jf) UNIVERSITYATALBANY MCB, Grenander Deartnent
€ -
TAA Stace University of New York Special Collections & Archives
Heury S. Plaabey Papers, 1349— 14Lo
Sevies FF
BOX 2
Desevit ton FOLDER go
bound voleeme
" Tr BE Cayuaa Tudraus
Vol. ZL
Clavk Opinion "
Vote Vol. Tis not frrnd rm collection woill parsies or vol TE
Copa notes please copy all pages
| ov 2 PDFe ts fae - quot copy This Gover
Sleet ef yo Malee two PDF folders.
Thon le c2>
Tien,
1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12222
pH: 518-437-3935 Fax: 518-437-3930
http:/library.albany.edu/speccoll/
Barbayallo 7/ 201%
Ch ae ‘OPINION: :
:
AWHNIGAN AND BALLRISH CLATNS ABIYAALION
Offices of the
: 2 Agent ana Counsel for the United States
Washington
larch 9, 192D.
hy dear ur. Murphy:
I beg to acknowlede the recgipt of your letter of bebruary
26th in which you inquire generally regarding the troatment of
the customs of the Indians, in the argument oj the United states
in the Cayuga Indian Clatia.
A session of the Arbitral @ribumal is being held in ashington
tame, The work of the Arbitration 1s pressing for
&
at the present
me, and I am, therefore, unable now to give detailed consideration
to your inquiry. However, E may state that I do not oxactly,under-
stend what you. mean by the term, “customs of tho Indians." I think
that the customs, im the sense in whieh I supmiae you use the term,
%% will enter Into the argumenta to be made by you and iy. Townsend,
Loubtless the treatment of some questions will overlap, and you
' may properly deel with that matter in so far as it enters into
the question of the fulfillment by the State of New York of con-
h the Indians.
tracts made wi
At the conclusion of the present session of tho Tribunal I
hope that it may be possible for me to meet with you and Mr.
i Townsend either in Rew York or here in Washington.
Very sincerely yours,
(Signed) PRaD B. NILLGEN
Agent end Counsel for the
United States.
Honorable Charles F. Murpay,
H 141 Broadway ,
New York, City.
Bergh 11, Lets.
“ble Feed h. Nleleen,
i Geuneel top the Unt boa,
Gribish Claiue Arbiopation,
ay be Ga
By goax be. Hielsont~
Io heve your velued lethsy of the th
im we Ce ye Indien of
Rink your letter snavers ny
roguoat ond 2 will gonginmue ato the Mines whien Tf
i]
Tedd oub., To v4) be wind to see you
mpend
dn Raw Yorks ox “eahds
sson at your conventenee. IT will geb it
souch with “rp. Yowneend here infomelly. FJ nave delayed deing
po until 1 got word from you pel
sive to the anttrer of Inquiry.
feasting
; your heelth ds in zo
L SENOG,
Very singer FOURS »
(Signed) CURREES Wet
AMERICAN AND BRITISH CLATsS ARBITRATION
Offices of the
Agent and Counsel for the United States
Washington
April 3, 1985.
Hon, Charles I. Murphy,
LAL Broadway,
New York City.
Dear Ur, Murphys
Before I became 111 and vhen I thought we might soon
have an argument of the Indian case, I had a print made of
my memorandum of oval argument with respect to the Interpro~
tation of Article 5 of the Gonvention of February 8, 1856,
petween Great Britain and the United States. As of possible
slight interest, I enclose a copy. will you please keep it
entirely confidential since, of course, I shall not make use
of it until the day of argument.
Very sincerely yours,
(Signed) PRel Kk. NEaDouN
Agent for the United states.
April V7, 1925.
Honovable Pred K. Nielsen,
Agent and Counsel for the United States,
American and Sritishn Claims Arbitration,
State Department,
Waaninzton, DB. Cc.
Dear Mr, Nielsen,
Upon my return from Vaahington yesterday, I received
your letter of April ard with print of your memorandum of oral
argument: with respect to the interpretation of Apticle 6 af the
Convention of February 8th, 1654 between Great Britain and the
United States.
It cortainly will be of great interest to me.
go over it carefully. I am working on our end of the case.
fT was in “ashing
on yesterday, but through unforeseen
obstacles whieh arose, T wes not able to get much time in between
the qaxnend hearings which I had on other netters, otherwise I
would have called in to see you or at least eslied you on the
telephone. f expect to be down within the next seven or ten
days ond will notify you before I Isave and call in and see you
and zo over matters in re Cayuga Indian Claim.
Trusting that you are feeling better, I an
Very sincerely yours,
(Signed) GHAKLAS F. MURPHY,
AMBRICEN AND BRITISH CLATIMS ARBITRATION
Offices of the
Agent and Gounsel for the United states
Washington
April 22, 1925.
Honorable Charles I. Murphy,
141 Broadway ,
New York City.
tear ir. Murphys
some time ago I requested ur. J, kouben Clark, Jr.,
whom you may have met in New York while he was thore con#
nected with the American International Corporation, to give
me an advisory opinion or memorandum on the Cayuga Indien
case, Mr. Clark is a very able man who was Solicitor for
the Department of State when Mr. Knox was Secretary of State.
He has furnished what seems to me to be a very useful and
fine memorandum, and I send you herewith confidentially a
copy. He did not transmit any carbon coplesa and I had
copies made, but bo sava na good deal of lebor, proof was
never read on these copies and undoubtedly there are slips
here and there, probably none of very serious character.
Since Mr. Clark covered to a certain extent the entire
ficld of the record, he did not go exhaustively into the
question of performance by New York of tts obligations
under the so-called treaty. He did not go Into that subject
in particular. Nevertheless suggeationa he makes concerning
it may be useful to you.
i think thet.probably it will not be possible for
the three counsel to have conference in New York in the
near future in view of the fact that Mr. Townsend 1s soon
Bao
going to Bermuda. Perhaps you and I may have a conference
either there or here before we all got together.
Very sincorcly yours,
(Signed) FRED K. NL
April 24, 1925.
Fred KeNielsen, Esq,
Agent and Counsel for the United States,
State Department, 7 ;
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr.Nielsen:
J I have your valued communication
of the Send instant im ve Cayuge Indians, and also
received advisory opinion or memorandum on the |
Cayuga Indian case by Mr.d.Reuben Clark, Jr. I am
very pleased indeed to receive this advisory opinion
and will use it in the preparation of our case.
Tt expect to be in Washington as soon
as T can arrange two or three matters, and will
arrange at that time for a conference. You, Mr.
