Appellant, an Indian tribe ineorpo-rated under an Act of Congress, brought this action to establish a claim of title to a strip of tidelands adjoining its reservation on the Hood Canal and the Skoko-mish River in western Washington. Appellant’s claim is based upon a treaty between the United States and certain Indian tribes dated January 26, 1855, proelaimed April 29, 1859 ( 12 Stat. 933 ), and an executive order dated February 25, 1874. Appellees claim title through various conveyances from the State of Washington. The case was tried before the court without a jury. ^ Pursuant to findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of appellees, a judgment and decree was entered dismissing plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice and quieting title in the respective appellees.

The district court had jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , as held in Skokomish Indian Tribe v. France, 9 Cir., 1959, 269 F.2d 555 . This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1294.

The primary issue is whether the tidelands were included within the lands set apart for the use of the Indian tribe under the executive order made pursuant to the treaty. It is conceded that neither the treaty nor the executive order expressly described the tidelands at issue. Article II of the treaty reads in pertinent part:

The executive order of February 25, 1874, reads:

Official surveys of the reservation boundaries were made in 1862 and again in 1873, and the balance of the public lands in the vicinity of Hood’s Canal in 1873.

There is no evidence that prior to the commencement of this action in 1948 appellant and its members had asserted title to the tidelands in controversy. The State of Washington began selling the tidelands about 1901. Appellees and their predecessors in title have occupied the lands continuously since their acquisition, have paid taxes thereon, and have made extensive improvements upon portions of the land.

It is the general rule at common law that where the shore or shoreline of a body of navigable water is designated as a boundary, the high water mark is the limit of the boundary line. This rule was established in the early case of United States v. Pacheco, 1865, 2 Wall. 865 , 866, 69 U.S. 587, 590 , 17 L.Ed. 865 , where the Court said:

Appellant contends, however, that the ordinary rule should not be applied in this case; that the treaty and executive order defining the reservation are ambiguous ; that the ambiguity must be resolved by construing the language of the instruments as they would naturally be understood by the Indians at the time; that the tidelands were essential to the Indians’ livelihood and accordingly the Indians must have understood that they were to have the tidelands; that the surveys which excluded the tidelands from the reservation were ineffectual and must be ignored.

The rule applicable to the construction of treaties with Indian tribes was well summarized in Choctaw Nation v. United States, 1943, 318 U.S. 423, 431-432 , 63 S.Ct. 672, 677-678 , 87 L.Ed. 877 , where the Court said:

See also Ute Indians v. United States, 1947, 330 U.S. 169 , 67 S.Ct. 650 , 91 L.Ed. 823 ; and Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 1945, 324 U.S. 335, p. 353 , 65 S.Ct. 690, p. 699 , 89 L.Ed. 985 ; where the Court said:

The pertinent findings of the trial court with respect to the treaty, executive order, surveys, the nature of the tidelands, and the use of the tidelands by the Indian tribe are as follows:

The use of the tidelands by the Indian tribe, as disclosed by the evidence, does not support appellant’s contention that the tidelands were essential to the Indians’ livelihood and that the Indians accordingly must have understood they were to have the tidelands. The minutes of the treaty negotiations contain no reference to tideland ownership; nor to the use of shell fish as food. Initially many members of the tribe objected to the proposed treaty. They were concerned with possible loss of their sources of food — “berries, deer and salmon”. The first to speak said in part: “I wish to speak my mind as to selling the land. Great Chief! What shall we eat if we do so? Our only food is berries, deer and salmon — where then shall we find these ? I don’t want to sign away all my land, take half of it, and let us keep the rest. I am afraid that I shall become destitute and perish for want of food.” (Ex. 10).

After the Indians had been assured that the reservation would only be a place at which they must make their homes, the Indians discussed the proposal among themselves and on the following day assented to the treaty. At that time one of the tribe said: “My heart is good. I am happy since I have heard the paper read and since I have understood Gov. Stevens, particularly since I have been told that I could look for food where I pleased and not in one place only. * * * We are willing to go up the Canal since we know we can fish elsewhere. We shall only leave there to get salmon, and when done fishing will return to our houses.” (Ex. A-8.)

It is clear that the reservation was intended only as a residence, and the Indians were to remain free to roam and fish at their usual places. From the testimony of the Indian witnesses and the many historical documents and works in evidence, it is apparent that the Skokomish Indians roamed extensively over the Hood Canal, following seasonal fishing. Their primary sources of food were the different species of salmon which abounded in the streams entering the canal. They were both an inland and salt water people. One group, the Vance Creek settlement, lived almost entirely an inland-riverine existence, while the lives of the others centered upon river settlements in winter and upon Hood Canal in the summer.

It is true that shellfish and other forms of sea life were gathered by the Skoko-mish along the canal. While there is some conflict in the testimony of the Indian witnesses, the evidence clearly preponderates in favor of the trial court’s findings “That the usual locations at which shellfish were procured were miles from the reservation and were reached by canoe travel on Hood Canal”; and “That the tidelands in issue, particularly in Section 26, are not and were not a source of native shellfish in usable quantities.”

Appellant relies heavily upon Exhibit 60, excerpted from research studies of Dr. W. W. Elmendorf, a well qualified expert in the field of ethnology or cultural anthropology, who did considerable discriminating research among the Skoko-mish Indians. But Dr. Elmendorf’s studies, when closely examined, support the findings of the trial judge. According to Dr. Elmendorf, the Skokomish were part of a group of Indians living along the shores of Hood Canal, which he termed “Twana” Indians. He says in pertinent part:

Both of these sites are several miles from the reservation.

