No. 13190
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
-vs-
LASSO STASSO,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: Diskrict Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Robert L. Fletcher, County Attorney, Thompson Falls,
Montana
Clayton Herron argued, Helena, Montana
For Respondent :
Victor F. Valgenti argued, Missoula, Montana
Richard A. Baenen, Washington D.C.
.
Submitted: January 19, 1977
APW eg
~e~ided 1n
9
Filed :
b\PI 21 I$@.
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
Defendant Lasso S t a s s o , a duly e n r o l l e d member of t h e
Confederated S a l i s h and Kootenai Indian T r i b e s , was convicted i n
j u s t i c e c o u r t , Thompson F a l l s , Montana, of a v i o l a t i o n of t h e game
laws of Montana. The s p e c i f i c charge was k i l l i n g a deer o u t of
season. This conviction was appealed t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and
was s e t a s i d e and t h e charges dismissed. The s t a t e appeals.
The t r i a l de novo i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was held January
2 7 , 1975. These f a c t s were s t i p u l a t e d by t h e p a r t i e s :
1. Defendant, Lasso S t a s s o , i s a duly e n r o l l e d member
of t h e Confederated S a l i s h and Kootenai T r i b e s of t h e Flathead
Reservation, Montana. The Confederated T r i b e s were p a r t i e s t o t h e
Treaty of H e l l Gate of J u l y 16, 1855, 12 S t a t . 975, with t h e
United S t a t e s .
2. Defendant shot and k i l l e d a deer on August 24, 1972,
i n t h e g e n e r a l v i c i n i t y of White Pine Creek, Sanders County,
Montana. A t t h e time of t h e i n c i d e n t t h e season was closed f o r
hunting d e e r , pursuant t o Montana law.
3. That t h e l o c a t i o n i s o u t s i d e t h e boundaries of t h e
Flathead ~ e s e r v a t i o n ,a s e s t a b l i s h e d by A r t i c l e I1 of t h e Treaty
--
of Hell Gate of J u l y 16, 1855, but within National F o r e s t Service
lands which have never been patented t o any p r i v a t e person.
The s t a t e r e l i e d s o l e l y on t h e s t i p u l a t e d f a c t s . Defendant,
however, presented t h e testimony of an expert witness and e x h i b i t s
c l e a r l y o u t l i n i n g t h e a b o r i g i n a l hunting t e r r i t o r y of t h e Confederated
S a l i s h and Kootenai T r i b e s . The evidence i n d i c a t e d t h e deer was
taken w i t h i n t h i s a b o r i g i n a l hunting t e r r i t o r y , but without t h e
of
c o n f i n e s / t h e present day Flathead Reservation.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h e lands upon which t h e o f f e n s e
occurred were open and unclaimed lands under t h e Treaty of H e l l
Gate and provisions of t h e t r e a t y a r e s u p e r i o r t o any reserved
power of t h e s t a t e and t h e r e f o r e exempt from s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n . The
complaint was dismissed f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e t h e commission of a
public o f f e n s e .
The i s s u e t o be decided i s whether p r e s e n t day members
of t h e Confederated S a l i s h and Kootenai T r i b e s have a r i g h t t o
hunt f r e e from t h e r e g u l a t i o n of Montana game laws, on "open and
unclaimed lands" by v i r t u e of A r t i c l e I1 of t h e Treaty of H e l l Gate.
I n determining t h i s i s s u e , we f i r s t consider whether F o r e s t Service
land may be included w i t h i n t h e meaning of "open and unclaimed
lands" .
The concept of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o lands h i s t o r i c a l l y
occupied by American Indians i s recognized i n Sac and Fox T r i b e
v. United S t a t e s , 383 F.2d 991,997 (Ot.C1.1967), cert.den. 389 U.S.
