The Yelm History Project

Indian Problems

Editor,
The Sunday Olympian: Just why do our public officials, after being appointed to head certain departments of our state government, take it upon themselves to make certain laws and to interpret existing laws to fit their personal beliefs? Take our Game Department which has a great crusade going on at present with the Nisqually Indians and their fishing rights. Possibly the department has been ill advised. It is my understanding these Indians take all the eggs from the fish they catch and turn them over to the state hatchery. This is one way they try to cooperate. I also believe they will do their best to see that there will be fish in the river for their children to catch and live on, the same as their parents did.

* * * We are spending millions all over the world and still are not making friends. We do the same on integration, which was not asked for but now is a major problem in our country. Why not sit down at a conference table with these Indians and work with them and help solve their problems? Maybe a few dollars spent on a small hatchery on the reservation would prove a good investment for the state and I am satisfied it would receive the best of attention. There are 30 or 40 growing children on the reservation who would enjoy taking care of a small fish hatchery. This would be in line with the Youth Corps now being organized by the government. Tell these Indians we will try to get the correct interpretation of the Indian treaty signed by our ancestors. It will take time and patience. * * * Meanwhile let’s not make more enemies than we already have. We do not solve these problems by jailing an Indian who thinks he is right. He loves his family and will go to jail again to protect the rights he has had and still thinks he has. Also, if he goes to our local law enforcement agencies with a complaint, treat him as a human being and help solve his problems. Don’t just say: take it up with the Department of Indian Affairs. A little kindness goes a long way.

Fish and Deer Tags

Editor,
The Daily Olympian: Since the white man landed on the Indians’ land he has continued to crowd the Red man back by murdering them by the thousands. Sometimes the Red man fought back and then he became known as a savage. Why? Because he only tried to vain to defend his rights and his loved ones. Today, what rights they do have the white men, with their greedy ways, are trying to capture by force! In fact, take their main diet off their tables, "fish." Yet the white man for a small fee can go out in the bay and seine the fish out by the tons. Our governor spoke the same way about out deer population. Less than eight years ago, we loggers could count 30, 40, or even 50 deer, when going to work. Now, with the doe seasons that we have endured, a deer is an oddity! Of course, the doe permits do sell more deer tags.

* * * I was told by a game protector that the doe permits would make us bigger and better deer. He stated, that the deer inbred too much, thus stunting their growth. Well if this is so we should have deer as large as elephants, because we feel that each one has 10,000 actes to graze on. If we whites can only obtain these last Indian rights, we can continue polluting our streams and destroying wild life. Maybe our fish will get as large as whales. The Indian has been called to our armed forces, to fight our wars and they have responded bravely. Ira Hays, an Indian, helped raise Old Glory on Iwo Jima. Another Indian, Herman Johns Sr., a pararooper was killed in Belgium fighting for our rights. The flag that covered his casket flew on the Nisqually River last week while his son, Herman Johns, Jr., is in jail! Aren’t our treaties, our contracts valid anymore, or can we change them at our own convenience? Yes, we whites, we "superiors" should be proud indeed of our heritage. It wouldn’t hurt any, if we only had a few more Brandos to help these so-called "renegades." Perhaps, our eyes are like the blindman’s, who had his eyes exchanged for cat eyes. They worked perfectly except that they were always looking for mice.

Indians – March 16, 1962

Welcome to Adobe GoLive

Editor,
The Daily Olympia: Marion Brando wanted to attract out attention to the plight of the American Indians and their treaties. It was not for publicity as some thought. He doesn’t need publicity. But he became aware of the sad treatment and the wrongs done through the years to the first and real Americans by some of the big men in power. Our governor might do some reading along those lines, too. I wonder if the governor ever read the history of Washington state and about the treaties that were signed and are still valid even though the Indians were never paid. I also wonder if the Governor ever took a look at the dump they call a reservation where these poor badly treated people are supposed to live. The Governor has gone a long way since he won his first election by having the asylums and prisons investigated. Next he had such a heartache over the plight of the old folks. He carried it out well, because he was elected. He is so comfortable now that he has lost heartache. His interests have turned to higher aims. There are not many of the Indians left and those who are gone died in wars or of neglect and lack of medical care. Their hospital was a big help but that to has been taken.

