Summary

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Islands Reserve v…

Metlakatla argues that it is immune from the fish-trap law because (1) state law cannot regulate Indian activities on Indian reservations; (2) the State cannot regulate a federal instrumentality; and (3) appellant has been authorized to operate traps by the Secretary of the Interior. The United States has supported Metlakatla as amicus curiae, see 362 U.S. 967, 80 S.Ct. 953.
The Indians of southeastern Alaska, who have very substantially adopted and been adopted by the white man's civilization, were never in the hostile and isolated position of many tribes in other States.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Islands Reserve v…

As a condition to the right to vote in local elections, members of the Reserve-limited to Metlakatlans and other natives, § 1.51-were required to swear obedience to local laws, laws of the United States, and laws of the Territory of Alaska, § 1.52. Thus the Secretary, in the exercise of the authority delegated him by Congress, subjected self-government of Metlakatla not only to federal oversight but to territorial laws as well.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Felix Frankfurter Felix Frankfurter Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Islands Reserve v…

There was never an attempt in Alaska to isolate Indians on reservations. Very few were ever created, and the purpose of these, in contrast to many in other States, was not to confine the Indians for the protection of the white settlers but to safeguard the Indians against exploitation. Alaskan Indians are now voting citizens, some of whom occupy prominent public office in the state government.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature