• Minor amendments were made to this petition on two occasions. The following notes reflect the final amended petition of March 25, 1958.

1. Claim No. 1 (pp. 2-15).
   • Claim No. 1 sought additional compensation for the lands ceded to the United States by the Umatilla in the Treaty of June 9, 1855. The Umatilla requested "... $8,000,000, with interest from the date of the cession, deducting therefrom the amount of money and the reasonable value of other things and services given and paid by the United States pursuant to the treaty" (pp. 13-14, par. 16).
     
   • This claim is based upon the June 9, 1855 Treaty (1855 Treaty) made between the United States and the Walla Walla, Cayuse and Umatilla Tribes of Indians. This treaty was ratified by the Senate on March 8, 1859, and proclaimed by the President of the United States on April 11, 1859 (p. 3, par. 4).
     
   • The 1855 Treaty's ceded land boundaries were noted (pp. 3-4, par. 5). A map based upon these boundaries may be viewed in the Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1896 - '97, Part 2 (See p. 804, and Number 364 on Washington 1 Map; Royce Map).
     
2. Claim No. 2 [pp. 15-22].
   • Claim No. 2 sought compensation for the destruction of the salmon and eel runs in the Umatilla River system. The Umatilla requested a judgment of $3,000,000 (p. 21, par. 10).
     
   • This claim was based upon the reserved right to take fish from the Umatilla River system enumerated in Article I of the 1855 Treaty (pp. 15-17, par. 2-5).
     
3. Claim No. 3 (pg. 22-25).
   • Claim No. 3 sought compensation for the wrongful exclusion of approximately 85 square miles of land, due to survey errors, from the Umatilla reservation. The Umatilla requested a judgement of $2,000,000 (pp. 23-25, par. 3-5).
     
   • This claim was based upon a specific tract of land described in Article I of the 1855 Treaty that was to be reserved for the Umatilla (p. 22, par. 2).
     
4. Claim No. 4 (pp. 25-29).
   • Claim No. 4 sought compensation for additional lands in Oregon outside the lands ceded in the 1855 Treaty, which were alleged to have been owned by Indian title and to have been taken by the United States without payment (p. 26, amended par. 2). The Umatilla requested a judgement of $4,800,000 (pp. 27-28, par. 5-6).
     
5. Treaty (Appendix A)

   Treaty with the WallaWalla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855
   

   Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at the treatyground, Camp Stevens, in the Walla- Walla Valley, this ninth day of June, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, by and between Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washington, and Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs for Oregon Territory, on the part of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the Walla- Wallas, Cayuses, and Umatilla tribes, and bands of Indians, occupying lands partly in Washington and partly in Oregon Territories, and who, for the purposes of this treaty, are to be regarded as one nation acting for and in behalf of their respective bands and tribes, they being duly authorized thereto; it being understood that Superintendent I. Stevens assumes to treat with that portion of the above-named bands and tribes residing within the Territory of Washington, and Superintendent Palmer with those residing within Oregon.

   Article 1. The above-named confederated bands of Indians cede to the United States all their right, title, and claim to all and every part of the country claimed by them included in the following boundaries, to wit: Commencing at the mouth of the Tocannon River, in Washington Territory, running thence up said river to its source; thence easterly along the summit of the Blue Mountains, and on the southern boundaries of the purchase made of the Nez Perce Indians, and easterly along that boundary to the western limits of the country claimed by the Shoshonees or Snake Indians; thence southerly along that boundary (being the waters of Powder River) to the source of Powder River, thence to the head-waters of Willow Creek, thence down Willow Creek to the Columbia River, thence up the channel of the Columbia River to the lower end of a large island below the mouth of Umatilla River, thence northerly to a point on the Yakama River, called Tomah-luke, thence to Le Lac, thence to the White Banks on the Columbia below Priest's Rapids, thence down the Columbia River to the junction of the Columbia and Snake Rivers, thence up the Snake River to the place of beginning... [Petition (Umatilla) - August 9, 1951 - Appendix A, Treaty with the Walla Walla, Cayuse, Etc., 1855].

   Notes:

   The original Umatilla petition was designated as Docket No. 264. Pursuant to an order of the ICC, dated January 15, 1959, the claim designated in the original Umatilla petition as Claim No. 2 was separated from this petition and became Docket No. 264A. Pursuant to an order on the same date, the claim designated in the original petition as Claim No. 3 was separated from the original petition and became Docket 264B. The claims in the original petition designated as Claim No. 1 and Claim No. 4 now comprise Docket 264. All further references are limited to Claims No. 1 and No. 4 of Docket 264.

