 On April 25 , 1968 , the case was reargued . The tribe was again represented by Hobbs , who made the same basic argument that the hunting and fishing rights were not extinguished . The state of Wisconsin was represented by Bronson La Follette , the Attorney General of Wisconsin . La Follette argued that the plain language of the termination act not only ended federal supervision of the tribe , but extinguished the tribe and with it all treaty rights . He argued that the Court of Claims ruling was incorrect and should be reversed , and that the tribe was due compensation from the federal government . The United States was again represented by Claiborne , who reiterated his earlier argument . 
