Seneca Nation, 1927-1931

y Al UNIVERSITY ATALBANY

Tall Stave University of New York

Heury S. Flenbey Papers, 1s49=— 1%bo

Sevies _ *

Desevit tion *
Dade 7-18 = 1924

}etey

NYs pitannicy breucval to Charles
SYS Chavities

Re: Gole of Tudian Vande, Salamanca
O4 den Land Compan
Note + Please Cory tf two Paces) Second. 2 pages duplicates vA |
dale. Thon k ye

Th

1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222
PH: 518-437-3935 Fax: 518-437-3930
http:/library.albany.edu/speccoll/

M.E, Grenander Department of
Special Collections & Archives

H, qlokusew ' divecbry of

Barba, allo

July 18, 1929

Gonorable Gharlee i, dohagony
Director of State Ghartties,
ALDany, By Te

Dear Sher

in your Letter of July 1a you infor me
that the peophe of the Tom of Brent, Erie Goumty,
duslve $o purchase or otherwiae eequre the use of
a tragk of Lake shor property now a part of the
Gattareugua Imiien Rewearvalion, You raquedt my
ookniony vhather the propowal ia a egal od preatioable
one, od Lf ao the ganditione te be followed.

It ie ay Opinion that, in she abeenoe of
an enabling atetite, selther the Genes Hebhon of
Tadiona, nat ite Ggumell, Ror any obher paragon ox
body, hes poeey to uske a eole or long tere Leaewo?
the proserty in question, Tor the puarpoem auggeated,
Soo Diate Congtitua on, axt. xy eadtion 1B,

aes EERE

There ie ot oraeent no ouch aneWling a@h.
Sue jaca ie pertieuisn ly aegiion 14, last eentenes,
The method ehien woe puraved ob the thae certeadin porti one
of the Allegnay reservation now included in Galawenen
om corteln other commited, passed fron reservation
into site oocupandy, aay be found in the amotagion
undex AGL Las weston TL, Metinney's edition, Those
tong term Loaded were wade by virige of federal and ebate
enabling mote.

Thet a stete onebling at eleng might be ine


Honovable Gharlee By, Jonacin Co

eu ltLolanty 16 si agse sed 4 the gana oF Cl
ea 8 Wan hy, att, LAR TY, SHS
@ Te" Soult which 1 ahall not dieguan in detail,
warely rophlnag wpen wy opinion that o etate enabling
ayt, toe the perposea now in view, and with « prudent
record to he waltave of the Indioua, would sooqophieh
that mel without need foe o speck tid aot of autho elane
tien ov sabationtion by Gongreee,

im giving you tale opinion 7 de not aver
hook the powelble relevenny of what 1a known aw the
Ggden hand Gowwny cleim, bat 1 am not duprenaud
pores angled @lgud hee any edfec} upon the pregent
SAMO R Lith,

Vary truly youre,

Atiomey Geneva,

2) UNIVERSITYATALBANY M8. tenner Dpto

Stave University of New York Special Collections & Archives

Heavy SG. Hass leiy Papers, \Ss49— 1due

Gevies a

BOX |
Deserp Hen FOLDER 2
Dade UB -1Y27
Letter
Ny6 Attov acy Geucval: Albevt Oi nger fo
Alexaudev Tlacdenald ) Nys Comservation Commissioner

. t
Seneca Natron Resevuatritus

Opinion om hunk ng oud fishing ow

1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222
pi: 518-437-3935 Fax: 518-437-3930
http:/library.albany.edu/speccoll/

Bavbayallo 7/201%

Hon. Mexendor

Vovembor 6, Laa7,

Macdonald
ppm age Gonmiashoner

Albany, Bs
deer Bie pe

You hev@ asked my opinion won the follow

ing questions:
qu)

_ (a)

(3)

Whether a poxsen other than a
tribal Indies Sgenoen | on his
geucrvabion GO GOR oh
Pcpcebine ag Mio ag tap pnd fib
wer aeotion ahs of the Gonaax~
vation Low, may de ea upon the
genses Indian Regervations in
this Giate, provided he figet
gotulne e permit from the Iniian
Nation oa¢upying the veswrvabiona;

Saneda
tione without figat obtaining a
Ligenae wider geotlon 106 of the
Conservation Luw}

The gondrel sa teraystssiee te be

piven $0 the sot of Gongreaa

relative to tha Geotion vation

(Ue By hows of LORT, oh, By
wblie Acta and Megeltutions,
art I, Dy O82) whieh reada as
follewal


HOR. ALQRANC ON RAM ONG dommes

Chap. @8, = Ap AGh to ear to the

tele of New York and the deneoe fation
of indians jutiediotion over the taking
of finh and game within the Allegany,

ne pent 8, and O11, Aoving Indian Reser
veblong.

Be it enacted by the denate and
House of Representatives of the United
States of Ametion in Gongresa oeeouhed,
Theat on and after the passage of thia
4ot, the lew) of the @hate of New York
(including Lewes horeatter esacted) ro«
lating to the taking of game and fish
shall be applicable te the teking of
= ani Sieh within the Allegany,

tierugud, ant OLL Spring Indian
Regarvatiung in the State of Hew York;
except that~« .

a) Any suoh Law which dleorim
inotes ageingt the Indleng and in forex
of any other poyson ehaki not be apn ldor
geblet and

(8) The denede Wetion of Inddene
aheil have the exoluaive right to que
theorize, end to igaue permite and Lhe
eanses tor tho toking of game ond flab
within auoh reservations.

{22 Provided, Thet thie Aol mhall
be Pli¢wbie to Lande formerly in the
O41 Spring Reservation ant heretetore som
quired by the Otale of New York by con
dometilon prooeediaga.”

the scheme of governuent of the Senewa Netlon de
contained primarily tn a doneth tution adopted i
Hetion Neeenber 4, 1640, recognised by the United Giater
government, and alee resegndaed by the Legislature of
Hew York by conguyvent gesolution, Bergh 3Y, 1649,
Aa later amended in 1008, the deandga Sonehh tution was
reti?ied and contiened by Uhapter O88 of the Lewa of
1000, By thie amended Gonetitution of 1006 the

Hon, Alexander Haodonaldecanm

the laglelative, exeoutive and F omggeys powers of the
foneoe Nation exe vooted in certain wlective officiala
of thet Hatdon, :
For m yeora, 1% wae & queetion whether the

Gtate Goaservation Law apolied to Indlane Living in
tuibel oapacity on tvibel reaervetiona, In La0d,
in the cage of We , Sf Mine. 83, the
County Gourt of Vat tara ‘uity held that the Core
gervebion Lew did apply. in 1018, however, the
Attoragy Generel of New York was of the opinion that
At did not (Op. Athy. Generel (1015) Yok. I1, pe 408,
this opinion of the aptorney Generel wea approved, anc
the degieion ta the Plerae dave apagwpreved, 1" Unk eas

i Le We . tl hi At
Gaited #88 Atesot HEA GE: ie Reatern bistriet
a ow YORRs

The question hae now been laid af rewt i! the
set of yg ged about whieh you dnquiré. For though
the State has some degree of governmental oawbreld, over
indiana within the Slate (songeded in 4, 20

ve Dyleg, B80 Us o Ly gee alno 2

a We » BOE N, Ye Ge) Congaeae
Ginay Le pavencunt when it Legdeletea om Indhan

never
attodae«

ALG UO, OFG
= We Deby, ALG m. Ye

i os he Gus

Bo "the Lawa of the Bvate af New York Cine
eluding Laws hereafter exacted) reloting to the taking
of game oh" are now ond hereetter “shall be ap
plicable to the teking of gawe and fieh within the
i » Cwttarmague ond OL) doring Reworvatione in
the ogete of New York" with the eme@otiana stated in
the Aat of dongreos,

* Ono of these axcaytions gives to the deneon
Netlon "the geudlugive gight to authorize and to ipque
permite and Licenses for the taking of game and figh
within. auch reservations,” I congtrue thie oxalu«
ive grant of power to moan that ib de for the doneoa

e

Hons Alomundes Raedana townsend,

Nation to determine who ahall sna who shell not tuke
gune and f1eh within the named reservations.

it followa both that the Conservation Depart~
mint mey ook Leeuw oormite and Jinenaee for tho tekiag
of game ond fish within the reewzvationa, and that the
Seneda Netion may isaue them to any persone ae they
fey doborsing, inoluding thowe wha are net tribal
Talinna vemiding on the reoorve tone. :

Antes trom the exceptions etated in the Act
of Gongrega, and oe a matter of ita general intempro«~
tation, however, the Genees Netion ond ite Andividuale
gust ohsenye the State figh and game Lews withha the
Aiiegany, Catitarengus ond O11 Spring Indian Meservae
tions, and the State Conservation Departaent hae the
power and duty te enforea them there.

