Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights
All treaties and agreements

Pacific NorthwestTreaty

Treaty of Point Elliott, 1855

The 1855 Point Elliott treaty obtained most Puget Sound land north of Point Pully for small reservations, $150,000 and fishing rights.

Signed
January 22, 1855
Senate
Ratified March 8, 1859
Land given up
about 6.6 million acres
Land set aside for the nations
about 41,000 acres
The land in this treaty’s record. Open on the map

What happened

On January 22, 1855, Governor Isaac Stevens and more than 80 leaders of Puget Sound peoples, including Chief Seattle, signed the Treaty of Point Elliott at Muckl-te-oh, now Mukilteo. The Duwamish, Suquamish, Snoqualmie, Skagit, Lummi, Swinomish and many other bands ceded their lands from Point Pully to the 49th parallel. Small reservations were set apart, and the President could move or consolidate the tribes. The treaty promised $150,000 in declining annual payments and secured "the right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations" in common with citizens.

HistoryLink describes the signers as surrendering their lands "for cash, relocation to reservations, and access to traditional fishing and hunting grounds." The National Park Service says Stevens pressured Puget Sound tribes into signing, and the Supreme Court has noted that the interpreter at Stevens's treaty councils used a "chinook jargon" with a simple 300-word vocabulary.

In Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) the Court held that tribal courts lack inherent criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, noting the Suquamish tribe's Treaty of Point Elliott. The treaty's fishing clause was among those at issue in Washington v. Fishing Vessel Association (1979).

Summarized with AI assistance from 5 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Supported by the sources below; some details rest on one source.

  1. hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the United States all their right, title, and interest in and to the lands and country occupied by themTreaty of Point Elliott, 1855 (HistoryLink Essay 2629)
  2. Tribes including the Duwamish and Suquamish surrender their lands for cash, relocation to reservations, and access to traditional fishing and hunting grounds.Native American tribes sign Point Elliott Treaty at Mukilteo on January 22, 1855 (HistoryLink Essay 5402)
  3. Stevens pressured Puget Sound tribes into signing treaties that confined them to reservationsWalla Walla Council (1855), National Park Service
  4. Treaty of Medicine Creek (10 Stat. 1132); Treaty of Point Elliott (12 Stat. 927); Treaty of Point No Point (12 Stat. 933)Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979)
  5. a fact which seems to be recognized by the Treaty of Point Elliott, signed by the Suquamish Indian TribeOliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978)

Research notes. The cited sources describe pressure in Stevens's Puget Sound treaties generally, not at the Point Elliott council specifically. The Chinook Jargon point comes from a footnote in the Supreme Court's 1979 Fishing Vessel opinion about the Stevens treaties generally. HistoryLink counts 82 signers (Seattle plus 81 others). The treaty was ratified March 8, 1859, and proclaimed April 11, 1859.

What the treaty did to the land

About 6.6 million acres given up. about 41,000 acres recognized, kept or set aside for the nations. Each shape is a numbered area in the federal government’s 1899 record of land cessions.

What happened next

Everything the record holds about this land and this treaty, in order: what earlier agreements said, what this one did, and what the United States, the courts and the nations did afterwards.

  1. 1855

    This treaty

    About 6.6 million acres ceded to the United States by the Dwamish and Suquamish. About 41,000 acres set aside as a reservation for the Dwamish and Suquamish

    The 1855 Point Elliott treaty obtained most Puget Sound land north of Point Pully for small reservations, $150,000 and fishing rights.

  2. 1859

    This treaty

    Ratified by the Senate

  3. 1873

    Land record

    Earlier terms confirmed for the land of the Dwamish and Suquamish

    The 1899 record: “President fixes the N. boundary of Swinomish reserve, established by treaty Jan. 22, 1855”

    area 349

  4. 1873

    Land record

    Earlier terms confirmed for the land of the Dwamish and Suquamish

    The 1899 record: “President defines boundaries of Tulalip or Snohomish reservation (see treaty Jan. 22, 1855)”

    area 351

  5. 1900

    Promise broken

    Stevens treaty fishing rights: Boldt (1974) and Washington v. Fishing Vessel Ass'n (1979)

    Treaties guaranteed tribal fishing at usual places 'in common with' citizens; Washington limited it for decades until the 1974 Boldt ruling.

  6. 1974

    In court

    United States v. Washington (Boldt decision)

    In 1974 Judge Boldt held that "in common with" lets western Washington treaty tribes take up to half the harvestable fish.

  7. 1978

    In court

    Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe

    In 1978 the Supreme Court held that tribal courts have no inherent power to try non-Indians for crimes unless Congress allows it.

  8. 1979

    In court

    Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n

    In 1979 the Court held the 1850s treaties secure tribes a share of each fish run, divided in roughly equal shares.

  9. 2018

    In court

    Washington v. United States (culverts case)

    An equally divided Supreme Court in 2018 left in place a ruling that Washington must fix state culverts that violate tribal treaty fishing rights.

The law behind it

The legal ideas behind the decisions, and related records without a date. Court cases and laws with a date are in what happened next, above.

  • Legal doctrine

    canons of construction

    Courts read ambiguous treaties in favor of tribes and as the Indians would have understood them, rules the Supreme Court has repeated for more than a century.

  • Legal doctrine

    reserved rights

    Treaties are 'a grant of right from' tribes, not to them: reserved hunting and fishing rights survived cessions, statehood and even termination.

  • Legal doctrine

    treaty fishing rights

    Treaties that reserved fishing rights have been read as rights the tribes kept, not gifts: Winans (1905), Fishing Vessel (1979) and Mille Lacs (1999).

  • Legal doctrine

    criminal jurisdiction

    Who may prosecute a crime in Indian country depends on who the offender and victim are and where it happened.

  • Legal doctrine

    implicit divestiture

    Under implicit divestiture, the Supreme Court holds tribes lost some powers, such as trying non-Indians, by their dependent status unless Congress restores them.

  • Legal doctrine

    inherent sovereignty

    Tribes' powers of self-government predate the Constitution and are not delegated by Congress, though the Supreme Court says Congress can limit or end them.

Who is doing the work today

The nations connected to this treaty come first, then groups returning land and defending treaty rights. Support goes directly to them.

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Working with these nations

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Sources

  1. digitreaties.org/treaties/treaty/160903547reference work
Research notes

Wikipedia (pointer): no reservations for Duwamish, Skagit, Snohomish, Snoqualmie; Stat. cite per Wikipedia; Kappler page. Duwamish remain federally unrecognized. Ratification detail: 1859-03-08 (Senate)

Shapes are approximate and are not legal descriptions of land, title or jurisdiction.