Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights
All treaties and agreements

Pacific NorthwestTreaty

Treaty of Point No Point, 1855

At Point No Point in 1855, S'Klallam, Skokomish and Chimakum leaders signed a pre-written treaty ceding their lands for $60,000.

Signed
January 26, 1855
Senate
Ratified March 8, 1859
Land given up
about 2.5 million acres
The land in this treaty’s record. Open on the map

What happened

On January 26, 1855, Governor Isaac Stevens signed the Treaty of Point No Point with chiefs and delegates of the S'Klallam villages and the Skokomish, To-an-hooch and Chimakum. The tribes ceded their lands on the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Hood Canal. One reservation of six sections, or 3,840 acres, was set aside at the head of Hood Canal. The United States promised $60,000 in declining annual payments and secured the right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds.

HistoryLink says the council opened with the treaty translated into Chinook Jargon for about 1,200 people. Leaders argued against signing; the Skokomish leader Hool-hol-tan said he did not want to sign away his right to the land. By the next morning leaders arrived with white flags, ready to sign. HistoryLink says the document "had been prepared beforehand, with no intention of serving as a basis for negotiation."

HistoryLink says Congress took several years to approve the Stevens treaties after Medicine Creek was ratified in March 1855. In Washington v. Fishing Vessel Association (1979), the Supreme Court quoted Stevens telling the Point No Point council that the paper was such as a man would give to his children.

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. which had been prepared beforehand, with no intention of serving as a basis for negotiation.Treaty of Point No Point, 1855 (HistoryLink Essay 5637)
  2. I don't want to sign away my right to the land.Treaty of Point No Point, 1855 (HistoryLink Essay 5637)
  3. Stevens pressured Puget Sound tribes into signing treaties that confined them to reservationsWalla Walla Council (1855), National Park Service
  4. Governor Stevens made the following statement to the Indians gathered at Point-No-Point to negotiate the treaty bearing that nameWashington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, 443 U.S. 658 (1979)
  5. it would be several years before it approved the remaining Stevens treatiesHistoryLink Essay 5254, Treaty of Medicine Creek

Research notes. The treaty was ratified March 8, 1859, and proclaimed April 29, 1859. The Supreme Court's 1979 opinion quotes Stevens's remark at the council in a footnote. The treaty reserves six sections, or 3,840 acres, at the head of Hood Canal.

What the treaty did to the land

About 2.5 million acres given up. 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 2.5 million acres ceded to the United States by the Sklallam. Land set aside as a reservation for the Sklallam

    At Point No Point in 1855, S'Klallam, Skokomish and Chimakum leaders signed a pre-written treaty ceding their lands for $60,000.

  2. 1859

    This treaty

    Ratified by the Senate

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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).

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:

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. historylink.org/file/5637unclassified
    Ratified Mar. 8, 1859. Proclaimed Apr. 29, 1859.
  2. digitreaties.org/treaties/treaty/176561924reference work

Corrections to this record

  • date ratified was listed as “”; corrected from historylink.orgRatified Mar. 8, 1859. Proclaimed Apr. 29, 1859.
Research notes

Stat. cite per Wikipedia (pointer); Kappler page.

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