900, 88 S.Ct.220,t19 L ed 2d 217, where t h e c o u r t s t a t e d :
"* * * t h e r i g h t of sovereignty over discovered land
was always s u b j e c t t o t h e r i g h t of use and occupancy
and enjoyment of t h e land by Indians l i v i n g on t h e
land. This r i g h t of use and occupancy by Indians came t o
be known a s 'Indian t i t l e . ' l . I t i s sometimes c a l l e d
' o r i g i n a l t i t l e ' o r ' a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e . 111
Hunting and f i s h i n g r i g h t s a r e p a r t and p a r c e l with a b o r g i n a l
title. S t a t e v. Coffee, (Idaho 1976), 556 P.2d 1185.
Aboriginal t i t l e i s founded on t h e concept t h a t Indian
occupancy and use of t h e land p r e h i s t o r i c a l l y predated t h e p r e s e n t
sovereign. This being s o , we examine t h e t e r m s by which t h e
Indians ceded t h e i r land t o t h e United S t a t e s t o determine t o what
e x t e n t Indian hunting r i g h t s on t h a t land remain unextinguished.
The p a r t i e s stipulated the Conferedated S a l i s h and Kootenai
T r i b e s , o f which t h e defendant i s a member, were p a r t i e s t o t h e
T r e a t y of H e l l Gate. T h i s t r e a t y was executed on J u l y 1 6 , 1855 a t
H e l l Gate i n t h e B i t t e r Root Valley. I s a a c I . Stevens, governor
and s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of I n d i a n a f f a i r s f o r t h e T e r r i t o r y of Washing-
ton r e p r e s e n t e d t h e United S t a t e s . R e p r e s e n t a t i v e c h i e f s , headmen,
and d e l e g a t e s of t h e F l a t h e a d , Kootenay, and Upper Pend d t O r e i l l e s
I n d i a n T r i b e s signed f o r them.
Through t h e p r o v i s i o n s of A r t i c l e I of t h i s t r e a t y , t h e
Lndians ceded a l l t h e i r l a n d s t o t h e United S t a t e s :
"ARTICLE I. The s a i d confederated t r i b e s of I n d i a n s
hereby cede, r e l i n q u i s h , and convey t o t h e United
S t a t e s a l l t h e i r r i g h t , t i t l e , and i n t e r e s t i n and t o
t h e country occupied o r claimed by them, bounded and
described a s follows * * *."
The t r e a t y f u r t h e r provided t h a t i n exchange f o r t h e
c e s s i o n of t h e i r l a n d s t h e I n d i a n s were t o r e c e i v e a r e s e r v a t i o n
and monetary compensation. I n a d d i t i o n A r t i c l e I11 of t h e T r e a t y
provided t h e I n d i a n s were t o r e c e i v e :
"The e x c l u s i v e r i g h t of t a k i n g f i s h i n a l l t h e
streams running through o r b o r d e r i n g s a i d r e s e r v a -
t i o n i s f u r t h e r secured t o s a i d I n d i a n s ; a s a l s o t h e
r i g h t of t a k i n g f i s h a t a l l u s u a l and accustomed
p l a c e s , i n common w i t h c i t i z e n s o f t h e T e r r i t o r y ,
and of e r e c t i n g temporary b u i l d i n g s f o r c u r i n g ;
cogether w i t h t h e p r i v i l e g e o f h u n t i n g , g a t h e r i n g
r o o t s and b e r r i e s , and p a s t u r i n g t h e i r h o r s e s and c a t t l e
upon open and unclaimed land." (Emphasis added).
rhFs Court speaking of t h e T r e a t y o f H e l l Gate of J u l y 1 6 ,
541,
1855 i n S t a t e v. McClure, 127 Mont. 534,5391 268 P.2d 629, recog-
nized t h a t , when they signed t h e t r e a t y :
"* * 2kt h e Flathead and o t h e r p r a i r i e I n d i a n n a t i o n s '
primary i n t e r e s t was t o p r o t e c t and r e s e r v e t h e i r
hunting r i g h t s and grounds which provided t h e i r major
food and clothing. * * *,
"* * * Also assured was the Indians's right to
hunt and take game outside the reservation on
*
all open and unclaimed lands. * *I1
The state argues the Montana Territorial Act of May 26,
1864, 13 Stat. 85, has in some way abrogated or affected the
rights reserved to the Tribes by the Treaty of Hell Gate. This
is not the case. The language of that Act statesin pertinent
part:
"That nothing in this act contained shall be construed
to impair the rights of person or property now pertaining
to the Indians in said territory so long as such rights
shall remain unextinghished by treaty between the United
*
States,and such Indians J.' *."
The application of the provisions of the Treaty of Hell
Gate to a fact situation such as the instant case is a matter of
first impression in this jurisdiction. It is clear however that
the provisions of the treaty must be considered as a reservation
by the Indians, rather than a grant by the federal government.
Therefore, the Indians, at the time of the treaty, reserved the
right to hunt on open and unclaimed lands outside their present
day reservation, but within their aboriginal hunting territory.
The determination remaining to be made is--to what extent does
this reservation of right remain unextinguished?
Idaho courts have decided the instant question in that
jurisdiction. In view of the striking similarities of the fact
pattern of the Idaho cases with the instant case, these cases
will be discussed here.
State v. Arthur, 74 Idaho 251, 261 P.2d 135, 143, involved
an attempt by the state of Idaho to enforce its hunting laws against
a member of the Nez Perce Tribe who killed a deer out of season
on National Forest land. The incident occurred outside the
boundaries of the reservation, but within the area ceded to the
f e d e r a l government by t h e Tribe. The t r e a t y provisions involved
i n Arthur were i d e n t i c a l t o A r t i c l e I11 of t h e Treaty of H e l l Gate.
The Supreme Court of Idaho r e j e c t e d t h e s t a t e ' s attempt t o enforce
t h e hunting laws upon t h e Indian-defendant:
" e a r e n o t here concerned with t h e wisdom of t h e
W
provisions of t h e t r e a t y under p r e s e n t conditions nor
w i t h t h e a d v i s a b i l i t y of imposing upon t h e Indians
c e r t a i n r e g u l a t o r y o b l i g a t i o n s i n t h e i n t e r e s t of con-
serving wild l i f e ; t h a t i s f o r t h e Federal Government,
t h e a f f e c t e d t r i b e , and perhaps t h e S t a t e of Idaho t o
r e s o l v e under a p p r o p r i a t e n e g o t i a t i o n s ; our concern
h e r e i s only with reference t o p r o t e c t i n g t h e r i g h t s
of t h e Indians which they reserved under t h e Treaty of
1855 t o hunt upon open and unclaimed land without -
l i m i t a t i o n , r e s t r i c t i o n o r burden.
"We hold t h a t t h e r i g h t s reserved by t h e Nez Perce
Indians i n 1855, which have never passed from them
t o hunt upon open and unclaimed land s t i l l e x i s t un-
impaired and t h a t they a r e e n t i t l e d t o hunt a t any
time of t h e year i n any of t h e lands ceded t o t h e
f e d e r a l government though such lands a r e o u t s i d e t h e
boundary of t h e i r r e s e r v a t i o n , * *"
S t a t e v. Tinno, 94 Idaho 759, 497 P.2d 1386, 1391, i s i n
accord with Arthur. I n Tinno a member of t h e Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes was charged with taking a chinook salmon with a spear i n
v i o l a t ion of Idaho f i s h i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . The Idaho Supreme Court
found t h e T r i b e s ' t r e a t y gave t h e r i g h t t o hunt and f i s h on un-
occupied lands of t h e United S t a t e s even though f i s h i n g was not
s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned i n t h e language of t h e t r e a t y :
"The s i g n a t o r y Indians had roamed a t w i l l and e s s e n t i a l l y
i n peace among themselves. They d i d n o t i n a s t r i c t
sense occupy t h e land they roamed; they harvested game,
f i s h , and b e r r i e s , camas r o o t s , and o t h e r n a t u r a l foods
and moved about with t h e seasonal changes. I n agreeing
t o s e t t l e on a permanent b a s i s they s t i l l were expecting
r i g h t s t o h a r v e s t food on t h e u n s e t t l e d lands a s a means
of subsistence and a s an i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e i r way of
life.