We agree with the following summary of the trial judge in his unpublished memorandum opinion:

The cases upon which appellant relies are distinguishable. In Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 1918, 248 U.S. 78 , 39 S.Ct. 40 , 63 L.Ed. 138 , Congress had set apart “a body of lands known as the Annette Islands.” It was held that the reservation included the adjacent fishing waters and submerged land, the court finding that the adjacent fishing grounds were essential to the subsistence and economic development of the tribe and accordingly Congress must have intended to include them. In United States v. Moore, W.D.Wash. 1945, 62 F.Supp. 660 , aff’d 9 Cir., 157 F.2d 760 , the United States, by treaty, agreed with the Indians to reserve “a tract or tracts of land sufficient for their wants”. The executive order setting apart the tract was silent as to any rights in the bordering waters. The court held that the treaty and executive order should be construed to include the lands under the adjoining waters, because the record established that they were fish-eating Indians dependent for their sole means of support upon the continued use of those waters, from which they caught their fish.

The distinction between those cases and the instant case is one of fact and readily apparent. Here the trier of facts has found, upon substantial evidence, that the tidelands were not essential to the livelihood of the Indians at the time of the treaty and the executive order providing for the reservation. It is clear from the record that the reservation was not intended to support these Indians, as was the case in Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, or to be “sufficient for their wants”, as was the expressed intention of the treaty in United States v. Moore.

Nor is this a case such as Northern Pacific Railway Company v. United States, 1913, 227 U.S. 355 , 33 S.Ct. 368 , 57 L.Ed. 544 , or United States v. Ro maine, 9 Cir., 1919, 255 F. 253 , where surveys were found to be inconsistent with the understanding of the parties to the treaties and where the applicable documents contained language supporting the boundary claims of the Indians. The documents and historical background material in this case do not manifest an intention of the treaty makers to include the tidelands in the Skokomish Reservation. Accordingly, title to the tidelands vested in the State of Washington upon its admission to the Union and passed subsequently to the appellees. See United States v. Holt State Bank, 1926, 270 U.S. 49 , 46 S.Ct. 197 , 70 L.Ed. 465 .

As the trial judge pointed out in his memorandum opinion, a claim is pending with the Indian Claims Commission whereby the Skokomish Tribe seeks an award for alleged inadequate compensation for the lands ceded under the 1855 treaty. If, in fact, the treaty and executive order did not make adequate provision for the tribe, compensation can and presumably will be awarded by the Commission.

Our conclusion on the primary issue fully disposes of the case and renders it unnecessary to extend this opinion further by discussion of the other issues raised and argued by the parties.

Judgment affirmed.

. Act of June 18, 1934 ( 48 Stat. 984 ) as amended by Act of June 15, 1935 ( 49 Stat. 378 ). . In the treaty negotiations, conducted at Point No Point, Governor Isaac Stevens represented the United States. At a meeting on January 25, 1855, the treaty was read and interpreted to the Indians, followed by statements of various Indians and explanations of the terms of the treaty by Governor Stevens and his assistants. The treaty was signed on January 26. . The right to fish was granted by Article IV of the treaty, viz., “The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the United States; and of erecting tempo rary houses for the purpose of curing; together with the privilege of hunting and gathering' roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands.” . The reference is to the geographic site located and described in an earlier portion of the work (Ex. 60). Dr. Elmendorf set forth at pp. 32-55 of the exhibit a list of geographic sites identified by their Indian names which were important in the life of these Indians before they were placed on the reservation. He indicated the location of these sites by number on a map, which appears opposite page 48 of the exhibit. Duxwle ’lap is site No. 128 and is identified as “ ‘place at the farthest-in tail end (of the water).’ • * * An extended-area term for all the territory at the head of Hood Canal; in specific reference, the actual end of the inlet, the mouth of the Union River.” (See Ex. A-62.) . Slca’wks refers to site No. 176, “The east shore of Hood Canal from Bangor (King Spit) north of Port Gamble”. (See Ex. A-62.) . In Northern Pacific Railway Company r. United States the Supreme Court afErmed a construction of a treaty between the ■United States and the Yakima Indians, establishing the western boundary of the Yakima Reservation at the main ridge of the Cascade Mountains, rather than at a lesser ridge which would reduce the size of the reservation. While the treaty was susceptible to other construction, it contained the following language in the boundary description: “thence along the southern tributary to the Cascade Mountains; thence southerly along the main ridge of said mountains, passing south and east of Mount Adams, to the spur whence flows the waters of the Klickitat and Pisco rivers; * * (Emphasis added.) 227 U.S. at 357 , 33 S.Ct. at 369-370 , 57 L.Ed. 544 . . In United States v. Romaine this court said in pertinent part: “The intention to reserve to the Indians the possession of the land to low-water mark is made evident by the terms of the proclamation, for one of the courses on the west side of the island runs ‘to the low-water mark on the shore of the Gulf of Georgia, then southerly and easterly along the said shore with the meanders thereof, across the western mouth of Lummi river, and around Point Francis.’ ” 255 F. at 259 . . As the trial court well said: “The defendants in the instant case purchased and substantially improved their properties in complete good faith and without the slightest knowledge, actual or constructive, of the title claim now so belatedly asserted. Whatever public atonement for early day wrongs may be due the Skokomish Indians, granting the relief sought in the present case is not justified by the evidence presented or by the law applicable thereto.”