* * * Who are the commercial fishers? Why shouldn’t the Indians do this? We could open our closed canneries and in that way many of our citizens could earn money for school clothes – necessary dental work for their children and other things the poorer people could get as they used to when these canneries were going strong. How much more do we owe the Japs or the Russians? We have been overly generous to the Russians who have shot down our unarmed planes, killing our pilots while shops loaded with grain for way. And we know the taxpayers will end up paying the bill. What is wrong with the high salaried leaders we keep re-electing? It is time to push the sea raiders out of our three mile zone and push them back to a sixty mile place. Let the Indians do our fishing and we should find out who is responsible for the explosion that took place so close to our shores. Are the Russians really fishing or are they doing other things out there? Indian children play on the river bank all summer and those booze bums who come there to fish leave all their garbage and broken booze bottles. The mothers have had to clean all this from the banks. I hope the Indians will patrol the banks with clubs and make these people load their filth back into their cars. And if the Indians are denied the right to fish, they can get some motor boats and run them on the river with motor wide open. Then no one could fish. These people don’t flop in door ways or demand impossible rights. They only want what is theirs by valid treaties. * * * I would not like to see the Indians vanish. They have beautiful children. They are good mothers. They belong to no front organizations. I hope all white citizens will become interested in the plight of these people. If we can build apartments for the Japs, why not for our own? We are walking on land never paid for and more is taken form them every day.

F

Indians with Allies on the Warpath

Washington State Indians, in their running battle with state agencies, have a well-publicized champion in Marlon Brando, the actor. Brando and a San Francisco clergyman were arrested by a representative on the State Game Department yesterday after they netted fish in the Puyallup River as a demonstration of support for Indian fishing demands. Some Washington sports fishermen, however, wonder if Brando’s attitude would be the same if that Hollywood resident depended upon finding fish in Washington rivers for his principal recreation. The sports fishermen point out that the Puyallup River would have virtually no fish if the fees they pay had not made it possible for the Game Department to stock the river. Further, the sportsmen say that to allow exceptions to state laws against the use of gill nets in off-reservation rivers could lead to loss of fishing opportunities for everyone, including Indians. The Indians are not impressed by such arguments. They point out that there were plenty of fish in all the rivers before the white man came. Not only Indian fishing rights but other grievance issues such as unemployment and state legal powers in Indian reservations were the focus of attention at today’s Indian demonstration at Olympia. There are no easy answers to the problems that arise when ancient treaty rights clash with laws arising out of today’s vastly changed conditions. There can be no question but that many present-day Washington State Indians live in depressed circumstances. They need sympathy and help. There is a question, however, as to what extent pre-Civil War treaties and the rights or wrongs of that long-ago era should be applicable today.

Injustices

Editor the Daily Olympian: There are two basic facts of the Indian controversy.

A Treaty was signed giving the Indians fishing rights in the usual and accustomed places.
The white man is now living off the Indians’ homeland while continuing to break the Indian Treaties.

Instead of using subtle and devious means trying to weasel out of the treaties by clouding the issue and distorting the facts, we should rectify our injustices by honoring these promises, improving the Indians treatment, and allowing the Indians to decide what is best for themselves. The greatest majority of American Indians are reasonable people who have been forced to live under brutal and vicious conditions imposed upon them by unscrupulous white men. If there are any new problems to be met the Treaty may be mutually renegotiate but never under threats of force. We cannot hide the facts by being hypocritical and finding alibis for our broken treaties and inhumane treatment of our plundered American Indian. The fact remains that we are living on Indian lands that were seized by treachery, force and murder. We are living under a cloud of broken vows. We are continuing to exploit, starve, and jail the Indians. It is happening now. . . in the twentieth century. It seems there is a very thin line of demarcation between the white savage of 200 years ago and the white savage of today. I am beginning to wonder if the rest of the citizens are condoning this persecution of the Indians since very few are speaking out against it. Washington is not a Gestapo State . . . yet, although, I am beginning to have doubts when people show such violent resentment against non-Indians or out-of-staters who are trying to defend the Indians against shameful injustices. * * *I have always been loyal to the United States, but stand against greedy or corrupt men who twist the facts and pass discriminatory laws to exploit the minority for selfish purposes Tomorrow, these same greedy men will change and distort the laws to exploit and enslave the majority. None of us can escape the guilt for the present conditions. The honorable solution is to immediately release the Indians from jail pay them damages for their unnecessary suffering and arrest, and abide by the Indian Treaties.

Treaty Rights

The Daily Olympian: That letter of the assistant commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs was interesting. I honestly tried to imagine the chiefs of the Indian tribes hereabout in 1854 stepping up to the treaty table to sign an agreement granting “the Indians the right to take fish. . . in common with all the citizens.” There just had to be more to the treaty than that, because I cannot imagine anyone in that day disputing the rights of the Indians to take fish in common. A great point is made by the Washington boss of the court’s decisions supposedly in point on the conservation issue. However, no court in the world can restore to the Indian the bountiful and life-sustaining supply of fish that is long since deplete by sports and commercial fishing activity. Just why the Indians of today are obliged to cooperate to conserve a supply of fish that was always more than enough is something that escapes me. Further, can anybody produce an Indian who ever took so many fish that they spoiled before he could eat them? What other law of conservation is just in a case like this? Conservation is nothing new in history. It was enforced by the nobility of Europe so they, too, could enjoy hunting and fishing. Cruel and unusual punishments were legally imposed upon those hungry serfs, who were forced to consume these creatures of God. We also inflict unusual punishments in the same way. Five Indians were in Pierce County jail on March 5, on a charge of contempt of court growing out of a legal order prohibiting their fishing. Whether for contempt of court or for forbidden fishing you or I would only get a fine and a Marlon Brando would go scot free. (What a false position that actor got into!) In court the Indians tried to plead their treaty rights, but the issue was never joined. The judge merely shook a legal finger informing the Indians they would be breaking the law if they fished. After 300 years of living with the Red man the judge should have known, not even the most untutored savage would be taken in by his line of reasoning.