1. With regard to Claim No. 1, defendant admitted the allegations described in the original petition's paragraph 5 (a minor amendment was made to this paragraph). Paragraph 5 in the original and amended petition detail the boundaries of the lands ceded by the Umatilla in the 1855 Treaty (p. 1, par. 4).
   
2. With regard to Claim No. 1, defendant stated "[t]hat the consideration paid therefor as set forth in said treaty [1855 Treaty] and agreed to by the chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the Indian tribes and bands was fair and just compensation for the right, title and interest of said Indians in the lands ceded" (p. 7, par. 30).
3. With regard to Claim No. 4, defendant denied all allegations (p. 6, par. 26-27). Additionally,

   
   [d]efendant further says that the land claimed to have been owned by "Plaintiff members" was not exclusively and continuously occupied by any one tribe, band, or group of Indians from time immemorial to the time of the alleged taking thereof but, on the contrary, was roamed over or temporarily inhabited by various bands of Indians and not to the exclusive possession of "Plaintiff's members" (pp. 6-7, par. 28).

1. With regard to Claim No. 1, the ICC found that the Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Cayuse tribes exclusively used, occupied and had Indian title to the following tracts of land:
   • These land boundaries were described for the Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Cayuse tribes (See Indian Land Areas Judicially Established 1978 Map - Walla Walla #96, Cayuse # 95, and Umatilla #97). Except for the Walla Walla tribe's land area, the boundaries conformed to the 1855 Treaty [8 Ind. Cl. Comm. 513, 537]. The discrepancy between the ceded lands memorialized in the 1855 Treaty (See also Number 364 on Washington 1; Royce Map) and this finding for the Walla Walla tribe's aboriginal lands appears to have been described as "... thence down the Snake River to its mouth; thence southwesterly in a straight line, to the present town of Horse Haven, Washington; thence southeasterly in a straight line to the place of beginning" (8 Ind. Cl. Comm. 513, 537-538).
   • The 1855 Treaty language excluded from the ICC's aboriginal boundary findings was "... thence up the channel of the Columbia River to the lower end of a larger island below the mouth of the Umatilla River, thence northerly to a point on the Yakama River, called To-mah-luke, thence down the Columbia River to the junction of the Columbia and Snake Rivers..." (1855 Treaty - Appendix A of 1951 Petition).
2. With regard to Claim No. 4, evidence for aboriginal usage was found to be insufficient or non-exclusive for the additional lands in Oregon the Umatilla claimed were taken without compensation (8 Ind. Cl. Comm. 513, 529-534).

• The ICC found that at the time of the 1855 Treaty, the Walla Walla, Cayuse, and Umatilla tribes held Indian title only to the lands described at paragraph 20 of ICC Findings of Fact, 8 Ind. Cl. Comm. 513, 537-538 (1960) (8 Ind. Cl. Comm. 513, 556).

• The ICC vacated the 1960 decision and entered new findings of fact, opinion and an interlocutory order. Ultimately, the ICC determined that the area of land running along the southern bank of the Columbia River up to the Yakama River, which encompasses the Kennewick remains' recovery site, was not exclusively used by any one Indian tribe.
• In Finding 41, the ICC delineated the Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Cayuse tribes' land areas that were transferred upon ratification of the 1855 Treaty on March 8, 1859. The delineation of the Walla Walla tribe's original title at this transfer addresses the area of land running along the southern bank of the Columbia River up to the Yakama River, which encompasses the Kennewick remains' recovery site. According to Finding 41, the Walla Walla's held original title to

  
  A tract of land located in the States of Oregon and Washington and described as follows, to wit: Commencing on the Columbia River at the mouth of Juniper Canyon and running thence up said Canyon and its south fork to the source thereof; thence northeast to the Walla Walla River opposite the mouth of Touchet River; thence up Touchet River to the mouth of Winnett Canyon near Lamar, Washington; thence northwest to a point on Snake River which is twenty-five miles above its mouth; thence down Snake River to its mouth and southwest across Columbia River and along a straight line drawn from the mouth of Snake River to a point which is north of the town of Umatilla, Oregon, and ten miles north of the north bank of the Columbia River; thence southeast to the Columbia River opposite the mouth of Juniper Canyon and thence across the Columbia River to the place of beginning (14 Ind. Cl. Comm. 14, 102).