Vouy truly youra,
AGHERT OTYTHORR
dttorney Generale


] U N IVE RS ITY AT ALB A NY University Libraries

MLE, Grenander Department of
Stare University of New York Special Collections & Archives

Heury S. Phaslsiy Papers, \3sH%— [luo

Gevies _ 4

BOX |
Deserib Hens FOLDER 2

leHave- cone opener

Judge Lee Lo OHawae to Henvy % Thao bay = IY Dept of
Aoricul bere 2, Narkets ‘ legal buveauw.

Case

Distrret Atloy ney , Chautauqua Co, wy, blenn Woodin au
brder bo vemove, wude yo Tudiza Law, 7 Ludiaus
from the Ca tra rau sues Rcsesuatian .
properka of Wille aun Seeleg deceased § dcek iho inle
fe Woman" heers Acs pute laul a4

mavricd a wh -
vot oftiecal Ucubere of POU Cea,

Snell fav — heirs
Naten

1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222
PH: 518-437-3935 pax: 518-437-3930
http:/library.albany.edu/speccoll/

Bavbayallo

Lua L, Orraway, vuper '

CHauraveua County CourRtT

JUDGE'S CHAMBERS
JAMESTOWN, Nuw YorK

August 287th, 1931.

Mr. Henry 8. Manley,

Department of Agriculture & Markets,
The Capitol,
Albany, N.Y.

Dear Henry :-

After waiting a long time for briefs
I have finally decided the Indian question
that I talked with you about last winter. ‘
I enclose herewith copy of the opinion. T
assume this is not entirely in accord with
your view of the subject and I am rather
impressed with the idea that the Fourth
Department of the Appellate Division may
likewise disagree. But it seems to me it.
sound law if not a particularly desirable
social program. I think I suggested to
you when I was in Albany that if the political
plan is to take away from the Indians their
rights of self government it should be accom-
plished by a definite legislative program in
that direction probably best inaugurated by
Congressional enactment. I have a strong
feeling that it should not come about by
strained and illogical judicial inroads and
I can't get away from the feeling that this
latter phrase rather well describes what has
been occuring. If you care to make any
comment I shall of course be glad to have it
no matter how critical.

With best personal regards, I remain

Yours sincerely,

LLO » 8 Paw SC oe |
Eno,

COUNTY COURT + GHAUTAUQUA COUNTY
Berar ara arena ar ar eee
In the Matter of the Appt tet ioe of
Glenn W. Woodin, Distriet Attorney of
Chautauqua Oounty, for an order under
Section 8 of the tndian Law removing
Minnie Seeley, Flossie Page, Ethel,
Snyder, Joseph Seeley, Charles Seeley,
Harvey Seeley and Luella Seeley, from

the Oattanaugue Indian Reservation.

ttt ee me me ‘

oY

Proceedings under Section 8 of the Indian Lew for
the removal of defendents claimed to be intruders on Reserva»

tion lands,

APPEARANCES: Robert Galloway, attorney for petitioners,
John L, Helder, attorney for respondents,

OTTAWAY, J. t=

The facts in this osce are not seriously in dispute. :
It appears that Willies Seeley, ancestor of the defendants, was
a membor of the Seneca Nation of Indians. Whatever may have
been hid tribal ancestory at least he was recognized and en-
relled in the Seneoa Nation. He settled upon the land in
question, which is real eatate consisting of a small farm within
the limits of the Cattaraugus Reservation and located in the
County of Chautauqua. He improved this farze and lived upon

it during his life time. In the year 1894 he died and hia
surviving son, Jasper Seeley, continued to make this farm his

home, living there until the time of his death in 1926..


The Indian title of William deeley to the land in
‘question was not contestible. | His possession of that land
had been for mich more then ‘the period indicated by the rule
adopted by the Seneoa Indian Counoll, At a Council Meeting
held February 7, 1963, it wae provided:

‘That the continual possession of
improved lands by any Seneca Indian
and his assigns.for the period of
twelve years shall be conclusive
evidence of title. before a dourt

of the Seneoa Nation of Indians having

jurisdiotion of such action, except-
aug *herel zon lands which have been
80)

eee conveyed, Con rs uenghe

William Seeley did not marry an Indian woman but
married 3 white woman so that Jasper Seeley was the son of
on Indian father and a white mother. 2

dagpex Seeley in turn married a white women, Minnie
Stearns, who ie the defendant Minnie Seeley. The other defen~
dante in this cane ‘are the ohildren of this marriage of Jasper
Seeley and Minnie Stearns, Sinee the death < spar Seeley
his wife Minnie Seeley and some of the ehildrer reside upon the
Reservation but the others have removed Wherefrom and are now
living in white communities, taking no part in Indien life or
Indian affeira.

William Seeley was o duly enrolled Seneea Indian and
henee a member of that Tribe ond Nation. Jasper Seeley was
never enrobled nor have any of the defendants been enrolled
either in the Seneca Nation or in any other Indian Tribe. Weither


Jasper Seeley nor any of the defevdants Le named upon the en~

rollment booke of the Indiem Agent whereby annuities are pald to
Indians of the Seneca Tribe snd noné of them receive annufiies
or “Indian Yoneys" as they are often designated.

Neither Willian Seeley: nor Jasper Seeley left a Will
and their estate are une-administered ,:. the defendants olalming |
that they are the widow and eblldren of Jasper Seeley and
entitled to inherit his real: estate under the Laws of the State
of New York,

Seotion @ of. the Indien se provides the progedure
by which intruders may be removed from Reservation lends and.
seta up a machinery of the State Gourt to be set in motion by
the application of the majority of the Chiefs of the Nation to
the District Attorney who shell in turn present the complaint.
It. is the olain and theory of the petitioners that the children
of the white wife of Jesper Seeley 4id not inherit the Jand in
question; thet thie land is subjeot to the general control, of
the Gounocil of the Seneca Nation; and that these defendants
claiming to own and seoure the benefit of these Reservation —
lends are intruders thereon and should be removed by this pro«
oedure. The petitioners urge that these ghildren could not
inherit according to the law of descent of the Seneca Nation,
which in substance provides, that inheritence is to be deter~
mined only. thru the mother, and that where @ mother is not a
Indian the children are not Indians and not entitled to become
menbore of an Indian Nation.


The facts narrated above were nob substantially dis~
puted upon the trial and may be regarded as having been
established without controversey. There was litigated before
us the question of what was the law and custom of the Seneoa
Nation so far as the determination of descent is concerned,
and upon this question of whether the Seneca Indian Lew regarded
descent as thru the mother solely and not thru the father, many
witnesses were sworn, Without reviewing this voluminous evidence
in deteil suffices it to say that it has been proven before ue
not only by a fair preponderance of evidence but beyond any
possible doubt. that ‘bb was the law end custom of the Seneca
Nation of Indiana that the lineage follows thet of the mother;
that if the mother be & white woman the children are for all
purposes of tribal relationship and lew not Indians but white’
persons,

With euch facte conceeded and proven we come to the
question of whether this law and oustom of descent of the Indian
Nation shall apply te lands improved by. and allotted ‘to the
decedent Williem Seeley so as to exolude the children of Jasper
Seeley and a white wife from inheritenoe of the real estate in
question. If ao, the petitioners are entitled to an order
yenoving the defendants as intruders; if not, the defendents are
entitled to en order dismisaing the prooseding.

The hietory of the affairs of the Seneca Nation of
Indians as the same is found in the reporte of treaties, Legiee
lation and the decisions of the courte is a long one. tt wild

pe of little help to here again review 4% in detail. Ite:
essential facta may be readily found in the opinion of Mr. ‘
Justice Kellogg in Matter of Patterson ~va~ Seneca Nation,

245 N. ¥, 433, With some varlation as to detail the atatue

of this Indien Nation has been diseussed in many Judieial, de-
clsions, not only in the State Courts but in the Federal. dourte.

One of the early. cases was determined by Mr. Justice.
Daniele in Senees Nation of Indians ~vs~ Lehly, On appeal,

Mr, dustice Macomber delivered the opinion of the Appellate
Divieion, Fifth Department (85 Hun, 83). The cage was one
where a Senece Indien had married & white women and the case
before the Oourt tested the question of whether her children:
eould Inherit Lands upon the Indian Reservation, “the deokeion
wae to the effeet thet under the statutes authorising allotment
of Indian lands such children "of a white mother"had the right
to inherit from thelr father*. (Se construed in Hateh <ve-
Luckien discussed below.) This decision apparently procesds
upon the basio theory that the Indien Lew of deseent especially
as t@ real estate has been superseeded by the general New York
State law of desoent.