* * * State courts do not have jurisdiction where there is an issue raised under a treaty signed by the Federal government of the United States. The Indians are entitled to their day in court, regardless of the precedents that may or may not be in their favor. Notwithstanding all of the above I would advise my Indian neighbors that many are guilty of a very great crime in these modern times of ours. They are guilty of the crime of being poor.

Justice

The Daily Olympian: A funny thing, Justice! A Hollywood publicity hound can come up here, net steelhead, strictly illegal, fish without a license, get plenty publicity and then is turned loose. While a few Indians who claim to have rights under the old treaty allowing them to fish in order to buy clothing and food, with the possibility of a little Pia Chuck to drive away the chill, are jailed. The right and wrong of the Indian fishing question is not for me to say, but for anyone not Indian to net steelhead is definitely illegal and the one doing so should be punished. And in his case a small fine would have been no punishment. Just some more publicity, the punishment should have been a stiff jail term. I’m sure that is what would happen if I were caught netting or gaffing one fish for my own use.

1964 – Fighting over Fishing

3 Nisqually Indians Get Suspended Jail Terms In Fish Case Daily Olympian
January 14, 1964

TACOMA (AP)- Three Indians, conviced of illegal fishing on the Nisqually River in a case which has been going on through the courts for two years, were sentenced here Monday by Superior Court Judge Harden B. Soule.

Judge Soule sentenced all three to 30 days in the county jail, suspended on condition they refrain from illegal fishing (using nets) for a period of three years.

The trio includes Raleigh Kover, Jack Simmons, and Ernest Gleason, Sr., all three of whom live in the Nisqually area.

They were arrested along with other Indians fishing with nets for steelhead on the Nisqually January 6, 1962.

The other two were found innocent by Justice of the Peace Elizabeth Shackleford February 26, 1962. But the rest have been under charge since that time. Gleason and Kover appealed convictions to the Superior Court, Simmons was charged directly in Superior Court.

Judge Soule awaited a recent Supreme Court decision on a case involving fishing on the Skagit river before reaching his final determination of the case.

Indian Band Defies Game Department
Daily Olympian
January 22, 1964
by Mike Conant

It looks like more trouble along the Nisqually River.

State Game Department officials still were in a huddle Wednesday noon to decide what to do about a group of redmen who have chosen to ignore state borders and net fish where they please along the river.

This latest skirmish also has drawn the fire of officials of the Nisqually Indian Tribal Council, who disown the fishermen with the charge: “They’re not Nisquallys. They’re renegades.”

A spokesman for the State Game Department’s enforcement division reports that Walter Neubrech, division chief, was in conference Wednesday forenoon with department attorneys. He said they were deciding if action, either in the form of criminal proceedings or an injunction, would be taken to halt the fishing.

It was Neubrech’s division which two years ago this January arrested a half a dozen Indians on the Nisqually River. The charge was the men were non-treaty Indians and have no right under the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854 to fish the Nisqually. Some convictions followed the arrests.

Now the Game Department has additional backing from a recent State Supreme Court decision empowering it to curb Indian fishing with an eye toward conservation of salmon.

It was in the face of this newly acquired power that the Nisqually Tribal council last week agreed to fish only from the reservation side of the river.

About a dozen Indians defies new State Game Department restrictions in a ceremony which pledged their allegiance to the U.S. government, rather than state authority.

Place picked for the stand was Frank’s Landing, a non-reservation clearing at the lower part of the Nisqually River where Indian fishermen unload and sell their fish for commercial market.

The Indians lowered a white flag of truce staffed last week, and in its place unfurled the Stars and Stripes. Attached to the flagpole was a sign declaring, “We’re fishing under the treaty signed in 1854 with the U.S. Government.” Then at dusk, gillnets were set near the flag.

The landing is owned by Bill Frank, a Nisqually, who said of the Supreme Court decision: “The court didn’t say we had to stop, but only that the Game Department could control our fishing. We are catching mainly chum salmon, or dog salmon as some people call them, and a few steelhead.

“We have no trouble with Fisheries Department over catching chum salmon – only with sportsmen over the few steelhead we take. We’re not depleting the salmon.”

Backing Frank is Mrs. Janet McCloud, an Indian woman whose husband, Don, a Puyallup Indian, fishes the Nisqually. She opposes what she calls the Game Department’s theory that steelhead belong to the white men.

“They must think the steelhead swam over behind the Mayflower,” she said. “With or without the Indians’ help, the white man is going to deplete the salmon run – just like the buffalo.”

In contrast to the ceremonial revolt were statements by Reuben Wells, chairman of the Nisqually Tribal Council, and Mrs. Eleanor Kover, secretary.

Both said the tribal council has agreed for the time being to abide by Game Department restrictions against fishing off non-reservation land. Both assert the ceremony was staged by renegade Indians, who are not members of the Nisqually tribe.

Wells and Mrs. Kover say arguments with the Game Department will be fought through the courts, and not by an uprising. The pair was expected to meet Wednesday afternoon with David L. Esperance from the Everett office of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs to decide their next move.

The problem of which Indian fishermen actually belong to the Nisqually tribe has been in focus ever since the Game Department’s series of arrests in January, 1962.

Wells and Mrs. Kover often have stated their opposition to statements by Mrs. McCloud, who they say is not a Nisqually and possesses no authority to speak for the tribe.

Mrs. Kover said it is the Tribal Council that for a long time has allowed non-member Indians to fish the river. “Now they are the ones who are causing all the trouble,” said she.

Brando Companion Free: Court Victory for Indians
Seattle Times
March 11, 1964

TACOMA. March 11-(UPI)- A Puyallup Indian who took Marlon Brando and a San Francisco preacher fishing in an effort to defy the law saw his case dismissed yesterday.

Bob Satiacum of Fife had been ordered to appear before Judge William LeVeque, who is presiding over the Pierce County Superior Court, to show why he should not face charges of contempt.

But Judge LeVeque dismissed the case on grounds that Satiacum was fishing only for his personal use and consumption” and not for commercial purposes.

The original court order, Judge LeVeque explained, only prohibited Indians from fishing commercially without first posting a $1,000 bond.

Brando and the Rev. John Yaryan were arrested by game protectors when they stepped ashore from a canoe after netting two steelhead in the Puyallup while accompanying Satiacum. Prosecutor John McCutcheon refused to file charges against them.

Janet McCloud, a Nisqually, announced that she and wives of five other Indians jailed for illegal fishing, would conduct a fish-in in the Nisqually at Franks Landing today.

Mrs. McCloud’s husband Don, along with Jack McCloud, Nugent Kautz, Herman Johns and Lavin Bridges are serving 30 days in the Pierce County jail for contempt of court because they defied a court order and dipped their nets into the Nisqually February 19 and again last Wednesday.

A sixth Nisqually, Bill Franks, Jr., was jailed today. He had been unable to participate in last Wednesday’s fish-in but violated the order yesterday, saying he wanted to join his tribesmen in jail.

Brando, S.F. Cleric, Indian Arrested for Fishing Illegally
March 2, 1964.

Marlon Brando, actor, and the Rev. Canon John Yaryan of San Francisco went fishing with an Indian in the Puyallup River this morning and were arrested by a representative of the State Game Department.

Brando, Canon Yaryan, of the staff of Grace Episcopal Cathedral in San Francisco and Bob Satiacum, a Puyallup Indian from Fife, put their nets in the water from a long boat just north of Highway 99 at the Tacoma city limits.

The three caught two steelhead as they drifted a short distance down the river. Representatives of the State Game Department were waiting on the bank when the long boat reached the shore.

The actor and the clergyman were taken to the Pierce County jail to be charged with illegal fishing.

“Your purpose is to openly defy the state law?” the Game Department representative asked Brando.

” My purpose is to help these Indians, ” Brando replied.

Brando told the law-enforcement officer he was merely “helping some Indian friends fish.”

The Game Department representative told Brando: “I won’t argue with you. You should have your day in court. I think that’s what you’re looking for.” Brando, who was carrying one of the fish he had caught, handed it to an Indian friend and climbed into the Game Department car. A Game Department man took the fish.

An estimated 200 Indians waiting on the river bank glowered at the Game Department officials.

” You can’t do this to us. We have a treaty, ” one Indian woman yelled.

“What are you going to do with the fish, give them to some white man? ” a young Indian mother with a baby strapped to her back shouted.

“To hell with you!” another Indian woman shrieked at the officers.

The Indians clambered to look at the Game Department car, where Brando and Canon were being held.

“Just push those old white men out of your way. They won’t let you through,” one woman advised another.

Brando told newsmen he was not purposely looking for publicity, but merely helping the Indians maintain their treaty-guaranteed rights.