Townsend and I will probably be able to get together
after I have gotten further into the preparation of
our cass, In that, we are proceeding as rapidly
as the great volume of material allowa.
with many thanks and best wishes, I am
Respectfully yours,
OFM: P (Sgd) OMARLES F. MURPHY.
April 28, 1925.
Hon.Albert Ottinger
Attorney General of the State of New York
Albany, N+¥s .
Dear Vr Otbinger:
Tn the matter of claim In behalf of Cayuga Indians
of On ada pending before the British American Arbitral Tribunal
in which you did me the honor to appoint me representative for
the State of New York, I wish to suggest that If 1t be found
practicable the following data be furnished we from the records
of the State, vines
(a) A detailed statement of the payments made by the
State In each of the years from 1826-to the present, showing the
date end emount of payment, where paid and to whom.
(b) Copies ~ photostatic copies would be preferable,
i think - of eny receipts taken, or drafts received, for any of the
paywenta mentioned above, other than the receipts of the « gents
or sub-agents for Indian affsirs, and of persons appointed by the
Goverment to recelve the payments; thet is, of such receipts and
drafts as may be included in the archives and records of the
Spate from Indians themselves or their direot representatives for
any of these payments.
(c) Copies of such vecords, if any, as the State
may have of the distribution of the annulty emong the Indtans.
T may explain for your convenience in having these
matters looked up that 1t appears from Vol.IT of the Memorial in
the case, page lll, an agreement was made in 1829 by the State
with the Indians for the payment on draft of four of thelr principal
chiefs, the payee not being specified; that in 1831, an agreement
If Memorial 542) was entered Into by the State in effect that
PL'700 of the total of $2300 per annum should be paid to the Cayugas
moving west; that in 1846, the State agreed (II Memortel 347, 349)
with representatives of the Cayugas in New York State that the
annuities should be paid on draft of three of their principal
chiefs to the sub-agent of United States for Indian affatra
at Buffalo, and in casw of vacancy in that office to such person
as shall be designated by the Governor for that purpose, and
providing for a division of the money so paid according to an
enumeration to be made of the Indians; in 1850, an agreement
(II Memoria] 356) was entered into botween the Cayugas residing west
of the Wiaslasippl end those residing in New York State, pro-
viding for an enumeration every rive years, and a division of
the annuity on that basis, which it was apparently intended
should be made by the agent to whom the money was paid by the
Braves
April 88, 1025.
Hon. slbort Ottingors sence cd
One of the principal questiona in the ease is, I think,
the question ef payment, and the data requested will materlelly
assist in digesting and properly veprosenting that question. The
record (Vol.It of Answer, pp.892 to 926), as Lt atends now, in-
cludes « list certified by the Deputy Comptroller of the amounts
paid from 1795 to 1915, and coplos ef the recetpts taken from
L797 to 1826, bub does not inelude ‘the further deta T ma
eaking »
Yours vary sincerely,
( Sg) CHARLES F. MURPHY,
INDEX
LN De x
Memorandum of Cayuga Claim
Summary of Facts
Basie preliminary facts
Treaties of 1789, 1790, 1795, 1807
Move of Cayugas toa Canada
Non-peyment of annuities to Canadian Cayugas after
1809
Iroquois in War of 1812
Agreement of Mutual nelinguishment of (Annuities
Treaty of 1829 with New York Cayugas
Jacoba! visit to New Yorx 1630
Treaty of 1831 with American Cayugas
Jacobs, Monture, and Johnson's visit to Sew York
184061843
Dr. Vileon's atatesent 1845
Johnson and Monture's possible visit to dew York
in 1845
Treaties of 1846 with pmerican Cayugas
Cansdian Petition of 1849 to Legislature ieferred
Go Board of Lend Comsiasionera and reported
favovebly but not acted upom by Legislature
Canadian Petition of 1850 ~ 1851
Report on Claim by British authorities in 1856
Strong's letter of 1857
Canedlen Cayugas authorize British officers to
proceed with Claim, 1860
Canadian Petition of 1882 to Land Commissioners, =
ULemiased for want of jurisdiction
Canadien Petition of 1883 to Board of Audit
Considered by Board of Claims and dismissed for
want of jurisdiction
Canadian Petition of 1884 to Board of Land Com-
missioners
Oe FPR
~ 14
~ 16
~2=
Dismissed by Board for want of jurisdiction
Wit of certlovarl to Supreme Court and decision
in favor of Indians
Reversed by Court of Appeals
Canadian Memorlal and Petition of 1886 to Legis-
lature which referred it to Commissioners of
Land Offiee, who reported matter one of Legis-
lative discretion
Bills in Legislature, 1886= 1887
Law of 1888 and Bissell investigation
Investigation New York Senate Comittee on Indian
4ffairs
Veduer Bills of 1890, 1891
BLL) of 1895
Roosevelt's moasages to Leglalature 1689, 1.900
Diplomatic correspondence
Hon-particivation of United States
Extracts from Keport of Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs
Bases of British Clat.m
Uncertainty of grounds of recovery
Statement in Memorial, - Treaty of Ghent and New
Work Cayuga Treaties
Statements in Reply
Summary of grounds urged
POINT Ise That as th tho Treaty of 1795, "The Cay~
ugas understood, when they negotiated
the Treaty, that they were engaging the
oredit of the United States," and that,
therefore, the United States 1a liable.
(a) Treaties recite they are made with “ew York
16
16
27
(B) Made at the call of the Governor of New York 28
28
Fish Carrier's speech La 1790
(¢) Indians alweys looked to New York for payment 29
(d) Bases for this contention unsound,~«
17
18
19
37
xe
Firsts Petition of tix Nations to Washing-
— tion in 1789
Second: Misled by fact of Indian Agent
—" Washington's speech to senecas,
December 29, 1790.
Comnent of Mr. Otis
Opinion of Chief Justice varshall
Letter, Knox to Clinton
Omitted portion of Vashington's
speech to senecas
Seneca's reply to Vashongton
Speech of Little Cayuga Chief
Third: Distinetion betwoen "Father" and
Seine i.
"Brother
{&) Final Treaty of relinquishment, 1807, made with
New York
(F) Treaties all made in New York
(G) annuity recolpts all recite payment by people
of New York .
POINT Ifs+ That the signature of Israel Chapin as a
witness to the Cayuga Tresty of 1795 made
the Government of the United states liable
for the carrying out of the provisions of
the Treaty
Quotation from Neply
Chapin signed as witness, » "Israel Chapin" not
“General Laracl Ghepin," ete
If one witness liable all witnesses liable
Admistion of liability denieds«
Firsts
anion
Washington's statement to Corn Planter,
Tec. 29, 1790.
