Summary

Portrait of Stanley Forman Reed Stanley Forman Reed Hynes v. Grimes Packing Company…

It would take specific and unambiguous legislation to cause us to rule that Congress intended to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to alienate the Alaska fisheries permanently from public control. [27] The argument that Congress did not intend to authorize the designation of water or fisheries as a part of an Indian reservation has behind it the unarticulated premise that the United States must have complete power to protect, improve and regulate for the good of all our people these unrivalled sea fisheries with their wealth of food.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stanley Forman Reed Stanley Forman Reed Hynes v. Grimes Packing Company…

When one deals with a statute so large in purpose as to justify the above-quoted comment of the Secretary of the Interior that it 'provides a method by which the financial aid provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act may be extended to those Indians and Eskimos of Alaska who occupy established villages,' one may not fully comprehend the statute's scope by extracting from it a single phrase, such as 'public lands' and getting the phrase's meaning from the dictionary or even from dissimilar statutes.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stanley Forman Reed Stanley Forman Reed Hynes v. Grimes Packing Company…

For the violation of the applicable regulation under the White Act, severe penalties are imposed including fine, imprisonment, the summary seizure of boats, haul, gear, equipment, and their forfeiture to the United States. [15] These sanctions deny to respondents an adequate remedy at law for to challenge the regulation in an ordinary criminal proceeding is to hazard a loss against the payment of a license fee and compliance with the fishing rules of the natives. Yet to stay out of the reservation prevents the profitable operation of the canneries.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature