翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ United States–Venezuela relations
・ United States–Vietnam relations
・ United States–Vietnam trade relations
・ United States–Yemen relations
・ United States–Zambia relations
・ United States–Zimbabwe relations
・ United Stationers
・ United Stations Radio Networks
・ United Stats of America
・ United Steel Companies
・ United Steel Workers of Montreal
・ United Steelworkers
・ United Steelworkers v. Weber
・ United States v. Willow River Power Co.
・ United States v. Wilson
United States v. Winans
・ United States v. Windsor
・ United States v. Winstar Corp.
・ United States v. Wise
・ United States v. Wong Kim Ark
・ United States v. Woods
・ United States v. Wunderlich
・ United States v. Wurzbach
・ United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.
・ United States Vice Presidential Museum
・ United States vice presidential selection, 1973
・ United States vice presidential selection, 1974
・ United States vice-presidential debate, 1976
・ United States vice-presidential debate, 1984
・ United States vice-presidential debate, 1988


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

United States v. Winans : ウィキペディア英語版
United States v. Winans

''United States v. Winans'', , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the Treaty with the Yakima of 1855, negotiated and signed at the Walla Walla Council of 1855, as well as treaties similar to it, protected the Indians’ rights to fishing, hunting and other privileges.
== Background ==

In 1854 and 1855, the United States entered into a series of treaties with many of the Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest. In exchange for Indian interest in certain lands in what is today the State of Washington, the Indians reserved relatively small parcels of land for their exclusive use (hence the term "reservation"), were given compensation in monetary payments, and other guarantees. The Treaty with the Yakima, signed on June 9, 1855, guaranteed to the Yakama "the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with the citizens of the Territory" 〔''Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association,'' 443 U.S. 658 (1979).〕〔DiCanio, Margaret, (2005). ''Encyclopedia of American Activism: 1960 to the Present,'' p.342. iUniverse, Inc. ISBN 0-595-34951-X〕
In the 1890s, Lineas and Audubon Winans operated a state-licensed fishing operation on homesteaded land near Celilo Falls.〔Montgomery, David (2004). ''King of Fish: The Thousand Year Run of Salmon,'' p.53. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-8133-4299-3〕 Celilo Falls, in the Columbia River Gorge, was essential to the fishing practices of the Umatilla, Yakama and Nez Perce tribes.〔Wilkinson, Charles, (2005). ''Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations,'' p.160. Norton, W.W. and Company, Inc. ISBN 978-0-393-05149-0〕 The Winans brothers obtained a license from the State of Washington to operate a fish wheel, a device that could catch salmon by the ton, thus depleting the Yakamas' fish supply.〔〔Wilkins, David E. and Lomawaima, K. Tsianina (2002). ''Uneven Ground: Ameraican Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law,'' p.125. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 978-0-8061-3395-9〕 Most importantly for this case, the Winans brothers' actions also forcibly prevented the Yakama Indians from crossing the land recently purchased by the brothers, blocking their passage to the traditional fishing grounds of the tribe.〔
The legal dispute revolved around the treaty language that secured to the Indians "the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with the citizens of the territory", Yakima Treaty of 1855, art. 3, ¶ 2, 12 Stat. 951. In 1905, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the off-reservation fishing rights possessed by the Yakama tribe: "The right to resort to the fishing places in controversy was a part of larger rights possessed by the Indians, upon the exercise of which there was not a shadow of impediment, and which were not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed."〔''United States v. Winans,'' 198 U.S. 371, 381 (1905).〕 Internationally recognized scholar on Native American issues, including tribal sovereignty, N. Bruce Duthu conveys that, although the arrival of settlers on Indian land called for a modification of rights Indians once possessed exclusively, the elimination of said rights was unlawful.〔Duthu, N. Bruce (2008). ''American Indians and the Law: The Penguin Library of American Indian History'' p.101. Penguin Group (USA). ISBN 0-670-01857-0〕 Where Congress has inhibited fishing rights reserved under the treaties, or land or mineral rights (also treaty-reserved rights) are limited by private or government actors, tribes are often awarded monetary relief by the courts. Where private projects have obstructed treaty fishing rights, courts within the Ninth Circuit, however, have refused to pay monetary compensation to the tribes. The Indians brought suit to enjoin the respondents from using the fish wheel. The United States Circuit Court for the District of Washington ruled for the respondents on the basis of their exclusive rights to private property. The Supreme Court reversed.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「United States v. Winans」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.