In the oase of Hatch -ve~ Luockman, Mr. dustioe Wheeler
of our own Department wrote at length upon thie preblem. On
appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed his
order made at Special Term and adopted hia opinion ee delivered.
(165 A. D. 765.) Im his disouasion of the behly case (Page 785)
@ustice Wheeler refers to the fact that it had been conceeded


before the trial judge that "there de a custom among the
Seneca Nation that the Lineage of the ehild fellows thet of
the mother and ie governed by ib",  Sustlee Wheeler adda,
“in other words, in the face of the goncessions, euetom must
give way to Law",

‘The Hatch sage involved Indian title to real estate
upon the Tonewanda Indien Reservation, Thomad Skye, & Tone
awenda Indian bad warrled Martha George an Indlan woman welong-
ing to the Senese Nation of Indians. The issue of thet waArrlage
wea the pleintiff, Phoebe Hateh, who aadee to recover the
possession of the real estate in question and aes Writ of
Prohibition egainet the Peace Makers of the Reservation, This
wan gronted by the Supreme Sourt af Speoial Term and the order
therefor affirued by the Appellate Division qa we have above
indievted. The cage follews the same basic theory as the Lehly
Gane, to wit: that Indien cuatome ond Lawa and in feet even the
Peace Maketa Gourt and those inetruments of government eet up
by the Indien people for the contrel of thele internel affairs
and the management of thelr Reservation property have been super«
seeded by the Lawe of the @tate of New York ao thet the eteate
law of desvent of real sebate rather then the Indian lew and
gusto dn this ragara shall be obgervad.

it hae occurred to ue that the same reault might have
been reaghed hed the court applied the guaranty of the original
Tndien treatien to the effet thet not only the Geneon Nation but.


aleo the Six Nations and their Indian friends residing thereon
{on the Reservation) and united with them are guaranteed free

usé and enjoyment of those Lands. (treaty made at danadaigua,
November 11, 1794) ‘The petitioner in the Hatoh cage was the
daughter of an Indian woman who was the member of another Tribe.
She was not the daughter of a white woman and perhaps “as a
friendly Indian" might logically have received the benefit of this
treaty. However, this view of the case is not referred to in
the opinion. :

While thexe are other deolsions more or less to the
same effeot we need not here refer to them specifically because
they are all based upon substantially the same theory which ie
stated ao directly in the Lehly case and the Hatch case above
referred to.

The Hatoh case, decided by an eminent jurist of our
Supreme Gourt and affirmed in thie Repartment upon his opinion
by the appellate Divielon te, of course, controlling upon the
determination of this court unless the principles there enunciated
have since been repudiated by a higher court. 4 this doctrine
of subservience of the Indian custom ag to lineage and descent
to the general enactments of our Legislature now the law of this
state?

The principles involved have been more recently passed
upon and reviewed by the Qourt of Appeals in the matter of
Patterson <-vs- Seneca Nation, 245 N. ¥. 432:and 1t seems to us
theories ununclated in the Lehly and Hatch cases have now been

olearly disapproved. The Patterson dase same before the court


on a very Similar state of facts. Nathaniel Patterson was
a duly eurclled member of the Seneca Nation. He married a
white woman and of this union was born the petitioner, Robert

&. Patterson. On due application Rebert &. Patterson wae

refused enrollment as a ibex of the 8 Nation not only
by the Gouncil of that Nation but aleo by the Gowmissioner of
Indian Affairs, the reason given being that he waa a son of
@ white woman and wae not an Indian aooording to the law and custom
of this Nation. The proceeding was brought to sompel the
Oounoll of the Seneoa Nation to enroll him, to permit him to
participate as a voter, to acoord to him his property rights
and to pay him his share of annuities as a member. Ab Special
Tex an order was made in his favor which was affirmed by the
Appelhvte Divleloa without opinion. (219 A. D. 857) = This
decision was reversed in the Gourt of Appeals with opinion by
My. Justice Kellogg in which ail concur.

fa this opinion Justice Kellogg reviews the relationship
of the Seneca Netion to the State and Nation, He points out
that thia is a relationship of a weaker nation olaiming and re
oeiving the protection of one more powerful and not thet of ine
dividuale abandoning their national character and subaitting as
subjects to the Laws of a master (Page 457); and concludes that
the Seneca Nation of Indiane has retained for itself that pre-
requisite of thelr preservation and lategrity ag a Nation, the
wight to determine by whom its membership shall ba constituted.
(Page 458) He cites with approval early expressions of the


court to the effect that we have not attempted to extend our
lawa *** to yegulate the manner of theiy acquiving, holding or
conveying property among themselves (Page 439); that when Gon.
gress does not act no law rune on an Indien Reservation save
the Indian Tribal law and custom. (Page 440) He says,

"It must be the law, therefore, thet un-
less the Seneca Nation of Indians and the
State of New York enjoy a relation inter se
peo ee Riker geil Mendig oy ae enroll-
ment o 6 pe oner, with its af ono oe.
property rights, dependé upon the laws an
sages of the Seneca Nation and is to be
determined by that natlon itself, without
interference or diotation from the Supreme
Court of the State".  (Italies ours)

He then disousses in considerable detail the adoption of the
Gonstitution of the Seneca Nation in the year 1848 with due ref-
erence to State legislation for the protection and improvement
of the Sensca Nation of Indlans, which Legislation is not to bo
“Znconsistent with the provisions of this Coustitution". He
refers to the amended Gonstitution ratified by the Legislature
by Chapter 253 of the Laws of 1900, approving the governueat set
up by the Indian Nation and in discussing the olaim that the
State ot New York had “assumed governmental control" of the
Tadians he says,
"1% de true that the Constitution gave

consent of the nation that laws might be

passed ‘by the Legislature of the State of

New York for the protection and improvement

of the Seneca Nation of Indians,' but only

go fag as such lawe might not be 'inconais-

tent with the provisions of this doustitubion

or Oharter.' It gave no consent that the

common law of the State of New York should

obtain on the tndian Reservations. Tt did

not abrogate the customary laws of the
nation. The ancient usages and customs of

- LD =

the Seneca Nation, therefore, except as
modified by appropriate legisiation of the
Nation or State, continued as the law of
the Indian land".

He refers to the fact that Section 65 of this article known ae the
Indian Law gives a definite sanction to Seneca customs and usages
and provides that all lands on the Reservation shall be held ila
common by the Seneca Nation subject to the control of the Gouncil
thereof except lands cultivated and improved by an Indian family ,
in accordance wlth the laws and usages of the Seneca Nation.

The opinion then continues as follows:

"fhe Indian Law, and especially article
4 thereof, is chiefly netable for the almost
complete omission therefrom of any legislative
enactments upon matters other than those apper=
taining to administrative detatis. The law
imposes the marriage and divorce laws of the
State upon the Indian nations; it prehibite
suits against Indians upon contracts; it fore
bids the sale or exchange of apirituous Liquors
for any article received from an Tadian in
peyment, exchange or pawn. Tt doss not
otherwise make applicable to Indians either
the common law or stetute law of the State,

whether eivil or orininal B dogs

yrorate dian % 4 LOS ao

E “provide esdent 3: Eitee
the fe A 1 Bhrot er, Bs

Ci 3 J Rs Leth £m a Ud, 1S
tt does not iovide what @hall be the quali~
fications of membership in the geneca or aay
other Indian netion. the eonglusion is ine
eseapable that the Seneca tribe remaina a
separate nation; that its powers of self-
governsent are retained with the sanotion of
the State; that the anclent customs and ueages
of the nation, except in a few particulars,
remain, unabolished, the Law of the Indian
land; that in its capacity of a soverign nation
the Seneca Nation is not subservient to the
oxders and directions of the courts of New York
State; that, above all, the Seneca Nation retains
for liself the power of determining who are
Senecas, and in that respeot ia above inter-
ference and dictation. ®


-il- :

Tt seems to us that this enunciation of the funda-
mental Law of the State as regards the Indians sannot be re-
gonoiled with the pringiples laid down 1a the Lehly end Hateh
CAsas « it appears that there have been properly reserved to
this Geneca Nation of Indians a1) powers to conduct their
internal affaixe. tvery effort hae been made to vouch safe to
them, general powers of menaging themselves and their affairs.
Even in the realm of orlminal law it became the sebtled poliey
of Gongress te permit them to deal, with effences by one Indian
against the person or property of another Indlen agcerding to
their tribal oustoms and lawa. Yor their own best good Gongrase
(Yederal act of 1985, found in 22 0. &. Statutes at Large, 385)
provided in substance, that the Federal Gourts should be veetod
with exclusive juriediction over seven major orimes bab with the
exception of theae seven major crimes all offences within the
limits of the Reservation between Indiana were Left to the control
of the Indien courts.

tf then the banie factor and principle of the Lehly
ease is aot generally controlling and if the Indian law of
descent of property generally prevadie upon the Reservation
vather than the State statutes of descent, wa came to the
question of whether some specific statutes eneated “for the
protection and improvement of the Geneea Nation ef Indians" and
not “nconsistent with the proviglone of this (their) Gonstitu.
tion" give these defendanta the right to possession of this
particular plece of oroperty. Oar attention ia oalled to

several provisions of the Indiun Law as follows:


= 48 w

"Section 7 of the Indian Law provides
for partition of tribal lands by the Indian
government. It continues, ‘mo lands ocoupied
and improved by any Indian according to the
laws, usages and custom of the Nation, tribe
or band shall be set off to any person other
than the occupant or his family".