Seconds Little Cayuga Chief's statement to
Clinton
POINT [if:- That since the Government of the United
States failed, as a result of the diplo-
matic representations made by the British
Government to obtain for the Cayugas the
moneys which they claim, and since the
claim was by mutual agreement between the
two governments scheduled for adjudication
by this Tribunal as a pecuniary claim out-
standing between two governments, therefore,
nothing 1s lacking to constitute liability
in the United states
Principle application to British claims ag well as
imerican claims
37
37
or
37
38
38
38
39
50
38
39
59 - 40
HO =~ 46
40
he
International liability must be based uponi-
Firat: ‘Wreaty of Ghent, but no liability here
because annuities not payable in 19811
Second: Legal. principle involved unsound
Third: No denial of justice
Fourth: Indians have not been deprived of
remedy but merely failed to recover.
POINT IV: -~ The United States ia liable for any mis-
— application of the annuities which may have
been made by the Agent for Indlan Affairs
of the United States, to whom, under the
Treaty of 17965 the annuities were payable
Obligation ran to State of New York
Senate Commlitee report, April, 15, 1891
Letter from Clinton to Bish Garrier, July
14, 1789 ‘
Letter trom Clinton to bish
17, 1790
Letter from Brandt to Glinton, March 4,1791,
Speech of Claus to eho, March 2&7, 1810.
Letter from Chapin to Clinton, Aoril 4,1794,.
arrier, June
Ohapin without authority to bind United states
Genore] principle of law incolved
het of July 22, 1790, Section Pour
Letter from Knox to Clinton, August 17,1791,
Chapin a “mediator”
Doctrine of Chief Justice Marshall
Tndians made full grant and took back par-
Treaty of 1795 between Mohawks and state of
New York under authority of United states
Difference between this treaty and Cayuga
Treaties
Congressional Act of August 7, 1789
Congresaional Aet of August 20, 1789
Congressional Act of September 18, 1789
Congressional Act of May 26, 1790
Congressional Acts, duly 22, 1790
Congressional Act of March 1, 1793
Congréssional Act of May 19, 1796
Instructions of Federal Government to indlan agentes
did not euthorize binding Bederal Government
Instructions to Proctor, March 11, 1791
Instructions of Pickering, May 2, 1791
instructions of Pickering, May 18,1791
Instructions to Pickering, June 14, 1791
Letters from Cecrotary of tar to Governor
of New York, April leth, April e8th, May
Lith, and August Ll7th, 1792
41
44,
44
45
44
45
46
68
49
47
68
61
Be
62
wie
President's speech to Iroquois, ilarch “3,
1792
Instructions, to Ghapin, April £4, 1792
Instructions to Chapin, April e5, 1792
Instructions to Chapin, April 28, 1792
Conclusions
Questions of Fact
(A)
Move of Cayugas to Canada
(B) National Status of Indtans
(¢)
(D)
()
(F)
(@)
Authority of Indiana attending the Couneli to
negotiate Treaty of 1789
Council in Albany, February 14, 1789
Speech of Domine Peter
Speech of Governor
Council in Albany, February 24, 1789
Speech of Domine Peter
Council of June 8, 1789
Speech of Svecl Trap
Ratification of Ureaty of 1789 in 1790
Speech of Brandt, June 17, 1790
Speech of Fish Garrier, June 88, 1790
Reasons for discontinuing payment of annuities
Fish Carrier's whareabouts
Efforts of New Yorx Indians to collect annuity
Troaty as evidence of title
"Avticle IX of the Yreaty of Ghent extends
to the Cayuga Nation"
"United States relations with Canudtan
Indians"
"Indian method of tracing tribal allegiances"
“Glaiments are not Estopped" ~- "the Claim ia
not barred by laches"
Indians dia not consider themselves entitled
to annuity
Agreement of mutual relinguishuent among
Indians
Record does not show why annuities not paid
"Me Claims Convention of 1863 is not a bar®
87.
81
85
87
86
87
Annex f.
Annex B.
Annex 2
doe
Annox BF.
Annex Ge
Annex fy
fnnex T.
Annex, Ly
Annex Me
+
Representations of Canadian Indians to “ew York
State
Indian Nationality - Tho Statua of an Indian
Tribe or Nation
Nature of Indian Title
subsequent Treaties between New York ana the
Cayuga Indians and between Branenes of the
Cayuga Nation
Move of Indians to Canada
fieasons for failure of Indians to get Pro Rata
Share of Annuities
Agrecment between the Smerican and Canudian
Cayugas for Mutual Relingquishment of Annuity
Cleima,
British NoneInterference for Cayuga Indians
Position of :omen as to Land Ownership and in
Indian Councils '
Fish Carrpler Annuity
Bish Carrier
Non-Particlpation in Canadien Anoulties
Chronological fable of Keferences
Poe HP ER
G bid Baals GB abel’
SUMMARY OF Pacts
tment
GAYUGA CLAIM
W.Be In this memorandum end its Annexes,
—~ peforences are made as follows:~
British Memorial » Memorial or Mem.
Annexes to British Memorial ~ (Vols,II
and TIT) - Bp»
American Answers = Answer op Anse
Exhibits to American Answers (Volga I,IL,111)
~ Ape
British Reply ~ Reply
Annexes to British Reply - Rpe
Annexes to this memorandum = An.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The essential facts of this case are as followai~
In the Revoluntionary War the Iroquois, except the Oneldas
and Tuscaroras, generally fought with and for the British. The
Mohewks were leaders in thia movement and it was through them
that the British Indian Office was moved from northern New
York to Ganada, By the Treaty of Peace the 51x Nations were
left within the territory of the United States.
The vecord in this case ebundantly shows that from tho
elose of the War of the Revolution until the close of the War
of 1812, the Federal Government was trying to placate the
Indians within the territories of the United States and at-
tach them to the United States, while the British authorities
were using all means within thelr power to alienate these
TIndians from the United States and attach such Indians to the
British Grown. ‘The record 1s replete with atatements of
British officials showing thelr expeetation of, and preparation
for, a further war with the United States during the whole
2s
period between the close of the Revolutionary War and the
outbreak of the War of 1612, end the evidence is abundant and
conclusive that it was the deliberate British purpose and plan
to use the Tndian Nations within the territory of the United
States as Bpiltish allies when this conflict should come» ‘The
results showed how well they had planned and worked, for when
the war came ‘the pulk of the Western Indians went with the
British as did also a good part of the Six Nations, though not
a0 many as were with the British and against the United States
in the War of the Revolution.
