David Sohappy describes his involvement with Sohappy v. Smith. Excerpted from In Defense of Che Wana: Fishing Rights on the Columbia River by Barbara Dills and Paulette D’Auteuil-Robideau.
I was born at my mother’s allotment, 2 1/2 miles south of Harrah, Washington on April 25, 1925. I spent my early years going to White Bluff, which is now called Hanford [Nuclear Reservation]. My grandmother on my father’s side had a fish drying shed there, where we would be from about April until the fall around October. I used to go there until I was about six years old, and then went to live with my grandmother on my mother’s side. That is where I learned about Indian language and religion. I remember going to the longhouse from way back then, as my parents were firm believers in the Seven Drums or Washat religion. I used to attend every week…
We would have our ceremonies for the first food, preparing it all day, Saturday for the Sunday event. After all the ceremonies were done, then it was all right to harvest the roots and the salmon until the huckleberry feast in August. The first week after that feast it was alright to go pick the huckleberries from that day on until the next year. Then the cycle would begin again. We always had to observe the first food ceremony before we fished or dug roots or gathered berries. After the first food feast, then we would go fishing or root digging…
Back in 1968 I was arrested by the state fishing agents, and sat in the county jail for three nights and four days… That’s when Sohappy vs Smith started, and I stayed on that case until 1977. I wouldn’t compromise with the states on a lot of issues, so the intervenor tribes got tired of me and . . . (they) took over.
After the tribes took over, then they formed the five year compact ten years ago, where our tribal councilmen signed a new agreement with the states of Oregon and Washington without the consent of our General Council. All these laws and regulations have been passed without the approval of the people, as all rules and regulations are to be approved by the people before they are valid. in 1968 the case of Sohappy vs. Smith was on regulations that were imposed on Indians which were unfair. We were supposed to get fair treatment from the states of Washington and Oregon. They did enact some regulations but always with wording working the non-Indian’s way- not even fair to Indians…
When my father and I went to the civil rights hearing in Seattle in 1978, he testified that what “in common with” meant to the Indians was in common with each other of the Indians at the time of the treaties- the four tribes of Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and the Yakimas- not with the multi-nationals or the non-Indians. That’s the way they understood it: in common with each other from the four tribes, not the whites. And they said the law is supposed to be interpreted the way the Indians understood it…