"* * * I n order t o be f a i r we must attempt t o g i v e e f f e c t
t o t h e terms of t h e t r e a t y a s those terms were understood
by t h e Indian r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s * * *."
S t a t e v. Coffee, (Idaho 1976), 556 P.2d 1185, was decided
i n November 1976. I n Coffee a member of t h e Kootenai T r i b e was
charged w i t h t h e k i l l i n g of two deer o u t of season on p r i v a t e
property. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t con-
v i c t i o n on t h e grounds t h e ~ r i b e ' sa b o r i g i n a l hunting r i g h t only
applied t o open and unclaimed lands and n o t t o lands owned by
private parties.
W f i n d t h e Idaho cases i n t e r p r e t i n g Indian t r e a t i e s con-
e
t a i n i n g language d e a l i n g with Indian hunting r i g h t s common t o
t h e Treaty of H e l l Gate persuasive i n t h e i n s t a n t case. Article
1 1 of t h e Treaty of H e l l Gate r e s e r v e s f o r p r e s e n t day members of
1
t h e t r i b e s signing t h a t document t h e r i g h t t o hunt game animals
f r e e from s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n on lands ceded by t h e t r i b e s t o t h e ,
f e d e r a l government. However, it i s c l e a r t h i s r i g h t i s l i m i t e d t o
land which i s open and unclaimed a t t h e time of t h e i n c i d e n t , Land
owned o r occupied by p r i v a t e p a r t i e s i s i n no way open and un-
claimed w i t h i n t h e contemplation of t h i s t r e a t y .
Prima f a c i e , a l l persons w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e a r e s u b j e c t t o
i t s c r i m i n a l laws and come w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of i t s c o u r t s .
I f an exception e x i s t s i t must be shown by t h e defendant. State
/ c3&
v. Spotted Hawk, 22 Mont. 33, 55 P. 4 3
3% S t a t e v. Buckaroo Jack,
30 Nev. 325, 96 P. 497. Therefore i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e defendant
had t h e burden of proving t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e was committed a t a
l o c a t i o n which deprived t h e s t a t e of j u r i s d i c t i o n t o prosecute.
I n S t a t e v. Arthur, 74 Idaho 251, 261 P.2d 135,141, t h e
term "open and unclaimed lands" was i n t e r p r e t e d a s :
"* * *lands a s were ,not s e t t l e d and occupied by t h e
whites under possessory r i g h t s o r p a t e n t o r otherwise
appropriated t o p r i v a t e ownership and was n o t intended
t o nor did i t exclude lands t i t l e t o which r e s t e d i n
t h e f e d e r a l government * * *."
W f i n d t h i s d e f i n i t i o n persuasive i n l i g h t of t h e f a c t t h a t
e
t h e t r e a t y i n t e r p r e t e d i n Arthur was i d e n t i c a l t o t h e Treaty
of Hell Gate.
W f i n d t h e National Forest lands involved h e r e i n a r e open
e
and unclaimed lands. S t a t e v. Arthur, supra; Confederated Tribes
of Umatilla Indian Res. v. Maison, 262 F.Supp. 871 (D.Ore.1966),
affirmed i n Holcomb v. Confederated T r i b e s of Umatilla Indian Res.,
382 F. 2d 1013 (9th C i r . 1967).
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed.
F -
h~~_ -p-rl .
c
/ -
-
---
\
,W d
Justice /
W Concur:
e
Chief J u s t i c e