All the facts connected with this case must be viewed
in the light of the foregoing fundamentals.
The facta that during the Revoluntionary War the Troquads
(other then the Tuscaroras and Oneidas) were British in their
sympathies and also in thelr activities, that the Mohawks not
only left their ancient seat to go to western New York, but
actually moved into Canada, that the British were constant ly
seeking to attad, the Indians more closely to them, and that
the British themselves who had moved their actual headquarters
into Canada, till maintained thelr outposts under the ¢ommand
of experienced men of considerable military penk at Fort Nia~
gara within United States territory, made it inevitable that
the bulk of the Imoquois should leave their ancient homes and
hunting grounds to cluster around and near their British allies.
Thus while only the Mohawks end some members of the other tribes
actually moved into Canada (Grand River and vicinity), the bulk
of the Six Nations settled at Cattaraugus ani Buffalo gneok, to
which latter point the Council Mlre of the Confederation was
rather early removed from its encient seat among the Oyondagas.
Thus Lb came that to Buffalo Creek, the Federal Agents wore
frequently sent to hold couneil withthe Indians and it was to
Buffalo Greek that the New York authorities sent when they
wished to collect the members of the 84x Nations in council.
The evidence seems conclusively to show, that, following
the Revolutionary War, the Indians wavered as to whether they
should cast thelr lot with the British or with the Americans.
It is almost certain indeed that withthe astute and profound
statesmanship which the councils of the Iroquois always posses~
sed and displayed, they sought to be friends with both British
and Americans and neutvel as between them. This was undoubtedly
the wisest course which they could pursue so far as the range of
their knowledge went. Had they been more fully advised of world
conditions they might have chosen thelr part more wisely. ‘Thus,
though settled within the confines of New York, upon American soil
and so wominally within American jurisdiction and protection, yet
as a matter of fact, they were clustered near a British post
maintained upon American soil under the command of responsible
British military officers, and lavgely under Byltish influence
and veciplents of British bounty.
Immediately following the Revolutionary War, there began
the push of white settlers up the Mohawk Valley to the westward
and into the territory around the inland lakes of New York woich
atlll bear the names of the Indian Nations that onee clustered
about thelr shores. Enterprising frontiersmen, speculators, and
financiers were not slow to take advantage of the situation
4.
which thus resulted from the removal of the Indlens from their
ancient lands and the crowding thereon of white imnaigrants, These
persons accordingly undertook to make leases and purchases of
the Indian lands from the Indiens. Some of the great names of °
New York and Ppiiadelphia are linked with such endeavors which
developed into public scandals.
The Spate authorities early saw that fairness ani justice
to the Indians, as also fairness, justice, and security to the
white immigrants could be worked out only if the State ahould
take over the Indian title end then should control the aale of
the lends to the white settlers. ‘Thus New York began very early
to make Treaties of ceassion and purchase from various of the
Iroquois Nations.
Bpe LOZ, 614
Ot" segs de The State made ite first Treaty with the Ceyuga
at Albany, under date of February 25, 1789. By this Treaty the
Cayuga Nation ceded and granted “all their lends" to the people
of the State of New York forever, and then reserved to themselves
certain specified quantities. for the cession so made by the
Nation, the State of New York made present gifts and agreed to
pay to the Nattondnd their posterity forever ean annuity of $500.
It appears that at the time this Tpeaty wes made soxie of the
Bp: 615» was made some of the members of the Nation were absent
particlpating in councils with the Federal Government at Muskingum »
bees setae The Cayugas who were not present at the Treaty ,
having © xpreased dissatisfaction with it, the Governor of New
York ¢all a second souned1 at Fort Stanwix (Schuyler) on the
Rend dey of June, 1790. At this council a new Treaty was negotia-
ted and signed by the Sachems, Chiefs,and warriors of the Cavunn
5.
Nation (including the prominent ones who were disgruntled with
the first Treaty, (1789) by which the Sachems, Chiefs, and war-
riors "fully, freely, and absolutely ratify and confirm" the
Treaty of 1789. There was dilatributed under this second treaty
to the Indlens present the sum of One Thousand Dollars "as a
penevolence™.
with the Gayuge Nation at Cayuga Ferry in the State of New York
In 1795, (July 7, 1795) a third treaty was concluded
by virtue of whieh the Natt on sold to the people of the State of
New York the greater “part of the land which was to be reserved
under the treaty of 1789, the State agreeing to pay therefor a
perpetual annuity of #800. This Treaty then consolidated this
annulty of {$1800 with the annuity of $500 provided for under the
Sreaty of 1789, making a total of $2500, and provided that auch
combined annulty:= ,
"shall in future be annually paid on the first dey
of June fn each year forever hereafter at Ganandehqua
in the Gounty of Ontario to the Agent for Tndilan Affairs
under the United S,ates forthe time being residing within
this state, and in”csse no agent shall be appointed on the
part of the United States then by such person as the Govern-
ov of the State of New York shall thereunto appoint to be
by the said agent or person so to be appointed paid to the
said Cayuga Nation taking thelr receipt therefor on the
back of the counterpart of this instrument in the posseas~
ien of the seid Indians in the words following to wit: ‘We
the Gayuga Nation do acknowledge to have received, from the
people of the State of New York the sum of two thousand and
three hundred dollars in full for the several annuities
within mentioned, as witness our hands at Genadaghque this
7 day of wact'(9_,' which money shall be paid in the
presence of at least one of the magistrates of the County
of Ontario and in the presence of at least two more reput-
able inhabitants of the said county and which magistrates and
other persons in whose presence the same shall be paid shall
subscribe their names as wltnesses to the said receipt and
the agent or other person so to be appointed shall also take
a duplicate receipt for the said money witnessed by the said
witnesses and which duplicate shall as seon as conventently
may be acknowledged end recorded in the records of the said
Se
County of Ontario and the original duplicate transmitted to
the Governor of this State for the time being." (Bp.107,108)
The fourth paragraph of thie ‘Treaty provided that as to the
land reserved by the first Treaty to Pish Garvier and his posterity
that the State should lease such lands from Fish Garvier upon such
terms and conditions as the State Legislature should direct, the
money from. such lease to be paid eunually to Fish Garrler op his
ipeeere
lated by the New York Legislature that this Fish Garrier annuity
posterity. By Statute dated april 1, 1796, it was stipu-«
should be $50.00 per year,
Bpe 110. The fourth treaty between the Gayuga Nation and the
State of New York was made in 1807 when the Nation released to the
State of New fopk, upon payment of $4800.00, all their right, title
and interest in and tothe tracts of land reserved to them in the
Treaty of 1796, "which two weservations contained apd the land the
said Cayuga Netion claimed o» have any interest in in this State.”
