APPENDIX III APPENDIX III 
in language similar to the following from the Medicine Creek 
Treaty, that: 
"The argh tio jcaking) Ei Shi- at ‘all sire) tand tac= 
customed grounds and stations, is further secured to 
said Indians, in common with all citizens of the 
Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the 
purpose of ‘curmg SPI” = CHOY States, HIS 2)) 
Court decisions have held that these rights became the 
supreme law of the land protected by article six of the 
Constitution, and they could not be interferred with by the 
States. Thus, treaty Indians had a different status than non- 
Indians whose fishing activities are subject to whatever po- 
licies or restrictions the States impose. 
Furthermore, the Indian treaties were not a grant of 
rights to the Indians, but rather a grant of rights from them 
to the non-Indians, with the Indians reserving to themselves 
those rights not granted. The treaties specifically protect 
those reserved rights. These basic principles of Federal 
law, which undergird the decisions in Indian treaty rights 
cases, have been the subject of much misunderstanding and some 
have found them difficult to accept. A major development in 
this longstanding dispute was the landmark decision of the 
U.S. District Judge George H. Boldt in the case of United 
States v. Washington, 384 Fed. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash, 1974) 
aftfd, 520 °F 2d 676° (9th Cir; 1975) decided in Tacoma, Wash= 
INgeOn On Hebruanys ler to742 "On idune 45 1975 - sehesuese 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Boldt's deci- 
sion in U.S. v. Washington; rehearing denied July 23, 1975. 
On January 26, 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court denied to re- 
view U.S. v. Washington thereby affirming Judge Boldt's 
decision and the ruling of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. 
The suit was filed against the State of Washington on 
Seprenbers ws 1970 Ene US a DAR teieC Em COU Oyemthe nm Uiors 
Department of Justice at the request of the U.S. Department 
of the Interior, acting on behalf of the United States and 
as trustee for several Indian tribes. 
The area covered by the case is that portion of the 
State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountains and north 
of the Columbia River drainage area, and includes the U.S. 
portion of the Puget Sound watershed, the watersheds of the 
Olypmic Peninsula north of Grays Harbor watershed, and the 
off-shore waters adjacent to those areas. 
214 