Seotion 55 of the Indian Law refers speci-
floally to the Seneca Indians and provides that
all lands shall be held in common “except such
as have been allotted *"" oy "8# eulbivated
and improved by an Indian or Indien family or
the heire thereof in accordance with the laws
and usages of the Seneca Nation *#*#

{t ie also provided by Seotion 9 of the Indian
Law that the Gouncil may grant a permit to an
Indian net a member of the tribe to reside on
tribal lands and "may Limit the time and regu-
late the terme upon which any Indians not mombers
of such Nation *** may *#* preside upon euch
tribal lands".

Seotion 8 of the Indian Law also provides
‘except as otherwise provided by law, no person
shell settle or reside upon any lands owned by
pc la of Indians exoept members of such

ation".

Seotion 16 of the Gonetitution of the Seneca
indlane adopted in the year 1848 and wvabified
and approved by the Gtate Loglalature in 1849,
amended again in 1698 and again ratified and
gonfirmed by Qhapter 252 of the, Laws of 1.900,
deolares, "The rights of any member of the
Ancient Jonfederasy of Troquoia ta the occu
panoy of thelx lands and other privileges
shall be respected ag heretofore'.

On November Ll, 1794, a treaty was made with
the Indians at Canandaigua. ft re-established
peace with their Nation and defined the bound-
axles of thelxe land. These boundaries ine
@luded the part of Ohautauqua Sounty in question.
The treaty continued as follows: "Now the
United States acknowledge all the land within
the aforementioned boundaries to be the pro-
perty of the Seneca Nation; and the United
States will never claim the same, nor disturb
the Seneca Nation nor any of the Bix Nations
or their Indian friends residing thereon and
united with them, in the free use and enjoy~


«= 13 @ ”

ment thereof; but it shall remain theira,
until they chose to sell the same to the
people of the United States who have the
right to purchase.

It is urged by the defendants that this Tnudian Law,
particularly Section 7, insuring possession "to an ocoupant or
his family" and Seation 55, referring to land "lmproved by an
Indian or Indian family or the heirs thereof in accordance with
the laws and usages of the Seneca Nation" guarantee the possession
of thia land in question to these defendants who are the descend~
ante ox family of William Seeley. We are not in accord with
this view and believe that upon @ consideration of the whole
subject of Indian affairs 1+ ie not sound. Tf Geetion 7 and
Section 55 are within the legislative power of this State in se
far ae they interfere with the customs and eontrol of Indian pro~
porty upon the Reservation and state a law for the desoent of
property they must nevertheless be read in the light of the ether
lawe and customs appligable to the subject matter. it seens
bo us that there is the thoro purpose and intent of giving to
this nation the sontrol of Reservation property so that when the
legislative enactuent says "family" and "heirs" 14 muet mean
the family and the heirs which the Indians themselves recognise.
The power to control the internal affairs of this nation remains
in the Indian Gouncoll. This Qouneil has the power to determine
who shall be members of their Netion. (Patterson case above. )
The Indians themselves must have the full power ovex their tribal
and family relationships, To say that they have no such power
is to take away some of their control over their own intemal


= 14

atfalre.

It de easy to see that sustaining in possession of
property the descendants of those Indiana who formerly held 1%
but who have married white wives might eventually lead to a
situation where practically #1 of the Reservation lands would
be in the coatzel of these sho ware not deseended from Iadlan
mothers and hence not entitied to membership in the tribe,
not regegnuized by our Severnment ae reoipleats of annuity moneys
and not within tribal control. The control of Reservation
lande by the Indian eounell would be very much restricted and
the constitutional sad treaty guarantees against interference
by the Slate or Nation with the possession of these Lands by
the Senega Nation would be reduced to a mere idle geature.

if the rule or custom as to the descent of property
upon thie Reservation ls to be changed it ehould be changed by
anactinent of either the Indian Nation themselves ox of the United
States Gongrege. M% should not be altered by Logislative en-
actments without the authority of the Indians aor by judicial
inroade into the realm of Indian affalre,

It ie argued that the Lehly and Hateh cases give
direction to the general trend of Indian affaire and the decisions
%o have been actueted by the thought that socially and politically
the Indian Nation would be better off to adept the State rule of
descent of real estate. Thie contention may be o debatable
aubjeet but at all events if is not an end that should be aceom-
plished gave by definite legislation in aveordance with the


o 1D =

Bee

one ance

treaty tights aad standing of thie Indian Nation.

4s the bLehly and Hateh sases are determinations by
higher courts we should, of ooures, feel required to follow
tham had not the dourt of Appeals definitely repudiated the
basle principles expressed in those cages. {See Patterson
gase above.) We conclude that we must follow the Patterson
Gasa.  Heving so soncluded findings and order may be pro~
sented granting the plea of petitio .
Dated, Jamestown, Ne Yes auguot X75 1931.


September 1, L931,

Honorable Lee L, Ottaway,
Chautauqua county Judge,
Janeatown, N.¥s

Dear Leet«
t an very much pleased with your opinion 4n
@ 0 : 4

» ds
you know, T prefer the other anawer to the
problem, but for present purposes it is most
important that the problem and ite hiatory
be stated clearly, You have put a creat deal
of thought and reaeareh into that, and TI am
aure you heave dene 44 as well as ke ooee lily
ean be done, If the result of the decleion
in the present ease La ase tear eutery 4t ia
so mich the better for callin: attention te
the unsatiefectory conditions of Indian
goverment erally, Whatever the appellate

courte may do, T hope your opinion will receive *
auch immortartty ag the Miacellancous Revorte ‘
ean gonfer.

Youra very truly,

Hou /AD

U N IVE RS ITY AT ALB ANY University Libraries

. ! M.E, Grenander Department of
+ State University of New York Special Collections & Archives

Heury om Mente Papers, 1s49—-1lue

Sevies 2

}
Desevib tion % BOX

Dede \-23- 19430

lelers

I Henry S. Mlawley , aserst NY stale Attorney geneval fe
Honorable RPaniel A» Revd, Congress men Ayre Dist. Ny 3 Wash. De.

feyar ding land and the Ogden Land Comdfany |

Za 1-29- 19%0
Rack Ves pense be Vanley

3,

4.16. 19% Nauley bo Tlosenep Capit € 5 Lac Dept.
Note . Copy either the onron -skin ow hea * Copy ~
Whreh evey 16 e¢asrey — er loo th fre pera lety

Yhauk yor

“Deca —,

1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222
PH: 518-437-3935 Fax: 518-437-3930
httpi/library.albany.edu/speccoll/

Bavbayallo & pao

April 16, 1051.

My dear Anoat«

¥or your information end that of
My, Oshill, IT enoloss tea covles of 2 letter
rt adlreaned on January 33, 1930, to Congressman
Daniel A. Read, tt contadna rebarenoes to the
more important sources, so an I an informed,
relative to the Ogden Land Oomeany claim to the
eneca, reservations, See aleo the reqommendations
mothe ¢lain made in the 1°01 report of the
ound of Indian Cormiasionars, 7 i Gah 2y
fersidagnble material shout the claim may aldo be
found in Asaevbiy Doowsent No, 51 of 1889, pages
22, S31, 1028 and 1202,

Yours very truly,

HBM/AB Counsel.
PRGLG


*

Aaed Jomuaxvy 1630

Honorable Yontol A. Read
Conrreaenan, 43x Now York Miatriot
Waehtogeton, De Ge

- My dear Congrasaman Reed:

Yt veturned to thie offioe Tuwadey
morning bet Keve Juss found Sime to in.
vyeatirate certain nettora T wished to tough
Ww ps volative to the Orden Land Company :
olen.