“They have little left, ” he said. “Everything has been taken from them. They intend to hang on to these fishing rights.” . . .

In Olympia, Governor Rosellini, said “the laws of the State of Washington are to be enforced uniformly without discrimination for or against our citizens of other states.”

“From the Information I get, this was a deliberate violation of the laws of the State of Washington as such the Game Department people had a responsibility to enforce the laws,” the Governor added.

Ellsworth Sawyer, a state game inspector, said the charge of illegally fishing carries a penalty of $250 to $1,000 fine and up to 30 days in jail.

In Olympia, John Biggs, director of the State Game Department, pointed out that Indians already are under injunctions forbidding them to fish the streams in violation of state conservation laws.

Indians assert they have treaty rights permitting them to fish in their usual and accustomed places.

Proud But Sad: Wife Cries as Indian Faces Jail to Assert Fish “Rights”
Seattle Times
March 5, 1964
by Marshall Wilson

“White men say squaws don’t cry; I’m not crying yet.” Mrs. Janet McCloud said yesterday morning on the banks of the Nisqually River. But tears were streaming down her cheeks as she said it.

Mrs. McCloud had just wished her husband, Don, good luck as he cast off in an Indian boat to tend his nets in defiance of a Pierce County Superior Court order.

“Five of our men will absolutely go to jail today,” Mrs. McCloud predicted. Her husband was one of the five.

The five men are already under 30-day sentences, suspended, for previous violation of court orders prohibiting off-reservation net fishing in “usual and accustomed places” as guaranteed in a treaty of 1854.

The McClouds, married for 13 years last month, are the parents of nine children whose ages range from two to 12 years.

“Don is our sole support,” Mrs. McCloud said. “He also supports my mother.”

The Nisqually group invited Marlon Brando, actor to participate in their “fish-in.” A note of bitterness was sounded at Franks Landing, where the group fished yesterday.

“I’m all for Marlon, I’m a fan of his,” Mrs. McCloud told newsmen.

But when her husband tended his nets in front of Game Department agents, and returned to the shore with two steelhead, Mrs. McCloud said proudly:
“Our men have guts. They don’t need a Marlon Brando in the boat with them.”
Mrs. McCloud exchanged words with Walter Neubrech, chief enforcement officer for the State Game Department, before most Indians arrived.

“You must be Mrs. McCloud,” Neubrech said as he approached her in the fish house. “I’ve heard of you.”

“I’m Walter Neubrech,” he said.

“And I’ve heard of you,” she answered.

“Do you know where Marlon Brando is?” Neubrech asked.

“No, why should I?” Mrs. McCloud replied. “We’re not fighting for the white man’s right to fish. We can’t understand why a white man can go fishing on an Indian river and you don’ t do anything about it.”

“Whom do you mean?” Neubrech said.

“Marlon Brando,” she said.

“We did all we could about that,” Neubrech said. “It was a blow to us, too.”

The Indians made their point-fished in their river and scattered to their homes on the reservation-waiting for the return of the Game Department officials with arrest warrants.

Indians Claim Extension of Fish Rights Near Frank’s Landing On Nisqually
Seattle P.I.
April 21, 1964

OLYMPIA- A group of Indian fishermen claimed today that the Nisqually River near Frank’s Landing, where they work their nets, is a part of the Nisqually Reservation.

Bill Frank Jr., owner of the landing, said that early records clearly show that the area where he and three other Indians set gillnets today was part of the reservation.

Frank, Don McCloud, Jack McCloud and Al Bridges set their nets after posting crudely lettered signs proclaiming “US Gov. Indian Res., No Tres.”

Ellsworth “Buzz” Sawyer, district game protector, said the Frank’s Landing area was not a part of the reservation. He said the boundary was several hundred yards farther upstream. The four Indian who fished today were among a group of six Nisquallies who served 30 days in the Pierce County Jail recently for contempt of court. They were convicted of violating an injunction prohibiting off reservation net fishing by Indians in the river.

Indians are permitted to fish any way they wish within the boundaries of the reservation. Gene Fennimore, a game department patrolman, said the Indians probably would be arrested if they continued to fish the stream.

Frank said that his property was considered part of the reservation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, “except for fishing.”

He claimed that his children were entitled to $200 a year subsidy which reservation Indian children receive for attending school.

Janet McCloud, president of the Association For The Preservation of the American Indian, said that the Indians would continue to fight to save their fishing rights.

She said that the treaty of Medicine Creek, signed in 1855 by the U.S. Government and several Puget Sound Indian tribes, gives the Indians complete rights to fish as they please in their “usual and accustomed grounds.”

“The white men have no fishing rights except what the Indians gave them,” she said.

