suit by the United States as guardian of the Yakima nation and other Indian tribes, and of the individual Indian plaintiffs has been brought to restrain the defendants from prohibiting access by the Indians to a small strip of ground between the ship canal and Celilo Falls upon the southern bank of the Columbia River, and specifically from taking fish there in common with other citizens.

Here the river passes over a reef of basaltic rock in several streams, between which are rocky islands from which the Indians have fished from time immemorial. Upon this property and between the uplands and the stream exists a saddlelike depression, and in former times, between this lower level and the falls, the rock rose some forty feet into a gigantic basaltic pillar, an outstanding landmark, striking in character and unforgotten by those who have seen it, which was called “Hasslo” by the tribesmen.

Across this small strip of land and through the depression noted above runs at present a channel, at the upper end of which defendants have erected a fishwheel. Through the main river and this tiny stream, in proper season, rush the finny tribes of Chinook salmon in vast numbers, seeking the upper tributaries in which to spawn. The legal title in fee to this property passed from the United States to the State of Oregon, which conveyed it to Anne M. Lang. The latter deeded it to McLeod and Taffe in 1883, and thence the property passed by mean conveyance to the corporate defendant. There were no improvements or changes in the property until Taffe and McLeod occupied it in 1883, but from that time on, fishing in the small stream now flowing across the property became a great industry, and ever since that date the Indians have been excluded therefrom. The United States claims for its wards the right of fishing on these premises by virtue of the treaties by which the red man’s right to the whole territory was extinguished and which are paramount to the title of defendants. A short, historical digression is necessary in order that the basis of this claim may be understood.

Commencing in 1855, the United States by its treaties with the Yakima nation (June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951), with the confederated bands of the Umatillas, Cayuses, and Walla Wallas (June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945), with the tribes of middle Oregon (June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963), and the Nez Perce and other Indians extinguished the aboriginal title to an empire, consisting of a large part of eastern Oregon, eastern Washington and Idaho. These cessions included the gorge of the Columbia and the immediate fishing places at Celilo and below. Each of the treaties above mentioned contained phrases granting the right to the Indians to take fish exclusively in the Reservations and “at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory”, or variably “at all other usual and accustomed stations in common with citizens of the United States”.

These treaties have been interpreted in the sense in which they might have been understood by the red men. These extended to them the right to fish where they had always fished. An easement was laid down of ingress to and egress from such usual and accustomed places. A fishery in gross was attached to all real property and titles subject to that description. The government was at that time, moreover, the sovereign and proprietor, and grants made then attached to all future conveyances as if written therein. This easement inhered in the title of the Brookfield Fisheries to the land over which the small stream in question now courses if it has been shown that there was a usual and accustomed place 'for the Indians to fish. All this is rendered sufficiently clear by a series of decisions of the federal courts.

Now, it is incontrovertibly established that Celilo Falls and the neighborhood, generally, was a famous fishing place for the tribesmen, and it might seem sufficient for the United States to prove that the Indians fished from the islands in the river and from the rock “Hasslo,” which was clearly established. These earlier cases above referred to, however, have required evidence limited rather strictly as to location, and therefore, it was held in this case incumbent upon the government to prove that the Indians usually and customarily, prior to 1855, fished in waters flowing between Hasslo and the upland. ■

A view of the essential facts requisite to establish the case of the United States and its wards is clouded by the mists of years and the fallibility of human memory, since more than the span of life vouchsafed by the Psalmist has expired since that treaty. To add to the difficulties, it is clearly established that in the years since the making of the treaty the topography of this *714 small bit of land has been entirely changed by the operations of the white man. The Celilo Canal has been driven through the solid rock between the upland and the rock “Hasslo” and just beyond the depression heretofore mentioned. Upon the upland slope of the rock reef as it arises from the depression, but between the river and th'e ship canal, an intake for a channel has been cut in the solid rock, and into this opening has been placed a water wheel, so constructed as to enable it to lift the fish from the stream and deposit them in containers above. Alongside this wheel a fish house has been built. From the wheel across the property to the point where the waters pour out in the main stream of the Columbia below the falls, over a steep runway, extends a fish way with regular walls cut in the rock, evidencing the plan and execution of the artificer. At the intake a wing dam has been constructed, which reaches out for considerable distances in the main stream above the falls, and which has the effect of throwing a current thereof toward that fishwheel rather than allowing it to strike at a low spot which originally existed about midway of the depression between Hasslo and the mainland. This monumental pillar has itself become converted by blasting into a flat mound. Its fragments have been piled in a series of wooden cribs which rise some fifteen feet above their base, and which fill the entire space between Hasslo and the fish wheel along the river bank, and thus completely cover the natural low point of the saddle. In order to form these cribs, the rock reef was leveled to a certain degree by blasting, and a cement dam was placed in the lowest point. The visible portions of this cement can be seen upon the river side, under the rock filled cribs and slightly above extreme low water mark,

If the Indian testimony can be given any weight, the case is conclusively established by the plaintiff. Eye witnesses of great age testify that this natural channel always existed as it does today, and that the tribesmen fished there in the years before the treaty was signed. With a wealth of intimate detail" which bears circumstantial guarantee of truth, they relate how and where the villages were constructed on the, upland near this spot, and how the fish were caught in this “wiep” or natural channel with spear, dip net and willow weir. Some have fi.shed therein themselves, others have watched their kinfolk catch the Chinook, and the women have dried the fish so caught, upon the banks. Flowever, this evidence is subject to serious criticism. Indian testimony has characteristic defects.

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

Related

United States v. Bouchard
464 F. Supp. 1316 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1978)
Department of Game v. Puyallup Tribe, Inc.
422 P.2d 754 (Washington Supreme Court, 1967)
Whitefoot v. United States
293 F.2d 658 (Court of Claims, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 F. Supp. 712, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-brookfield-fisheries-inc-ord-1938.