or disregarded the plain language of the treaty as well as the boundary that the treaty parties drew on the treaty map both of which require the boundary to touch the disco click it's at the five the district court further air by ignoring river and the divide is actually located right at the head waters of creek if that helps now complicate i ask you a big picture question before you got too detailed and fair to say isn't it that the two parties to this treaty are currently all in agreement and happen for a number of years as to where the boundary is were unambiguous to what the boundary was if and that the terms are consistent with your interpretation of the boundary if both parties to the treaty now are saying you know that this is the western boundary not what the found it the treaty interpretation must be done as the parties understood it act so it's really not relevant what those parties say about it now we have to look back and see what the parties understand in somewhat so actually so we have the swarm survey and eight hundred and ninety shorts actually took the boundary in reverse so if you reverse the calls and he moved from east to west the only thing that swartz error was that instead crossing the clinton tap river here shores took his boundary nor his error was in not crossing the click i think that is the answer is no surveyor ever drew the thing line that you're driving now that's that's correct that's absolutely what the party believed that the time of the treaty but how can you say that it was an unambiguous language of the party they're now saying that if the different location you had the boundary moving for a number of years how can you reasonably argue that it unambiguous well is unambiguous because there's only one reasonable interpretation of the reason that the district court determined the treaty was an ambiguous because it applied a technical definition of the words or rather than inter the plain language said we have dot yahoo must claim to two hundred and ninety three thousand dollars additional acres we apply those acres to the reservation and we direct the department of interior to mark the fine and survey this new western boundary we look to the congressional committee reports which are outside the statute but they're the best evidence of congressional intent in those congressional committee reports both the senate and the house they're essentially identical they both begin by describing the disputed western boundary talk about the track the at all right that's that's correct there's no discussion about track b because at that time no one had ever thought that track to you was included yakima had never claimed it united states and that never claimed it no negotiated isn't it fair to say that the map with use as an illustration to explain the boundary to that to the nation because they were not english speakers primarily right i mean the negotiation was in a language that they did not know and did not understand and so the map with the necessary illustration for them to better understand what the boundary would be i figure absolutely correct governor stevens utilize these large scale maps for that exact purpose to make sure that the match concluded that track the woods within the reservation right well so that's i think it's a little misnomer because if we're talking about calvin calvin did a survey but he was instructed just surveyed track the he was told to explore the boundary of i never went anywhere near it because i was instructed to go around tracked and everything that followed that is the same ship was not instructed to deter the treaty it was in structed to survey and track b and no one here no one c as part of its proceedings was asked to interpret the treaty yes but the i c c can't set a boundary it has no jurisdiction to them but we have to think that they got it wrong you have to convince us that it still has an ambiguous and yet they got it treaties specifically that we have to honor these on ending the provisions you can't you can't take an interpretation that you think is ambiguous and then change the words later on to make it fit that interpretation which is exactly what the just report did here it fundamentally you raised three separate calls for the disco river and replace those the calls of the white salmon are every treaty time description describes the boundary in relation to the none of them describe it in  intent of the tribe when they enter the treaty or is that the intent of congress acting on a subsequent legislation acme this matter was decided long ago the indian claims commission found that both parties to the treaty of eight hundred and fifty five intended to include track b with any accuracy or ration the united states has not treated the  as changing those reservation boundaries as a result the district court's decision affirming frac these reservations status was well supported well reasoned and should be affirmed by this court there are three main points i'd like to make today  under the treaty canada construction the yakima nation's ancestors would have naturally understood their treaty to include tract the within the acronym reservation nd applying to diminishment framework congress did not express a clear intent to diminish today but st i'd like to address a few the arguments that were raised by the county the county argues that article two of the tree is not in big us now this is counter to the position that they took at your four hundred and seventy six dollars where they said that article two was neither plain nor dispositive a regardless article two of the treaty is ambiguous it's ambiguous in its calls for the southwestern boundary the acma reservation says that the western boundary extend down the main ridge of the cascades  the district court at the are fifteen that should be upheld unless clearly erroneous and the county has not made a showing that that was a clearly erroneous finding and also the county has spoken about other elements of the southwestern boundary there are three elements to the southwestern boundary description there's this fur that i just discussed that doesn't exist so the st southwestern call is an impossible call the nd calls for following this for to the divide between said rivers again the spur doesn't exist so you can't follow it to the divide between the rivers and other impossible call and the rd calls for traversing the divide between the pistol and the like attached to the simcoe mountains and again or that divide does not connect to central mountains so all three elements of the southwestern boundary are ambiguous the county also argues for a boundary that appears nowhere in one hundred and sixty five year record of this case until the county drew it in two  engineer or a surveyor it was not drawn by the counties witnesses or the counties expert witness the counties expert witness actually said that the boundary was the campbell barnard line intended by the tree parties and that you can see that scuse me there is no credible supporting testimony for this boundary that the counties put forth either the only back for the only witness that was offered to testify is that this boundary was their expert witness whom the district court deems not be credible not credibility determination is also a factual finding that should be upheld unless clearly erroneous and again the county has not meaningfully disputed that factual finding and this boundary river canyon before briefly touches this divide and then it it leaves the divide and again following no geographic feature whatsoever goes across the sea the entire status river watershed down to the simple mountain conveniently