Mrs. McCloud, Don McCloud’s wife, read from the minutes of the meeting with the Indians that led to the treaty. She claimed that the U.S. government had promised to pay the Indians for their land.

“When are they going to pay?” she demanded. “We haven’t gotten anything yet.”

“Now they are talking about paying for our fishing rights,” she continued. “We haven’t been paid for our land yet.”

1963 – Indian Fishing Rights

Indian Fishermen Files Suit Over Nisqually River Arrest
Daily Olympian
June 26, 1963

Olympia, Washington: A fishing squabble that bubbled up in the banks of the Nisqually River carried a $156,000 price tag when it flowed into U.S. District Court in Seattle this week, 18 months after agents of the State Game Department arrested five Indians on charges of illegal fishing.Melvin Iyall, about 35, who says he’s a Nisqually Indian, is seeking a judgment of $156,000 from five state officials, charging he was unlawfully arrested in January, 1962. That’s when Iyall and four other Indians were lodged in a Pierce County jail for allegedly fishing without sanction of the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1855.

The arrests stirred up discontent in the Nisqually Reservation. Much if the debate centered on who held fishing rights under the century-old treaty signed by representatives of the Nisqually tribe and the Federal government. State officials take the stand that only Nisqually Indians are allowed the run of the treaty fishing grounds.

Named as defendants in the Seattle suit are the marital communities of George C. Starland, director of the State Department of Fisheries; John A. Biggs, director of the Department of Game; Walter Neubrech, chief enforcement officer for the Game Department; Ellsworth (Buzz), Slayer, chief game protector for this area, and Roy Betlach, chief of the State Patrol.

As a Nisqually, Iyall maintains his civil rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Medicine Creek Treaty were violated at the time of his arrest. (His attorney says charges later were dropped against Iyall and his fishing gear returned two months after the arrest, when it was established that he was a member of the Nisqually Tribe.)

Iyall also says the arrest held him up to public scorn. He further alleges that he suffered irreparable damages to his reputation in the community and the Nisqually Tribe. Iyall now is said to be living in Tacoma.

Fish Ban Request Irks Nisqually
The Olympian
October 20, 1963

The Nisqually Indians Saturday were studying a request by the State Fisheries Department that they call a temporary halt to salmon fishing in the Nisqually River. The tribal council, meeting at the Nisqually Grange Hall to elect new officers, had before them a letter asking the closure to parallel a ban on commercial silver salmon fishing in Puget Sound.At the same time, members of the tribe were complaining of harassment by the Fisheries Department. Kennith H. Hartman of Tumwater, a Nisqually, said the tribe had recieved word only Friday that the closure was desired to permit silvers to escape to spawning beds. The request came in a letter to the tribe from the Bureau of Indian Affairs at Everett. The letter told the Nisquallys the state desired the closure and was curtailing commercial fishing by non-Indians on Puget Sound. The silver run this year, unlike that of other salmon, has been poor.

The first the Nisquallys knew of the department’s wishes, Hartman said, was when they read an Associated Press story in Friday’s Daily Olympian stating that the tribe had failed to answer a department request. The story said two other tribes on Puget Sound, the Swinomish and the Tulalip, had agreed to a voluntary breather in netting silvers on the Snohomish River and in Skagit Bay.

Hartman said the Nisquallys considered the charge a further “dig” at the tribe in its long feud with the department.

He maintained that the silver salmon run was just beginning in the Nisqually, and fishing in the river had not yet had any effect on the silvers. He said the runs begin at different times in different streams.

Hartman said the silver runs on the Skagit and Snohomish have almost ended. The Tulalip and Swinomish tribes, he said, could easily afford to call a halt to fishing since few fish were going up the streams now.

Hartman said the letter from the Bureau of Indian Affairs was addressed to his sister, Mrs. Elinor Kover, secretary of the tribal council, and Mrs. Mildred Ikebe, the council chairman.

“If any letter had come from the Fisheries Department they’d have known about it,” he said.

Hartman said the Nisquallys have cooperated with the department in permitting escapement of fish to upper reaches of the river.

“We’ve been getting bad publicity,” he said, adding that the Nisquallys have maintained an official closure of weekend fishing for years.

“These fishermen know what this means to them,” he said, adding that the majority observe the ban.

He said two years ago two members of the tribe sent to the fish hatchery on the Green River some quarter million salmon eggs. Under an agreement with the department half of the fingerlings hatched from these eggs were kept by the state and the other half released by the Indians in the Nisqually.
Hartman said the tribe is studying a plan to establish a small hatchery, to be owned by the tribe, on a tributary stream of the Nisqually.

Nisqually Council Restricts Fishing
Daily Olympian
October 21, 1963

The Nisqually Tribal Council has restricted week end fishing in their river in an effort to allow silver salmon to escape into spawning beds.The decision stems from a request by the State Fisheries Department, which asks that silver salmon be curtailed because the run of salmon has been poor.