Bos 9429453
BST OF B20
Ber, pe S0n-
3 bees
ccna tone
The annuities provided for in the Teeaty of L795
have been paid from 1795 until the present time by the State of New
York. Paymert for the years 1796 to 1809, inclusive, was endop«
sed on the beck of the Treaty as provided for by the Teaty ite
self, except for the year 1808, forwhich year no such endorsement
appears. The Tpeaty contains no endorsement 80 far as the records
show for any year subsequent to the year 1809,
Bpsl1o.
clauses thats :
The Treaty of 1807 recites in one of its preliminary
"the said Cayuga Nation of Indiens have sieni-
fied their desire to remove from the said lands andi
to dispose of thelr interests therein to the people
of this State." ( That 4s, New York State).
Tt 1s averred In the Memorial ad Petition of the Canadian Cayugas
to the Board of Audit of the State of New York of February 24, 1883,
thati~
Bp. 564. "Between Tyne 12, 1809 and Jume 1, 1810,
‘Ow ja-gegh-ti'!, or ' Pysh Carrier’ end all the
vomaining sachems ov chiefs, warrlora and headmon,
and many of the tribe (making with those alveady
yesiding tn Ganada, more than three-fourths of the
entire nation}, left the United States and moved over
into Ggnada, taking up thely residence in that country,
and have remained there ever since;"
It thus appears that by the allegations and admissions of
the Glaimants themselves thet certainly prior to June 1, 1810, the
tribal organization with ite sachems, chiefs, and heedmen existed
in the United S,ates and not in Ganada. This is borne oub by other
evidence in the case and bhe record also centains evidence establish«
Aps 925957.
tained a regular tribal organization on United States territory.
ing thatthe Americen Cayugas have always main-
The Ganadien Cayugas assert, and the Byitish Memorteal adopts
the assertion, that the Canadian Cayugas have never recel ved any
part of the annuitles due and payable under the Tpeaty of 1795 since
the year 1809, that le, sinee the year in which they a llege they
moved to Ganada, though as already stated the State of New York
Aps 8025 has paid the aforesaid annuity from tho date of its
et segs.
first acerual in 1795 until the present time,
Bp.395 In the petition whieh the Canddlen Gayugas made to the
Legislature of the State of New Tork in 1849 the following statement
is made regarding the non-payment of these annuities to the Ganadtan
Cayugaas~
‘mat anapplication by your memoria bow
fore at divers times wade tet us eehisse eee
aald Ireaty with the payment thereof your memorlalists
have been denied thelr share of the purchase money an-
nually payable as aforesaid sometimes upon the ground
that we are ‘Canada Indlans', at other times that we
live without the U. States', again that we during the
war of 1812 tock up arms against the U.S. att he time
of its invasion’; and finally that by virtue of Treaty
arrangements subsequently entered into batween Cayugeas
residing within the U.S., and Governor Van Burean and
Governor Throop, of New Tork, to wit, on the 28th of
Pebruary 1829, 8th of September, 1831 (certified copies
of which are herewith submitted) the purchase money 80
atipuleated to be pald annually to the Osyuga Nation as
So te uhanoat ter to be peid to the Cayugas of
ew York, Onto a fraction of Nats eno
Weat of the Wasissippls® ae OE SSEERE Ee
The record contains no evidence supporting these a llegations
regarding reasons for non-payment, except a few general statements
made by Canadian Cayugas who spoke entirely from hear-~say, nd
Tndlan belng produced as a witness who actually attempted to secure
payment, ad except a statement or two mede by some officer of the
Ss 25, State of New York, who quite obviously spoke without
any peal evidence upon which to base an assertion.
Bye LS? 4 e
ae ee the evidence shows that in 1812 effort was made by the
United Sates to have the Iroquois Indians remain neutral during
that conflict; and that to this end a delegation of American tro-
quols went to Ganeada in ean effort to persuade the Ganadtan Troquois
De
to remain netitral, that this effort failed, the Canadian Troquois
going with the British, the Jportcan Iroquois with the United
States.
Ane Ge | Phere La considerable affirmative evidence that at
one of the last Councils undertaken between the two branches of
the Iroquola peeseding the Var of 1812, 1b wes agreed between
them thet each brench (American and Bpitish) would Pgnt for the
people under whom they lived, abiding whatever result followed,
and that thereafter neither brench would make any claim to any
pounties or annuities granted to the other one by the Government
wider whieh it Lived, thet ts, the smerlcan Iroquols would make
no claim to bounties or annuities given to the Genadian Troquois
py the British Gevernment and the Canadian Iroquois would make no
cl im to bounties or ammulties given to the Amerloan Troquois by
the American Government. Agdnet the affirmative evidence of he
making of such en arrangement there is merely the negative evi-
dence of a number. of Canadian Indians who asserted merely that
they had never heard of any such aprangement.
But whatever the reason, there ts noevidence that from
1810 until 1830 the Canadien Cnyuges ever made any effort to collect
eny part or portion of the annuities paid to the amex can Gayugas
py the State of New York under and pursuant to the Treaty of 1705.
Bpelil In 1829 the State of New York (Martin Van Suren,
Governor) made a fourth treaty between itself and"the chiefs or
gachems of the tribe or nation of Indians called the Cayugas resid~
ing at Sandusky in the State of Ohio.” This Treaty, after voeolting
10.
the making of the earlier treaties of 1749 and 1795, provided for a
new mothod of payment. of the anmulty which sheuld thereafter be
“annually peid to the said Nation on the dreft oy bili of @ xchange
of at least four of the principal chiefs of sald Nation to be made
and draw on the agent of Indian affairs residing at Albany ape
pointed by the said State on or after the fivat day of June in
each year,®
AM» Apps * 80 far as the reoord goes the first effert by the
Oanadian Oayugas after they left the United States in 1809-1810
to obtain « portion of this annulty paid by the State of New York
to the Cayuga Nation under the Treaty of 1795, took place tn 1830,
a year following the naling of this treaty. The Indian who made
the effort was one Jom Jacobs who » the testimony shows, was un-
able to accomplish anything in the matter and who » it would seem
fromthe statements made and already quoted from the Memorial of
the Canadien Gayugas of 1849, must heve confined his efforts either
to consulting attorneys, or » With or without them, to have made
some representations to the Indian Sgent as being the "officer
‘charged by said treaty with the payment thereof,"
Boe 207
Ans As ps 8. Jacobs may have made one or two trips at about this
time; but thereat ter the matter was allowed again to die until
about the year 1840 to 1845, when Monture, Johnwon, and Jacobs,
oe just Monture and Johnson, went to New York and consulted two
Ady Asp»94 attormeys, Dy»Poter Wilson and N.P.Strong, in sone
sort of effort to secure participation In this annuity.