. Shether the G¢den band Company wae a
partnership or as common Law truat io net
.elene., In 1894 46 was accepted ae a foot
that Charlee B. Appleby of New York City
was tenatee, holding. the Legal title and
fully suthorived ta act for a Lhet of about
fourteen benefiaigl omers.  (Roport on
Ogdon Land @o., % Bx. Doe, #58, Seed deng.
Sra Gone.) 8o ta the trustee new, end who
the oonorm, te uncertain, but 1* 16 quite
poseibia that « eufflolent prespdeb of gain
would onuae then to be searched. owt and
‘brought forward. :

oo. The Orden Land Cespany, choever ‘and

ahatdver it noy be; elaima the wieght of pre«#
emption to the Allegany, Gabteraugus cr ee or
‘Snriwr reservabiona, ond to part of the

Tusonrora roservetion. While tho exact natuxe

of this vicht hae been ‘the eubject of some
Aifferonod, apoagentiy this virht of pre-
SOy MOANA

emption, o¢ Diss. sight of purcha

ainply shat if ani when oy of this Pesorvation :

Honorable Dantel A. Raod «  « = m By

tend ta sold from Indien omership, the Ogden
Lond Cotpeny hos sole right te purchase, ov else
to doalennte who shall be the purchaser. ‘The
Indians cannot be foroed ta sell; they can go
on for generations ad thoy have, oocupying the
‘4and end even leasing it from year to yeax; but .
41” they wieh to 6011 they hove no maxket axeept
the Oaden Land Company or ita nomineds.

The teqult.of thts claim 1e that the .
Indien title ie worth lean omong theriselves,
ia uieeleable to white people eonerally even with
‘gongsent of Coryrraso, ond that evepy now departure
in tribal goverment or Tandholding, euch aa
allotting Lande in severalty er even boconing
U, G. aitigenea, ie the oeoasion for slarm that the
Ogden Land Company wlll claim « forfeiture of
the Indian title.

"hie claim le not only a nether of concern
to the Indlens, tah to the white Loseeead for Long
sera of veserve}ion lands, auch as the eitiszens
of Selamenee and some neighboring villopes. These
poole await. the laying to weet of thie oleim, and
then en set of Congzega ov other authority to
necotiate with tho Indlane, heforethey ann aocqalze
4n fee the lands they heve ocoupled end improved
under Loneea,

1@ there wore any preat force or velidity
to the Oeden lend Gocpany claim 44 would seen thet
4% sould hove beon tested Lone ago agelnet the
poopie of Salamanca and other long toxm Losseas.
Nowever thia nay be, the olaim haa been given a
serious xeeard at vorloua tinea, espeolally in the
deonde of about 189861008. At one tine icglelebion
waa proposed under which the olalin would bo oxtinguished
at a coat of ALO por aowe (141) and another time
at a totel coat of $200,900, Gee I, Dad, 71590
O3ed Gongs Sed Sosa,, Zor a wofevence to come of
those ovortared. . :

Zé geen clear thet the claim hae only a
nulaenod Valuo, not even amounting to BBO pO a

Honorable Daniel A. Read = « « mm Be

Rut socepting the olaim at ite owners? omtde
mate, apon the ageumption that it ta a valucble
future interest In veal property, beonusea ef a
probability that the Indlan® will earnestly
doaire to go11 in the not toa womote future,

Hunk got tae Sie ue tataseees

Thia prepesel la, at fivet elenoe, unusual
dn two veapeota. Our zeal property taxes are
paid by the owiore of présent interests (seo o note
an LP As he Ty LBB4 et seqe); and we do not tax
teaervation lends.

Fox tha firat, there appears to be no com»
pulgion, Tt 1a my pergonal view (I de not purport
in this Letter to express the vltimate views of the
Atterney General) that the Gtate could waquive tta
real property tax to be bone, in a fale papper stone
by owners of future interesta, Inetoad of making
no atipalation upon the subjeet, and Leaving the
tax to be pald by omiera of oresen’ interagta under
a ralo of commen law. Tb could de thet for all
futuro interests, and 1+ ean do this merely for
rights of preenption to Indian tewervationa, They
ave sud genoria,ond tb 4a justifiable to pot then
ine olase by shoneolves for tax purposems

As to the second sugecostion « that wa do

not tex reservation lenda « while thig 4a our present
lew (Tex Lew § 4 sa. 4; Indfan Law § 6) that course
1s not commulsory, axcopt that we eannot exerolae
the power of taxation go a8 to ptverwety ot
tho Indtens. otha i Anes ins PIS » 0 be
768i, In thet case, OE oe Impeced aradnes the
pugochagers of voservetion landa after sale and
before poaseasion vas surrendered by the Indimne,
an’, while the atetwhe professed not to diatugb the
indians, the court clearly wa edaplotous that the
etatate vould have a boudenay to onnee the purchasera
to oust the Indjons, While there may be analogies
between that lew ond the present ono, 1 belleve
that the court@ will eonse the benevolence of the
preaent pxopodal, and that 46 wiLi, be upheld,
PartloularLy wuld thet result be probable, af
Congrosa @howld now enaet Lemielebion making plain

Honorable Dendel A, Heed » aw « « de

that 44 doog not comard such Logidlation by the
State as on inivagton.of tha federal prerorativa.

Yours very teuly

HAMILTON WARD
Attorney General.
By

HENRY O,. MAULEY
Heh: Ma Asestetant Attorney General «


S208 Jamuary 1930

Ronoyable Deniot &. Read
Oongeecwmen, Ahed Haw Tork Diotriet
Warhington, O Oy

al deay Congravenan Regdt

woturndd go Vala of foe hip igs 4
mown tH om im found time to tne
veabign 3 oertako we Viera T waned. te touch

wea asies to ‘she Ogden Lend Company

a ma gon pe soreies ny : foot
7 ii m a)
thorles 8, Appleb: yh

benefinlel, ovneye.
oeden en} bead a Ave! fon. ‘ig

pot rhavt Seve y Tbe
per rag tnat i fh and when ada thie reservation

Honorable Dankel A, Reed ww» «it

hee soho oeey ee or elag
indians conned be foroed te golly they San Pa

The vowels of thie alain to thet the
Tudien title Le worhh leas among theeslyed,
is undslevie te white geople generaliy even with
genment af Conprees, and Shab ereiy aoe ‘
me ‘bed bal, gv amon ey Landhol sing, aaah ae

: Tats @ieks ia net galy & watter of omerrs
to the indisns, dyt to the ebite lewweae for Long
tenes of vewervetion Landa, gach ae the oftiwens
of SMa and some neighnoring villages, Theae
pie await the Laying to rest of thie oladm, end
‘hen am aot a? Gonerese ov other authoriiy te
negotiote whith the dadlene, befera they om sagelee
de fon the lends they heave egouplad and daproved
wider Leagea,

Tf there were nay aveat force or validity
to the “gden Lond Sgsouny ginda Li would aeae thab
44 would have beer teeted hing ago egainet the
peoghe of gory and other Lone tow Leasees,
However thia way the vlaiw hes teen ghren 3
daniqus vegurd sb various tines, gepagelly 4a the
degede of shout Lieh«l906, At one tiwe Legialation
wan propennd Re, whieh the alain would be Seteackened

at a gost of oe wove C224) ond another 4

eh a tobel ont + Sy Das, '

Gies Cong. ed Senn, foe a vetevente to none of

thoes overtures, |

Tb sone Glear that the claim hee only &
peleonte yeloo, nob even amounting te (004000.


Honovawle fontel A, Koed » aw go

Sut aggepting the leis et ite ownerat aatt-
onthe, ne be atoront tn pl pro thwt ob he musgiet 8.
a —
ep tS

ahee ric’ Beil rhe th not tao renote fu

foie —_ olde ab ecu. prer gaven,

ait ‘nag ome 8 ot precent sterens a ‘ ee
#t gay.)) aid we do net

ze wud, ie as ae is i se tar te vat how
nN 8
ins elage iM themselves fox tar purponedy

he second sumgection « heir Go
ee sourpretion re » ohihe is out preset
A ip Lol i Boy 43 Todtien Law 3 that ¢ouree
binge aed ‘exe thot wa emma} oxerelue
Agi eof tauntion aa va bo adgarsoly y att
Pe Uv iy

ound aentint the

puranasars or geaatyntion Teade Arh or & med

alone pimioBNLON wan wumpomienead by abe fndione
ieisnn, ake tart ‘Selaly e'atapasions tet te

aaNe.

shatute’ youl have & Sondendy to esuse the e purehasere
4 oe! ;
beteoen that Law and the praesent ons, T belleve
that the aunts will sense the benevelense of
oresent nme, and that it will ee he dy
Parthoulariy F would thet pownlt be Lit le
Gongyene ahovld now onaal Legislation mak: plein

Hovowalie Dando By Reng wow on mid

{ }
thet. i dows not vegerd avoh Leelolotion by the
, Sete ae an Leraeion of the federal prepogahive,

Youra very tually,

RANRLTOR war
taal General

HERAT Oy BARLEY
TSanaa Ageletont Aerioy Oona,

{

DANIEW A. REED
43D Disif NewfYor«

Congress of the United States
Bouse of Representatives
Washington, B.C.