Meeting Saturday in the Nisqually Grange Hall, the tribal council voted that all fish nets should be pulled from the Nisqually River between ten o’clock Saturday morning and Sunday noon until further notice.

Mrs. Elanor Kover, secretary of the group, said she believes the State Fisheries Department wanted more extensive curtailment, however the vote was to enforce only the week end ban.

Backing up the week-end halt to fishing, the Tribal Council elected two river patrolmen – Billy Frank, Jr., and Bap Derickson. Their job is to ensure that no nets are left in the water during the designated hours.

The Nisqually say their silver salmon run just beginning in the Nisqually, and fishing in the river has not yet had any effect in the silvers. They say that runs begin at different times in different streams.

In other business at the tribal meeting, members elected a new chairman. He is Ruben Wells, who replaces Mrs. Mildred Ikebe. Re-elected to their positions were Mrs. Kover, the secretary, and Ernest Gleason, treasurer.

Indian Fish-Netting Barred in Puyallup
The Seattle Times
November 13, 1963
by Enos Bradner

An order barring Indian fish netting in the Puyallup River was issued late yesterday by Judge Robert Jacques in Pierce County Superior Court.The temporary injunction was granted on a request by the State Game Department and the State Department of Fisheries.

A hearing has been set for November 26 for the issuing of a permanent injunction against Indian gill netting in the Puyallup.

Walt Neubrech, chief of law enforcement for the Game Department, and Robert Josephson, chief of law enforcement for the Fisheries Department, today were issuing stop orders against the Indians netting.

There were 44 individual Indians named in the order granted yesterday, and the writ also applies to any individual engaged in illegal netting practices in the lower part of the river.

John Biggs, state game director, said the department had reached the crossroad in its steelhead program and had to make a firm decision on future policy.

Biggs said the department had engaged in an accelerated plant of steelhead in the past ten years. On rivers such as the Puyallup greater plants of steelhead have resulted in a larger take of fish by the Indians.

Steelhead are reared from moneys obtained from sportsmen’ s license funds. Biggs said the department is in a greater bind than in the past because of decreasing operating funds.

Biggs pointed out that in the steelhead sports catch for 1962 only three of the top 25 winter rivers showed a decrease in the sports take, the Puyallup, Nisqually and Cowlitz. The first two are ” Indian” rivers.

December has been the top month for sport catch of steelhead in the Puyallup, almost twice as good as January, the next best month. The 1962 plant in the Puyallup was 70,000 steelhead, due to return this winter.

This order is a tie-in with the restraining order issued against the Muckleshoots barring netting on the Green River, which was granted November 7 in King County Superior Court by Judge Sollie Ringold.

Fishing by Indians in Puyallup Halted
The Olympian
November 13, 1963

TACOMA (AP) – A temporary order restraining the Puyallup Indians and any other Indian fishing on the Puyallup River was issued in Pierce County Superior Court Tuesday by Judge Robert Jacques.The order was sought by the State Fisheries Department. A hearing on the injunction is scheduled November 26.

It was the second river in the state to be closed recently to Indian fishing.

A King County Superior Court judge has barred Muckleshoot Indians from fishing in the Green River so salmon can escape to an upstream hatchery.

***Game Department Director John Biggs and the State Game Commission recently decided the state organization had reached a crossroads with the Indians on the matter, Clark Pratt, Game Department information education representative, said Wednesday.

For the past 10 years, he added, the department has accelerated a steelhead planting program and feels it is subsidizing Indians who fish commercially with nets in the river.

“The greater we expand the planting the greater the Indians’ take becomes. The planting program is actually being financed by sportsmen,” Pratt said.

Patrol inspectors for both departments began issuing stop orders Wednesday morning to 44 individuals and any other fisherman on the river.

Pratt pointed out that of the 25 top steelhead fishing streans in the state for the 1961-62 season only three showed a decrease in take. They were the Puyallup, Nisqually and the Cowlitz. Last year a plant of 70,000 steelhead was made in the Puyallup.

***A Fisheries Department spokesman said the restraining order also was aimed at protecting the remnants of a silver salmon run headed upstrean for a department hatchery at Orting. The spokesman said Indian catches in the river have increased from several hundred salmon in 1953, when they began fishing the strean to about 70,000 a year at this time. Robert S. Robison, supervisor of administrative services, said only a couple hundred salmon have been reaching the hatchery each season, rather than up to 3,000 a year as in the past.

State Shifts Tactics In Indian Fishing War
The Sunday Olympian
November 17, 19

63
State officials, weary of what they feel have been fruitless efforts to protect fishing stocks, are trying new strategy in their in legal battle to keep Indian nets out of rivers rich with salmon and steelhead.