dhs
Bp.B42.. In 1831 Governor Throop for the State of Now York |
|
on the one side, and the “Ghiefs and Sachems of the tribe or Nation |
of Indians called the Cayugas, residing at Sandusky in the State of |
Onie, and on the Senaca Reservation in the County of Erie, and State
of New York, near the village of Buffalo*® on the other part, con»
cluded another treaty which recited the Van Buren Treaty of 1829
and then provided for a divison,of the annuity between the two
branches. of the Amerioan Gayugas named abovee
Aa elready indicated, notwithstanding this new Treaty (of
which they must have known for there was a continuous and intimate
intercourse between the branches of the tribe) the Canadian
Cayugas allowed the matter to rest until the visit of Johnson,
Monturs, and Jacobs in 1840 to 1843, who according to one witness
Bos 516. were able to do no more than to bring "back nice
stories."
Bos S91. In 1843 Dp. Peter Wilson, a New York Cayuga, wrote
under date of Auguat 4th, a letter to Governor Wn. O.Bouck, in
which after protesting against the payment of alltéhe annuities
due to the Cayuga Indians veaiding in the western part of the
State of New York to that part of them which were then proposing to
eonigrate, he salds-
"ug wish your Excellency dlatinetly to
understand that the Cayugas residing in a
foreign country, to wit, Garda, have no Just
or legal claim to any part of the annuities
coming from this State.
Bps 592.
Bp» M8. Thore is some evidence that Johnson and Monture
visit d New York about 1845 upon behalf of the Canadian Cayugas.
Bp. 347, S51- In 1846, the Spate of New York entered into two
further trestios with the American Ceyugas, one under date of May
4, 1046, andthe other under date of Jyne 2, 1646. The first,
the one of May 4, 1846, was made between the State of New York
end "that portion of the tribe or nation of Indiens called the
Cayuge Nation of Indians residing in the western part” of the
State of New York, and provided merely for a ehange in the manner
of payment which was specified in the Treaty of 1831, In so far
as the New York Cayuga Indians were concerned, thder date of June
B7, 1846, some protest waa made by a number of the Cayuga Indiana
in western New York against the negotiation of treaties on thelr
behalf by cortein Indians purporting to act for them, but in spite
of this fact, or perhaps beaause the Treaty actually negotiated
complied with the wishes of the protestants, a second treaty
waa negotiated under date of duly 2, 1846, between the State
of Néw York and the Cayugas residing in western New York, which
again changed the method of payment to the New York Cayugas.
Since the testimony of the Canadian Indians is wholly un~
reliable as to dates it may very well be that the supposed visit of
Johnson and Monture in 1045 coincided voughly in actual time with
the making of these additional treaties by the New York Gayugags
Bp. 598. The first formal representations (of which eny record
has been submitted) on the part of the Canadian Cayugas to the
State of New York were made in 1849 when @ Memorial was presented
by those Indians to the New Yovk Legislature. This Memorial cone
tained a number of misstatements of fact, which it is not now
Bor 20, 25, necessary to gonsider, It appeara that this petition
was referred by the New York Legislature to the Gommissloner of the
Land Office for the Ssate of New York, who made a report under date
of tHarch 16, 1849 favorable to the oleim of the Cenadian Cayugas.
Bpe 28-28» The veport of, the Commissioners shows that they were
not thoroughly conversant withthe facts and that in reaching thei»
Gontlugions they were guided largely by sentiment anl perhaps by a
“frtend at court" in the person of N.P.Strong., This report was not
acted upon by the Legislature.
Bp« 280 In 1850 the Indians themselves made an effort to
vevive the matter but were unsuccessful due In part, as General
Strong later stated, to the fact that they hed no "friend ab court."
Bpe 560. In 1851 another petition was presented to the Legis-
lature by the Ganadien Cayugas which seems quite evidently to be
in the major part a thoroughly Indian production. It does not
appear that any action whatever was taken upon this petition.
It is possible that there was only one representation made in
the years 1850-1951, end thet this was made in the latter year,
1851.
Bp, 402. In 1856 a report on the claim seems to have been
made by cortain British authorities who asserted that the an-
nuity had been paid for several years “put that on the breaking
out of the war 1t was diacontimued." Tt will be recalled that
no annuity was paid after 1809, which is three years before
the war broke out. "This error that the action of the Canadian
Cayugas in the wer of 1812 was the immediate cause of the dis-
i4.
continuance of the payment of the aunuities mane all through the
record, It is essential and basic to the whole British claim
Bye 408. In 1857 N.P.Strong wrote a letter peparding the
Slain to the New York Land Commissioners (as 1b would seom)
apparently im response to a, note received from some member of
that Commission. She letter ls of no particular value save aa
showing the inaccuracy as to facts which have always lain behind
the presontation of this eladim.
Bpr 408. In 1860 the Canadian Cayugas authoriged eortain
British offieers to undertake the adjustment of this ¢leim with
the State or New York, but no evidence has been found in the
record that any action was taken under this authorization, Nor
was any action taken by the Sritish Government till move than
thirty-five years after the matter was thus formally placed in
the hands of British authorities.
Bp» £8, 29, Nothing further was done in this case by the Indlans
for another pertod of twenty years when they presented (Apel
24, 1882) onother petition to the Commissioner ef the Land of~
flee asking for the payment to them of theiy share of the
annuities. It appears that this petition was referred by
the Lend Comissioners bo the Agtorney General of the State
of New York, who held that the Land Commissioners had no
Jurisdiction over 1b, but suggested that if the Indians really
thought they had a valid claim they should present the matter
before the State Board of Audit.
15.
was prepared and filed with the State Board of Audit. This
petition, like all others which the Indians have presented,
contains many inaccuracies though 1+ makes one admission
which ia rather fundamental in the case which the Sritish
Goverment attempts to make out; nemely, that the bulk, as
it would seem, of the Cayugas did not remove to Canada until
1809-1810. ‘he alternative prayers made in thia petition
aro also of intevent: as showing how uncertain the Ipdlans and
theiy counsel were as te the rights, if any, which the Indlans
possessed. It is significant that this petition alleges no ap-
plication for payment by the Canadian Cayugas prior to 149.