January 29, 1930. aww"
Mr. Henry S. Manley,

Assistant Attorney General,
Albany, New Yorke

My dear Henry:

Your letter with reference to the history of the
Ogden Land Company claim has been received. I amvery grate~-
ful to you for sending on this information. I am taking
the liberty of writing to my friend, Hon. Joseph McGinnies
and suggesting that you have a conference with him at some
early date convenient to both of you.

Yours sincerely,

pena feck

P.S. I have received volume 7 of the Assembly Documents and
shall await the typewritten index to which you referred.

University Libraries

2) UNIVERSITY4TALBANY cuiceesaiw eamene

\ Stare University of New York Special Collections & Archives

Heuey S. Wha Papers, 1s49- [fle
Devries 2

BOX |
Deseri bon + POLDER 2

Date de (TAI ©

\cHer by Henry 8, Manley by the NY & Dept. of Socal
Welfave re qavding lank paveel of Ly dig Willvaus, deceased

Own tvshi

© Blanch Redeye Williaus , ahoptcd daughter at by dia

Willramg ~ court decseranr Sets She ws Veg al cu ey
g

Sréters ob Ly dea Wwilliaws Les puke decesim 4

Td. Blue skye
Naiweg Wavricy

3-1-1940

pili dell; oa
dJohu Sny dew fo Rechavd Wallace - estate of Lyd a Wel fans

1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222
PH: 518-437-3935 Fax: 518-437-3930
httpy/library.albany-edu/speccoll/
Rp i ;
Baroazailo 1[ 201d
UG

February 17, 1830.

Department of Secial felfare,
aleaay, §.¥.
Egtate of Lydia Fillies

Gentlemen: sitention of Nx. Ssllece

Serewith is a letter of urs. Ids Bluesxye
dated February 6, with certain enclosures; alse
a gopy of our response to it.

Tt appears that the question is, wo should
sacceeé to certain property of Lydie “iliiams, 4
Seneca who died intestate on dune 18, 1928,

urs. Biueskye is 65 yearscold, and &
sister af the decedent. Haney Warrior is another
sieter, and apparently they have taxen :
sides in the present matter. Seth are Genecas,
appatcatly resident on the Caitaraugas reservation,
the former getting ber mail ef Gowands.

wre. Blueskye champione the interests of &
fourtees year old gitl, Blanch Williems, sor =
inmate of Thomas Tadian Gehook. This girl was born
as Blanchiedeye, and a@ooted iwith her sister,
Eetelia, now desessed) by the decedent, =
£0 Indian custom, in 1920. xovarently eke
sustained, publicly and well kaomn, the relatics-
ship of adopted daughter for the iset sight years
ef desedent's life.

Department of Social Welfare -8-

The Indian Surrogate, Francie Kettle, decided
im favor of the adopted daugh by a d dated
March 18, 1920. Apparently there bed been some
earlier proceedings, the exact nature of which
aoe6 not appear, except thet Ers. Blueskye signs
herself *Special administratrix” and Nancy Werrior
prays for distribetion of personel estate “according
$0 the former deeree of division,* ues. Blueskys
ig also @eaeribed as Speciel Guardian of Blanch
tine, She was represented by dachb ¥. Jizerson as
attorney.

irs, Yerrier wes represented by Jobn Snyder
ang took an appeal te the Council, which on December
14, 1989, adopted the following resolutica:

*ghereas the said Surrogates Court
rendered # decision in favor oF
Blench Williaes ss 4 legal adopted
daughter to Lydia Jimersen Williams,
deceased. Now therefore, be it
regolved that the decision of the
Sarrogates Geurt be and the same is
nereby in all things’ revised by this
Souneil of Seneca Gatien of Indians
and further rescived that the so-esiled
dimeyson estate be and it is hereby
fecommended that the ssid estate
pe @ divigies inte three shates.*

Waite the Council seid nething upon the
subject, B 4% wee intended that each sieter
and the sdepted daughter have each one-third. anyway,
¥rs, Blueskye te agetieved, caste some suspicion upon
the honesty ef the decision, and inquires whether
the state courte have any power to ach im support
ef the claim of the adopted daughter.

fhe qnge is somewhat appealing, Bat it is aoubt~
ful what we have e tight to do. it is tespectfully
suggested that you firstebheck up on the facts.


abe
ens a net

Department of Social Welfare ~ 3 -

Que Likely Superintendent Brennan already has a
Seeplete Enowledge of them. After we know how

far we Gan rely upon the statement of facta, we can
talk over what ia to be dome, if anything,

¥Yery traly youre,

EAWILTOR #anp,
&tterney Ceneral,

Assistant Atterney General.

?
I
/ H (copy)

Irving, N. Y. March lith 1930.

Mr. Richard W. Wallace
Albany, N. Y.

Dear Sir:

Yours of the 8th inst. at hand, and in reply I beg to say,
that the inguiry which you make in re Estate of Lydia Williams is
briefly as follows; the Surrogates Court of the cattaraugus Reservation
granted letters of Administration to one Ida Bluesky one of the
sisters of the deceased, and in this proceeding the interested parties
as heirs at law were two sisters of the deceased and the heirs of a
dead sister; and some time elapsed before a judicial settlement was
made by said ad'mr and after payment of debts, fineral expenses and
court costs paid, there was a small sum of money left to be divided
into three shares, the heirs of on sister succeeding to a third part
thereof.

And some time afterwards it was discovered that said
deceased had more money in another bank, Jacob jimesonn who was the
Surrogate in the former proceeding appeared for said Ida Bluesky,
he in the meantime ran out of office and in this second proceeding
he succeeded in reappointing said Mrs. Bluesky as adtmr, and between
the time of said appointment and the actual division of this money,
said Jacob Jimeson trumped up a new scheme to prevent Mrs, Nancy
Warrior from sharing in the division by claiming there was an
adopted daughter, who was one of the heirs of the said deceased
sister, the reason for this attempt was, that the two sisters were
bitter enemies, he did everything but forged her name to accomplish
this end, and the new Surrogate held that she was an adopted daughter,
notwithstanding the fact that no proof was offered legally acceptable
in court, no court had ever granted any adoption of daid girl, the
alleged adoption was supposed to have taken place some time after the
Geath of the mother of the child, long after 1898 when the Surrogates
Court was created and adopted the forms process and proceedings the
same as the Surrogates of the counties of the state, which required
court proceedings to adopt an infant. It is evidently true that after
the childs mother died she took two children to care for them to heip
out as any relative would do under similar circumstances.

This latter case was appealed to the Seneca Council and
there reversed, md ordered an equal division in thirds, the same as
the former case.

Next came a proceeding for partition ef the landsin the
Peace-maker Court, besides the usual allegation the complaint alleged
that the estate had lands actually belonging to Mrs Nancy Warrior
which she sought to have excluded, this Jacob Jimeson had evidently
fixed the court so that they would not even permit any evidence to
prove the contention, thereupon the case was appealed to the Seneca
Council and is there awaiting to be head,

Hoping that this may serve your purpese.
Iam very truly yours,

(Signed) John L. Snyder

&p
Fig

& ;
“ANiey _ GOWANDA, NEW YORK.
Feb 6th 1930

Hon.Attorney General of the State of New York
Albany, New York

Dear Sir:=
Iam writing to you for an opinion and sug-

gestions in relation to the case of the estate of one
Lydia Williams a 13) of the Nation of Indians,
who died without a will on June 18th'1928. Who at the %
time of her death was the owner and eecupent of certain
personal and real property situate on the Cattaraugus
Indian Reservation in this state. Which property and real
estate has been anpropriated, cultivated, improved and
eceupied by Lydia Williams for her ewn separate use and
cultivation in accordance with the laws,customs and usages
of the Seneca Nation for thirty years. And the deed and
record of title thereof,being the deed executed te her
by her father Horace Jimerson,deceased,bearing date the
17th day of October 1900,have been and are duly recorded
in the records of the Seneca Nation of Indians.