One new approach is to question whether some Indian tribes with special fishing rights exist anymore.

“We are also trying to shift the burden of proof from the state to the Indian.” says Robert Robison, supervisor of administrative services for the Fisheries Department.

Previously, Robison says, it has been difficult to convince the courts that Indians were guilty under criminal statutes.

“But now,” he continued, “we are trying civil action by claiming financial damages and forcing the Indians to prove they are not hurting fish resources.”

The new strategy has been at least partially successful in two recent cases.

King County Superior Court barred Muckleshoot Indians from fishing in the Green River and Pierce County Superior Court temporarily restrained the Puyallup Indians from fishing the Puyallup River.

Indians and the state are arguing over about 20 rivers, most of them in Western Washington.

At present the battle is being fought in the courtroom, but it hasn’t always been that way.

In the past the fight has been carried to the river banks, where non-Indian sports fishermen have lost their tempers and torn out Indian nets and groups of Indians have battled among themselves for choice fishing spots .

Indians have the same fishing rights as non-Indians. That is, they can use a hook and line to go after sports fish such as steelhead and use nets to go after commercial fish such as salmon in certain circumstances.

The fight between Indians on one hand and the state and non-Indians on the other hand arises from treaties signed between Indians and the federal government as much as a century ago. These treaties gave Indians the additional rights to unrestricted fishing in their “usual and accustomed places.”

The state contends this means on the reservations, but Indians give “usual and accustomed places” a broader meaning.

Also, the state now claims these treaties were signed with tribes, not individual Indians, and that tribes such as the Puyallup disappeared when their lands were broken up. The Indians argue the tribes still exist.

The crux of the problem is economic.

The state says fishing stocks are an essential resource that must be protected by stringent conservation practices.

It claims unrestricted fishing be Indians has been ruinous to conservation programs in certain cases and that much of the money that has gone into the program has become just a subsidy for Indians.

“The greater we expand the planting, the greater the Indians’ take become,” says a spokesman for the Game Department. “The planting program is actually being financed by sportsmen.”

The Indians, too, argue they have an economic stake in fishing. They say they were dependent in fish long before the white men came and that for them it’s still a matter of fish or starve.

Indians’ Fishing Curbs Upheld
Daily Olympian
December 17, 1963
by The Associated Press

The State Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state can restrict Indian fishing on Washington rivers in efforts to protect fish resources. It was a major victory for the State Fisheries and Game Departments in their fight to stop unrestricted net fishing by Indians at the mouths of many rivers. The Indians contended century old treaties gave them the absolute right to fish at usual and accustomed places even though off their reservations. The Supreme Court disagreed in a 7-1 opinion written by Judge Hugh J. Rosellini. The court said Washington acquired the sovereign power to preserve its natural resources when it was admitted to the union, and could not be stripped of the power by implication or deduction from a treaty. The judges said salmon will face extinction in Washington without state action to permit salmon to escape upriver to spawning beds for the reproduction of new stocks. The court reversed a ruling by Judge Charles F. Stafford of Skagit County and called for a new trial in an action brought by the state against an Indian charged with fishing in closed waters. Judge Safford had acquired a Swinomish Indian, Joe McCoy, holding that the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott granted him immunity form state regulatory powers. The state appealed. McCoy was charged with using a 600-foot nylon gill net from an outboard-motor boat to catch salmon at the mouth of the Skagit River during a 10-day closure imposed by the Fisheries Department. The Supreme Court said the treaty gave Indians the right not to be excluded from their usual and accustomed fishing grounds, but this right did not prevent the state from imposing reasonable and necessary regulations to protect the fishery resources. The high court said regulation of the salmon harvest in salt and fresh water was essential to a conservation program. “It is regulation that provides the escapement necessary to maintain a perpetual supply of salmon for the harvest of all people,” the court said. Individual self-restraint by the Indians was a poor substitute for proper state regulation, the court said, in view of the “economic bonanza” to be gained by selling the fish at an average of $10 apiece. The judges said previous court opinions indicate the United States can restrict a state’s police power by treaty, but the treaty should if possible be interpreted so as not to override state laws or impair rights arising from them. “There must be a clear and unequivocal expression of congressional will . . . if state powers are to be pre-empted,” the court said. Judges Matthew W. Hill and Richard B. Ott concurred with the results of the majority opinion. But they contended the Indians could fish at the accustomed places without restriction as long as they used gear in vogue at the time the treaty was signed. A dissent was filed by Judge Charles T. Donworth, who argued the court should not disregard the Point Elliott treaty as supreme law of the land. He said Congress should solve the problem. The opinion was not signed by Judge Frank Hale because the case was argued before he came to the court. The ninth member at the time was the late Judge Harry Ellsworth Foster.