• Finding 41 is inconsistent with the 1855 Treaty language, excluding "... thence up the channel of the Columbia River to the lower end of a larger island below the mouth of the Umatilla River, thence northerly to a point on the Yakama River, called To-mah-luke, thence down the Columbia River to the junction of the Columbia and Snake Rivers..." (1855 Treaty - Appendix A of 1951 Petition). Instead, the finding for the Walla Walla tribe's aboriginal lands was described as "... thence down the Snake River to its mouth; thence southwesterly in a straight line, to the present town of Horse Haven, Washington; thence southeasterly in a straight line to the place of beginning" (14 Ind. Cl. Comm. 14, 102).
  
  Note: See also, Infra ICC Findings of Fact, 8 Ind. Cl. Comm. 513 - June 10, 1960, at pg 3.



• In Finding 42, the ICC stated that,

  
  With respect to the remainder of the overall areas claimed by petitioner and not included in Finding 41 (14 Ind. Cl. Comm. 14, 101-102), the Commission finds that the evidence is insufficient to establish exclusive use and possession for a long time, or from time immemorial, in any of the three tribes comprising the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation [the Umatilla, Cayuse, and Walla Walla] at the critical times in this proceeding. There is substantial evidence to the contrary that the three Umatilla tribes, the Wayampam bands, the Nez Perce tribe, the Snake Indians, sometimes referred to as the Northern Paiutes – an identifiable group of Indians – or the Shoshonean peoples, and other miscellaneous Indians have traveled, gathered, and hunted over said tribes and bands (14 Ind. Cl. Comm. 14, 102-103).

Therefore, the ICC found that no aboriginal title could be determined for the area in question under any single tribe (14 Ind. Cl. Comm. 14, 103).

• Based upon stipulation, Docket 264 (Claims No. 1 and No. 4), Docket 264A (Claim No. 2) and Docket 264B (Claim No. 3) were consolidated. This stipulation provided for "final judgement against defendant and in favor of petitioner in the net amount of $2,450,000" (16 Ind. Cl. Comm. 484, 486).
• "This stipulation and entry of Final Judgment shall finally dispose of all claims or demands which the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have asserted or could have asserted against said defendant under the provisions of Section 2 of the Indian Claims Commission Act (60 Stat. 1049)" (16 Ind. Cl. Comm. 484, 487).
• "This stipulation, dismissal of the appeal and entry of the Final Judgment shall not be construed as an admission of either party as to any issue for purposes of precedent in any other case or otherwise" (16 Ind. Cl. Comm. 484, 487).
  
  Note:

  The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. §§3001-3013 (1990), seems to modify this stipulation with regard to determining the ownership of Native American human remains and cultural items excavated or removed from Federal lands after November 16, 1990 [See 25 U.S.C. §3002 (C)].

• "In January 1966, after more than a year of negotiation petitioner and defendant filed a joint motion and stipulation with the Commission [ICC] requesting the entry of final judgment in accordance with the stipulation of the parties for the compromise and settlement of all petitioner's claims, including Docket Nos. 264A [Claim No. 2] and 264B [Claim No. 3], and defendant's offsets" (16 Ind. Cl. Comm. 484, 511).
• "The stipulation called for a single final net judgment against the defendant and in favor of the petitioner in the amount of $2,400,000” (16 Ind. Cl. Comm. 484, 511).
• "The stipulation was conditional upon the dismissal of [petitioner's] Appeal 1-65 by the Court of Claims and the remand of the case to the Indian Court of Claims" (16 Ind. Cl. Comm. 484, 511).
• "On January 21, 1966, the Court of Claims entered an order dismissing Appeal No. 1-65 and remanding said case to the Indian Claims Commission" (16 Ind. Cl. Comm. 484, 512).
• "It is ordered that the joint motion of the parties for entry of final judgment in accordance with the Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment will be granted and Final Judgment will be so entered" (16 Ind. Cl. Comm. 484, 513).

• A historical accounting of the Umatilla case brought before the ICC was provided, which displayed the ICC'c 1964 decision to vacate its findings, opinion, and interlocutory order of 6/10/1960 (p. 102). Further, the ICC's 1964 opinion and interlocutory order are listed, which were modified by the 2/11/1966 findings on compromise settlement, opinion and final judgment.
• The "Map Area Index," which displays the ICC findings relied upon to generate specific tribal land boundaries on the Indian Land Areas Judicially Established in 1978 Map (pocket part), indicated that the ICC's 1960 finding, 8 Ind. Cl. Comm. 513 (1960), was utilized to create the Cayuse, Walla Walla, and Umatilla land areas (pp. 135-136). The use of the ICC vacated finding and opinion to produce the Cayuse, Walla Walla, and Umatilla land areas on the 1978 Map is not explained.