On or about the sixteenth day of April 1920 Lydia
Willians adopted in accordance with the laws,customs
and usages of the Seneca Nation twe Indian girls the
youngest of whom died within six months after its adopt-
ion,and the surviving shild Blanch Williams has continued
to live with said Lydia Williams constituting as one
family up to the time of the death of Nrs.Williams.Lydia
Williams did not have any ¢#jjdren ef her own. Proceedings
were duly had for the administration of the estate.

en or about the eighteenth day of February 1929,
proceedings were instituted in the Surregate’s Court for
the purpose of establishing Blanch Williams as an heir
at law to the real ani personal estate of the decedent.
The evidence presented in that proceeding is appended
hereon; as is recorded in the records of the Surrogates
office. It will be noted that no evidence was offered or
submitted in opposition. And that Nancy Warrior was
present as was also her attorney who filed an answer but
failed to submit any evidence is support of any content=
ion. Subsequently Nancy Warrior construing and contriving
to cheat and deprive Blanch Williams of her rightfal
heritage appealed to the council of the Seneca Nation
for a review and notwithstanding that the institution
of the appeal was in many ways irregular,among other
things that the transcript was not en file with the
Clerk of the council on the day of its hearing By special
order on December 4th 1929, the council entered into the
issues as is evidenced by the certified resolution of the
council by its clerk appended hereon. It is submitted that
upon the face of it, it is a self evident proposition.

x


Sheet No 2.

That in view of the evidence presented and the conclus-
iens reached by the Surrogate,ne court or tribunal of
justice could have done otherwise,anything in the Con-
stitution of the Seneca Nation its laws,customs and
usages or for that matter of any state. Yet this council
for no assigned reason,other than perhaps for a political
gain,saw fit te revise this decision in what way it is
not clear-- and to further"resolve that the se called
Jinerson estate be and it is hereby recormended that the
said estate be a division into three shares".

It is inconceivable that under such circumstances
the council could resolve to revise and simply recor
mend a Givision into three shares without in any way
mentioning the beneficiaries thereof. Yet this is the
resolution which the clerk of the Seneca Nation certif-
ies to as being a true copy as passed by the said council
under the seal of the Nation. We submit that no one can
proceed intelligently under such a resolution and do
justice in the premises. And we further submit that all
of these proceedings were had before the final accounting
of the administratrix in the premises. And the council
is the court of last resert in the Seneca Nation.

Subsequently a complaint has been made and entered
in the Peace Makers Court of the said Cattaraugus Indian
Reservation by Nancy Warrior alleging ownership to the
most valuable portion ef the premises in question asking
that she be declared the owner thereof and that remainder
be partitioned into three shares. Already the money estate
has been divided and not a cent was given the rightful
heir Blanch Williams. We submit that an irreparable
wrong has been done to the rights and property of this
poor young girl. Nancy Warrior has a large family of
yeung men who are voters in the Seneca Nation, they are
active, while this girl stands alone. If the members of
the Seheca council is so corrupt as to resert te this
trickery to Keep themselves in office,where are we te
look for protection for our children?

We submit that the Seneca Indian laws,customs and
usages are legislative in origin and are se regarded by
the Federal Government who in theory is the guardian of
the Indian and should pretect his rights,but in practice
it is otherwise,under the exeuse that the Indian depart-
ment is without adiquate laws or authority to assume
active control,where are we to turn for relief in this
situation?

In an instance of the present character where the
proceedings of the council is grossly irregular and
the decision rendered under corrupted influencej where
it is clearly shown that the council has failed to
follow its laws,customs and usages applicable to the
subject;Would the Special Term have jurisdiction to
grant an order in the premises?

In view of recent cases of Kennedy v.Tyler in the
Supreme court of the United States and Patterson Vv.
Council of Seneca Nation in the Court of Appeals of


Sheet No.3.

New York, we ask whether in your opinion we can apply
and prosecute the remedies afferded by sueh decisions
in the courts of the State.

I shall be glad to receive your opinion at the
earliest convenience for which I thank you in advance.

v" respectfully,

Yours ve:
Wer, S da S

Special Administratrix of
the Estate of Lydia William
: Deceaséd.

P.0.Address, Ida Blueskye
Gowanda, NY.
c/o

11 Buffalo Street.
ToAsGe Inc.


ae

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
SENECA NATION oF INDIANS

Raymond Jimerson, President
ReF.Dol. Irving, NoY¥.

Adlai Williams, Clerk
RoPeDe 1. Irving, Ne¥.

8.C.Crouse, Treasurer
Quaker Bridge, N.¥.

At a regular meeting of the Council or the Seneca Nation or
indians held at the Court House at Jinersontown, Allegany Reservation,
NeYeo, on Dec .4,1929, the following resolution was orfered by Warren
Kennedy and move for its adoption.

WHEREAS, In the matter of Blanch Williams te establish heirship
te the Horace Jimerson estate duly tried in the Surrogate Court on

Seneca Nation of Indians)
Cattaraugus,Allegany and)ss
Oil Spring Reservations, )
1t,4dlai Williams,de hereby certify
that the Poregoing copy of a re-

s solution is a true copy as passed
("Sian or vam ) by the said Council of Seneca Nation
(SENECA NATION or) of Indians have caused the gZreat seal

INDIANS ) of Seneca Nation oF indians this idth

day of December 1929,
(signed) Adlai Williams
CLERK SENECA NATION OF INDIANS.

~A. true copy.

DECISION OF SURROGATE.

In the matter of Lydia Williams (deceased) re the establishmen
of heirship of Blanch Williams,adepted daughter of Lydia Williams.

The issues of the above entitled preceeding having duly come

Reservation on the 18th day of February 1929 and the proofs and al-
jlegations of the parties having been heard, and after hearing argu-
ments of counsel for the petitioner in suppert of said petition and
‘counter arguments of counsel in opposition thereto and due delibera
Hon having been had, I find and decide as follows:
That the petitioner through counsel and wit s2ise a tary
‘evidence establishes the heirship ef Blanch Williams as the legally
‘adopted daughter of the aforesaid Lydia Williams (deceased) accord-
ees, toe the recognized laws,customs, and usages of the Seneca Indian
ation. Therefere the prayer cf the petitioner is grantet.

In support of this decision the documentary evidence of John

But ton, the legal census emmerater of the Seneca Indian Nation,
weighs heavily;inasmuich as it not only provides practical legal .
‘evidence of the adoption of Blaneh Williams, in itself cemparable
Sith the requirements necessary according te the laws in the civil
court of the United States and the State of New York and is not in
Violation with any Section of the Constitution ef the Seneca Indian
tation. The procedure in this instance has always been appreved and

eid as legal by the Seneca Indian Nation and any departure therefr
ight be abbrogation of our rights as a separate nation, those

ights supported by the United States Government by innumerable
ecisicns the Right te decide our own Civil affairs.

This court alse directs the establishment of a trust fund in
favor of said Blanch Williams untill she becomes of age.
It alse decides and directs that the costs of the court shall
be recovered from the estate in question.

3 (surrogate) Francis Kettle
March 18, 19296

A true copy

on te be heard before me at the Surrigates office en the Cattaraugus _


SSe
county of Cattaraugus }

of Indions, up to the time of her death which eceured om Narch 16th
1980, That out ef tis union was an issue of siz ebildren whesg nex
are Bs fellows, to wit: Elsie G.Redeye,Hazel Redeye, Glennie! Redey
Blanch Redeye,Lincoln Redeye and Feteila Redeye, %

That on or about April 16th, 1920, deponent entered imte an
eral agreement with Lydia Jimersen Wiliijams,; in aecordamece with the
usual enstom ami usages of the Seneca Ration of Indians whereby
Lydia Jime son Villiaus adopted tve of the said children namely
Blanch and. Hetella Redeye, horn respectively as follows:

Blanch Re‘leye ‘borm Pecember 25rd, 1915, and

Estella Redeye * on March 10th, 1920. .