This petition was addressed, as stated, to the Board of Audit,
put us a bill was before the Legisleture providing for the
abolishment of that Board and the creation of a Board of Clains,
Board of Audit did nothing with the pebition,
which automatically passed from the Board of Audit to the Uoard
of Glaime.
Bpe 294 On December 27, 1885, the matter came to a hearing
before the Board of Claims where at the instance of the Attorney
General of the State (as it Js alleged), the claim was dlamissed
for want of jurisdiction.
Bpsads tn 1884, the Canadian Cayugas, with General J.0.Strong
as their attorney, (he had alao represented them in their
petition of 1882 end 1885) filed another petition (as it
appears) before the Commissioners of the Land Office of the
State of New king for participation in the annuttiss
under the Treaty of 1785. TWyon the oplnion taken of the At-
torney General of the State, the Board denied this petition
Bp. 77%. on the ground that the matter was one for the exer-
eise of the Legislative diseretion. Fpom this opinion a writ
of certiorari was sued out and thea ause was carried to the
Bp.S4. General Term of the supreme Court of the third
Department of tho State, which in a somewhat elaborate argument
(in -which there were the customary, almost conventional, mis-
statements of fact) made a decision in favor of the Indians.
From this decision the Attorney Cenerel of the State appealed
to the Gourt of Appeals, which reversed the opinion of the
Bps $4. General Term of the Supreme Court on the ground of
jurisdiction, holding that the courts had no jurisdiction, that
they could not grant relief, and that the matter was entirely
and golely within the jJurisdietion of the State Legislature.
Bp
petition, that following this-decision of the Court of Appeals
295-36. It appears fromthe allegations contained in e Later
in 1885, the Genedian Cayuges presented to the Legislature a
Memorial and Petition on Fobruary 12, 1686, The Legislature
ageln referred the matter to the Comisstoners of the Land Of-
fice with Inetructions to Investigate and report back to the
Leglalature. This report (made on may 6, 1886) affirmed thet
the Canadian Cayugas were really descendants of the Cayuga Na-
tion of New York, and that the Legislature had power to grant
1%.
participation of anmities due under the treaty of 1795, 1f tn
its diseretion and judgment desired Lt so to do, This report
reached the Legislature too late to be acted upon at the then
session and so went over to the next session, when a bill was
introduced tn each branch of the Legislature, the one in the
Senate being referred to the Commission on Indian Affairs, ond
in the Assembly, to the Committee on Ways and Means. The bill
provided that William G«Sypyant be made a Commissioner to tn=
quire into the facts and state if in his opinion the danadian
Cayugas were entitled to share in the annuity, and that if he
found theywere soentitled, he should be empowered to arrange
for participation in the future, such arrangement to be subjeot
to the approval of the Governor, ‘the bills were favorably reported
by both Comiittess, but too late to come up for final passage.
Bre SO. In 1888, a bill authorized the 4upreme Court tn Brie
County to appoint e Commissioner to ascertain who were the pay~
ees under the Treatles of 1789 and 1795. Herbert P,.Bissell was
appointed Commissioner under thia Act and took. some testimony
B Pega which appears in the weaord. Meanwhile, nowever,
Oo *
the attorneys representing the “sate of New York and the Indlans
Bp. 795. at this hearing were both elected members of the Legia-
lature and upon that body meeting they introduced another pill
which passed the Assembly, but falled to pass Im tho senate.
Bos So4?7. In 1889, the matter was taken up by the Senate Com-
mitbes on Indian affairs, who took a great deal of testimony and
1B.
who rendered their report under date of April 15, 1891, ‘his
report made several, findings which are of interest. Briefly put
they were theger~
B Re Theat the Cayuga Netion had maintained an unbroken
national organization within. the limits of the United States ever
sinco 1789; that the State of New York had no obligation to
divide the annpities anong the individual members of the tribes
that the Cayuga Natlon of Indians residing within the United
States ceased tor ecognize the Indians immigrating to @anada
as members of the Cayuga Nation; and that the Canadian Cayugas
were not in receipt of any part of the annuities in the year 1811
and were not mtitled under the rules and regulations of the
Gayuga Nation to recoive emmy part of the saidennuities. The
report ¢losed with the recommendation thab an aot be passed
eappolating Commissloners to ascertain who were to be entitled
to share In the distribution of the annuities and to distribute
the same. ;
Bye, 18h In 1290, Senator Vedder, who was one of the Senate
Comittee on Indian Arfairs that made and signed the above named
report, introduced s bill into the New York Senate and ro~intro~
duced it in 1891, providing that the Csyuga Nation of Indians
shovld thereafter be eonsidered as having ccased to exist as a
nation, tribe, oy distinct people, and providing generally that
thereafter no individuel Indian who was a descendant from the
Cayuga Nation as it existed on duly 7, 1785, should be excluded
from participation in any future payments to the Indlans by reason
19.
2
of the non-residente or absence of himself or aneestors from the
Limits of the United States, or for misconduct of any kind.
$100,000.00 was to be appropriated to pay the posterity of the
Cayuga Netlon in lieu of the amwuities provided by the Treatlea.
These bills passed the Senate, but were rejected by the Assewbly,
both in 1890 and 1891.
Bp» T7G5 in 695 virtually the same bills were Latroduced
authorizing the Gourt of Claims tod etermine the Glain of the
Gensdien Cayugeas for a share of the ammuities resulting for the
gale of the Cayuga lands In 1795 to the State, but such did not
become LaWe
Bp. 787-1923
WTZT55: In 1899, and again in 1900, Governor Theodore
Roosevelt transmitted to the Legislature certain diplomatic
correspondence relating bo these claims and recommended that
the e¢laim be given a thorough examina tlone
Bp. 78199 »
De O4I= 9B.
A In 1697, tho matter was made the subject of
diplomatic correspondence between the United Syates and Great
Berltain, which correspondence continued ever a period of years
until the inclusion of the claim among those to be arbitrated
pefore the American-3pitish Gjaima Apbitrablon.
fhe foregoing are the facts whlch lle pohind this claim
againgt the United States for one million dollars.
Tt will be observed that at no point has the Government
of the tiited Spates touched or ever had anything whatsoever
to do witht he transaction Involved or with any part of them
20%
petween the State of New York and the Indians; such transactions
were wholly betweon the Stete and the Cayuga Nation.