excluding almost the entire you from the active reservation opposing counsel said for the st time today and this is never come up in briefing that a portion of the short survey is somehow correct the st survey has been thoroughly debunked by throughout the record of this year after year objections from the aqua nation that the boundaries of its reservation were not properly surveyed when the crow fly it had and it had the boundary that it would include well your honor they at that point i mean hundreds this was the line intended by the treaty and that letter does not include the help us understand how we are to interpret that letter yes your honor so i think that st of all there are a number of individuals a small handful that the agents years after the wall street counsel now white swan and captain is claimed to be of the treaty council but every time that they are recorded in the record including the letter that you're referencing your honor they reported different boundry so with that sort of uncertainty that that can't overcome the clear evidence that we have from the wall d a treaty council itself so applying the treaty cans of construction to the treaty there are three key pieces of evidence of the treaty of the tree minutes and in the treaty map so starting with the treaty as we discussed it is ambiguous and it's calls for the southwestern boundary but it's not entirely ambiguous that we know that the western boundary must proceed south mount adams on the main ridge of the cascades we know the southern boundary is the simcoe mountains points now this is supported by the treaty minutes of the treaty minutes or the words that were actually spoken by governor stevens to the acclimation the ancestors and since the explanation the ancestor couldn't read the tree this is an extremely important for understanding how the nation would have understood the tree and governor stevens said that again the western boundary fence south of the mouth of mount adams on the main ridge of the cascades and that that connects to the southern boundary of the red of ation which simcoe mountains and the only continuous boundary or the only continuous feature that connects those two points is the boundary something tracked the wheels of the treaty map and it is crucial that the treaty map is what was shown to the acme nations ancestors as the governor stevens was describing the reservation and the i would like to briefly address the ones you know for act so under the diminishment framework congress looks to our congress has to clearly express an intent to change the act no reservations boundaries but on the face of the statute before any such finding will be will be approved and under mcgurk vs oklahoma we know that you have to look at the text of the statute and that is the only proper step for a court that anything beyond that where you don't have any big u s language the county's own admission at this point with their two thousand and one team boundary they are saying the amount adams was included in the actual reservation and eight hundred and fifty five they're saying that following the one you know for fact it was not included in the reservation the only way that mt adams is in the in favor of the drivers and the rather than the diminishment which seems like it's not a great fit for this situation well your honor i think that the statutory canons of interpretation specific to statutes that are related to framework under the treaty abrogation framework or just if you were apply the statutory ganz of instruction related to statutes apply cold indian tribe so we are confident under any of those frameworks if anyone is interested and in that analysis i'm i'm happy to talk about that but i would like to talk about the uniform understanding of the parties so the treaty so both parties to the tree agree that track he was included in the i from reservation eight hundred and fifty five dollars and that remains within the  the america versus the volley on o where you have a common understanding of the treaty parties as to what the treaty means that common understanding should be given deference unless there's extraordinarily strong contrary evidence and the county has not made such a showing of extraordinarily strong contrary evidence in this case we also have the indian claims commission's decision affirming that both parties the treaty intended to include truck be within the reservation under united states versus sue nation that should be upheld and must clearly erroneous from support of the record we're relying on that as persuasive precedent i think it's extremely persuasive precedent the this issue would litigated for seventeen years before the indian claims commission and they reached the decision the tract he was intended to be included in the reservation i mean that the county is asking this court to take a position that is contrary to positions taken in the record by the president of the united states is very general of the united states the department of agriculture the department of the interior the department of justice the bureau of indian affairs the bureau of land management the environmental protection agency united states senators united states congressman the indian claims the mission and the district court i mean the county is a creature of the state of washington and the state of washington is not supporting litigation position of the county in this case the county stands issues but i will start again by going back to justice or sit in with gert where force the state of oklahoma asserted that the government of oklahoma and and from which everyone else treated have state of oklahoma as if it was a preservation but that did not determine that the result of the case didn't matter the magnitude of the legal wrong is no reason to perpetrate it and that's unfortunately what we have here we have a history of the united states time and time and time and time and time again screwing this up but thank goodness we have the th circuit and our judicial system who gets to review these things to know you have a duty to look at these treaties and to look at these test reacts and determine what the interpretation is under the a clickable legal legal principles that are required by precedent competently reviewed the court credibility findings that are a completely different standard however well i think it's critical just like th court can't cheel its factual determination by calling them credibility determinations here our argument is statutory analysis which is to know it is treaty analysis which is to know about know the you know fact that doctor fisher gave the district court an ethno historical basis to conclude that the indian at the time of the treaty believed that tracked the woods within the reservation and that if your court found doctor fisher credible anderson would still require that this court review that credibility determination and that witness testimony against the objective and documentary evidence in the record and we posit that if you do that you will find that doctor fischer's testimony  a clear error standard but how that plays into the treaty interpretation is to know how it is applied in the interpretation of the treaties to know and even if it were clear air the gist or course determination that the parties would have understood the example one example where yacking was principal spokespeople advocated for to kill or boundary and every time they did it they excluded glenwood from that from that claim there's not a single claim in the record or anyone from the  questions i have none so hearing no questions and think we will thank both of the advocates for their strong and