Bepenent delivered the c:ildren te said Lydia Timerson Willian

and received them te becks x 4 that & 4% relinquished
right awl claim to the said children as a parent. Renenent further
says upon infermation and belief that the said Lydia Villiams, ai~
ways showed wasual affection for these children, mothered ahdcicare
for them,the youngest passed avay in the year ib was born, and sho
has contimicd to have the custedy aml care of Ue surviving 11d
Blanch Williams whe is new in the Thomas Inddam Seheel by that name

: Deponent will net de or suffer dnytiting to be done te impair
the sacred cormact zealously kept and filled by the said Lydia
Yiliiame up te the time ef her death.

suert te before ne this
idth dey of February 1929. Goarles Redeye
Janes 7 -Bixby

Notary Public.

withthe understanding that they were to be her own and she rectal

(ae


Exhieit” a¥

fo WHOM 4 may concert,

fhis is te Certify that Blane Redeye ca minor Born Dee 23-
4915 is enrolled with Lydia Y/lliams fnew deceased) as an adepted
Daughter upon the census Rell of the Cattaraugus Reservation.

Foregoing is a true Copy as found on the Census
of the Cattaraugus Reservation. Dated this Sth
nday of Feb. 1929

John EK. Batten
Gensus Tmumerator in and for the
Cattarengus Reservation.

exhinit "EB."

STATE OF EM YORE)
: Sie
County of Erie }

gohn C.Breman being dtly svorn depeses and
sayst That at all the tines herein mentioned he was an employee in
the Thomas Indien School,iccated im the Cattaraugus Indien Reser~
vation in the State ef New Yerk, and nov is the Superintendent of
said school. That & mt knew Lydia Jimerson Williams,whe lately
aied on the said Cattaraugus Indian Reservation. .

thas on or about the first day of September 1928, Lydia
Jinerson Williams made application at the said seheol for the ad~
Siesion of Blanch Villiams,a minor, as heSERiighter yho was duly
admitted and nov is an immte ef the Institution.

That subsecuentiy at divers times se48 Lydia Jimerson Yilliams
would come and visit the child and would core and. take the child
during vacations+

Srera to befere me this )
46th day of February 1929. } John ¢.Breman

Téa Laem Superintendent of Thomas Indien
Sehosl, Trequois, New York.
Notary Public


SURROGATE COURT; CATTARAUGUS INDIAN RUSHPVATTON, STATE OF NET York.
Held im and for the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation at the home of
Jacoh iJimersen, Trisisth day of February 1929 at 2 o'clock P.H.

in the Matter of }
Lydia Williams Deceased }

A proceeding to establish the heirship of Blanch Willians,
da. Bluesky Special Guardian.

an eee petition of Ida Binesky (as Special euardien of Blanch.
Williams) preying for the establishment of rizité to ingerit. the
property of said deceased. Present by Jacob N.Jimerson attorney far,
titioner. John L.Supler appearing for respomicnt. Naney Warrier
asked the permission ef com: te Pile an answer to said Petition
phich was granted. J
Gharles Redeye duly sworn state I live on the Cattaraigus my !
age is 47. I knew Lydia Williams and all the relatives of the famliy
< ara Seneca Indian, I imey Cora Bishop we lived tegather as man :
land wife, The fellowing children were horn te us Flisie RedeyesHazdl)
“edeye, Blanch Receye,lincoim Redeye ami Estella Redeye. Cora Bishep
died whilst living with me,in the year 1980. Fstella Redeye died |

[within @ months after. question; 1 mke any verbal agreement
with Lydia Villians regarding Blanch % Objectéd.to on bases

of Sce @47 Civil Practice Ack ani See 19 of the Constitution of thel
Seneca, indian Ration. Question withdrawn, Lydia Williams took the.
bvo girls Dianch and Estella Redeye te live with her after my wife |
fied Tainch 0th 1920. Estella stayed with her untill she died about,
nonths later, Lydia Villiams mde application te enter Blanch ES
ithe Themas Indian School. She entered the school about sept i923. |.
< supported, the elild fer seme time after she left me bet net all |.
[the time, lMr,Jimersen offered affidavit of Charles Redeye who was |
lon the witness staml. This was objected as iz tent and inpreser|
end in violation af Section 347 of Civil Practice Act. Crass examingd
state Lyla Villiams drew amurity money alse Lydia Williams was a
sister of rm wife's mother. ; ed
: \
| | iteWimerson offers aT idavit and certificate of John Batton
4 tor of the 5 Hation for the New-York Indian
peers Also affidavit of Jcim Br of the Thomas Inflian School.
Marked. respectively exhibit A and . these vere accepted. :

a

; ca Bluesky duly sworn states that she lives on the Cattaraugus
eservation and is a Seneea Indian aged 64 years, Alse states I :
immer Lydia Timéteon ( Lydia Jimerson and lyia Williams are the same
person) she was my sister. I kmew Charles Redeye and I imer Gora B :
Bishep, they lived as man and wife they had children. I mew Blanch
Villians ami I kmew Estella Redeye ani I imew they lived with Lydia
imerson (Williens) lydia Jimerson teok care of these children,
od Jinerson paid the funeral expenses of Estella Redeye. I ner

he drew the anmity money of Blanch, it was Lydia Jimerson(Williams).

Blanch went to scheol from Lydia's whe bought her clothes and scared
— her, visited her at shheol ant brought her to her home at vacat<
jon tine. Blanch Williams is at scheel nove

John L.Suyder duly sverm says, I kmew of my own knowledge thet
che amity is drawn by the person paying the funeral expenses and
they are drawn by the person having custody of enligren *


on STE SE Ne Ze

‘She respondent Naney Varrier by her attorney gobn L.Snyder
in enewer to petitioner’s petition respectfully shows ani, alleges
that your respondent is a merbex of the Seneca Hation ef Indians
land resides on the Catteraugus “eservatien is a sister of said
deceased and that on information ami belief that said deceased had
never adopted anyone and that ferme preeeedings in this court did
not disclose any such heir at law, and that,if there was one the
‘petitioner vould have Imown of such relatives. Wherefore the said
nespomlent asks that this com deny the petition as prayed For and
that the Gistribetion of thebperdomaicéstate be made gocerbing to
the former deeree of division.

Witness John L.Snyder Signed Raney Warrior
. y her = mark
State of Hew Ferk 3
Cattaratians Reservation }°*
Hamey Warrior duly sverm says she has heard

i pead. the foregoing signed by her and Imavs eontents theres? and to

‘the hest of her knowledge and belieP,to be true,except as to mutters
therein stated te be alleged upon information ani belief ang as toe
these matters she believes them te be true.

Subscribed before me this 1th day Feb 1929-

su-vegate Francis Kettle.

I hereby sertify thet this is a true copy of the foregoing
proceedings,a6 recorded 2b page 292 of the book of Receris of
this Surregates Gourt of the Seneca Indian Eatione .

Herry Smith Surrogate Francis Kettle

Clerk.


UNIVERSITYATALBANY ss, geen saree

State University of New York Special Collections & Archives

Heury S. Flaw let Papers, LsH9U— 1Iuo

Sevies A

BOX |
Desevit ton ty FOLDER 3

Petition
Comm Hee We pvescating duc Seucca. Indians of the Oil Spreng

illeg heng aud Cathavan gus Resevva tion

1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222
pit: 518-437-3935 Fax: 518-437-3930
http:/library.albany.edu/speccoll/

Barbayallo 7/2012


TO THEIR EXCELLENCIES, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND THE GOVERNOR OF
THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

The undersigned duly appointed committee representing the Seneca
Indians of the Oil Spring, Allegheny and Cattaraugus Reservations in
the State of New York, descendants of Seneca male ancestors and non
Seneca mothers, petition and show;

Your governments maintained from the beginning that we were (and
perhaps are) your wards. Courts of last resort, Federal and State,
have so decided.

In the year 1848 the New York Senecas of Oil Spring, Allegheny and
Cattaraugus Reservations duly met in convention and took steps and
adopted resolutions, the minutes of which are annexed hereto. They
adopted a tentative constitution. The attested minutes of the con-
vention and its proceedings were sent to the President and to Congress.
The Federal Government approved and ratified the acts of the con-
vention and forwarded attested minutes and the approval, with a mes-
sage to the Governor of the State of New York. The Governor of the
State of New York transmitted this communication to the legislature,
then in session at Albany and on the 27th day of March 1849 the
Assembly ratified and confirmed the action of the Seneca Convention.
On the 6th day of April 1849 the New York State Senate also ratified,
confirmed and approved, the same. On the 11th day of April 1849 the
legislature of the State of New York enacted and the Governor signed
a statute, giving us your laws, Our rights of person and property are
governed by your laws. Yet, for seventy-five years we have been de-
prived of our rights, Give an account of your stewardship. Where is
our property? Where are our rights? Let us know, where and how
we stand; .

We append a list of names of thoge who selected this committee.
We will ever pray,
Dated Feb, 24th, 1925.

John Kennedy
Wallace Kennedy + Committee
Hattie E, Klein