It is tobe observed further that the greater part of the
British Gase ts made up of two proceedings or Investigations
by the State of New York into the claim» of the Ganadian Gayugas,
and thet (as already pointed out sbeve in summary) the con-
clusions expressed by those in charge of that investigation
(ot least one of such investigators, Vedder, being wholly
aympathetio with the sentimental claim of the Cenadian Gayugas)
weres~
Bos 473-477, “That the Cayuga Nation of Indians as a dis~
tinct Nation or people, with a full corps of chiefs
and national officers, have ever since said treaty
of 1789 maintained om unbroken national organization
within the limits of the Upited States, which organi~
zation hes duping all that time been recognized by
the grate of New York as the Cayuga Netion of Indiana
with, whom said treaty obligations had been contracted<-
®imat the State of New York has faithfully per-
formed ite obligations under said treaties of 1789
“and 1795 and their varlous modifications, and has
regularly paid the annuity therein provided for each
year’ to the satd cayuga Nation of Indians as so con*
stituted and recognized.
'mhat there was no obligation resting upon
said Coyugs Nation to dlvide the annuity smong the
individual members of said Nation, but that sald
Wation had an absolute right to dispose of the same
without accountability to this State, and that the
State of New York had and has no right or authority
to pay said annuity or any part thereof to any indi+
vidual, member, or members of gaid Netion (except when
a@uly authorized so'to do by sald Cayuga Nation) but
gan only discharge its treaty obligation by paying
said annuity entire to the duly recognized representatives
of the Gayuge Nation of Indians so long as said people
are recognized as an existing Netion."
the Committee aleo founds~
"mat the ancestors of said Canadian Cayugas left
the United Statea and sought protection and the bounty
21.6
‘
of the English government prior to the war of 1812.
That they were received by said government and pro-
vided for ag its wards as a recompense for their ser-
vices for said government in the war of 1
“that when said Usyugas so removed
ceased tobe members of that Cayuge Netlon of Indians
which was recognized and acknowledged by this State.
They ceased to share in the funds and provisions made
for the said Jayuge Nation, end that said Canadian
Cayugas have not since they so romoved had any lot ov
interest with said Cayuga nation as recognized by the
government of this States t by seid removal they
withdrew from mewbership in the gaid Cayuga nation as
so recognized. That sald Cayuga nation of Indians
ceased to deal with or recognize said emigrating Indians
as members of said Nation, and they have never since
pocorgnized them as members thereof.”
Finally (for present purposes) the Gormmittes further
found:
“Your comrlttoe further report that the ground
urged by the claimants - that they ere entitled to
a share of the seid annuity by reason of a provision
in a treaty entered Into between the government of
Great Britain and the United States at the close of
the war of 1812, designated as the treaty of Ghent -
is not well founded. The Canadian Cayugas were not
in receipt of any part of said annuity im the year
1811 end were not then entitled to receive any part
thereof under the miles and regulabions of said Cay-
uge nation ef Indlens or by the terms of the said
treaties between said nation end this State."
worthy of spectal note here (by way of ropetition)
thet Senator C-P.Veddor, wao signed this report later (in 1990-
1891) introduced bills in the Legislature of the State of New
York which contemplated that 1t should be declared that there-
after the Cayuga Nation should be considered as non-existent
and that e fund should be appropriated by the State Legis«
lature to be divided dinong all the posterity of the original
gayuge Nation (Gansdians and 4meriean) in final settlement
of the State's account with the Gayuge Nation under the treaties
of 1789 and 1795, but that this bill failed at this time, and
fatled later in 1895, Thus those who drafted this report which
“has peen quoted above cannot rest under the imputation of hav-
jag been unduly prejudiced against or hostile to the Canadian
, Gayugas whose claims they wore considering and dedining to
recognize.
The bulk of the British Case and a considerable part of
its Reply is made up of evidence offered to show that after
1809 no part of the Cayuga annuities were received by the
Ganadien branch of that Nation. This, of course, is an essen=
tial part of their case and it is fully proved, or rather it
jas never been denied. New York has never made a pretense that
Canadian Cayugas received from its agent directly any part of
the annuities since 1809.
BASES OF BRITISH CLAIM
The grounds upon which Britain bases her right to recover
from the United States, moneys which would have been paid to tho
Canadian Gayugas by the State of New York had those Indians
remained resident within the United States subject to Its juris-
diction and protection, are nowhere clearly set forth, Those
responsible for the preparation of the British Case seem never
to have had eo clear theory as to the ground upon which American
liability was to be predicated, Whether designedly or not, no
gase was ever presented with more murkiness than has character~
ized the presentation of this case. So far as the issues in the
case are concerned the record might have been reduced to a small
portion of its present alse. Indian rules, Indien customs and
25.
and habits, Indian plottings, the machinations of the British
Government to stir up the 4merican Indians against the United
Szates, the efforts of the United states to hold thei» own
Indians subject to thelr influence and protection, these and a
thousand other things covered tn the record are interesting, but
they have no value whatever in the decision of this case.
So far as they are definitely expressed, the bases upon
which Britain's claima to recovery rest, are as followar-
On page 3 of the British Memorial, it 1s stated that:~
"Teae negotiations resulted in treaties of ;
cession upon which, and the Treaty of Ghent, the
Claim asserted herein 1s founded.
Memeps4, "The Treaties of Cession”, ave later specified as the
Tpeaties of 1789, L790, and 1795, between the Cayuga Nation and
Meme ps GO. the State of New York. Arter sketching the making of
the Treatles of 1769, 1790, and 1795, averring that no annuities
were paid to the "Gayuga Nation" efter "shortly before the War of
1812" (thus ignoring and keeping from the Tpibunal at this period
of this ease the fact that the State of New York has punctiliously
pald every annuity due under these Treaties from 1795 wntal the
present time) the British Memorlel continues:
Mom, pe Vs. "Tye Tribunal ia invited to declare that the
obligation of the Treaty of 1795 remains and
should be satiefied.”
Momyp.'7s The Memorial then continues by ealling attention to the
termination of the War of 1812 by the Peace of Ghent in 1814 and
- quotes Aptiele IX of the Treaty of Ghent. This part of the Memorial
then coneludes with these words:«
"Thereafter the agents of the Cayuga Nation
from time to time made varlous journeys to the State
of New York in the fruitless endeavor to obtain pay~
ment of the annuities which had previous to the iar
been customarily paid» Representations which will
hereinafter be more particularly detalled, were vainly
made to the Governor of the State, to the Legislature,
and to various local authorities; and more recently the
Rae
attention of the Government of the United States was
directed to the ease diplomatically.
‘Hls Majesty's Government, on behalf of the Cay~
uge Nation and its posterity, is now charged with the
duty of requiring the Government of the United States,
ink the judgment of the Trlbunal, the fulfillment of
the covenant, so long unjustly deferred, to restore to
the Nation the rights under the Treaty of 1795 of which
it was in full legal enjoyment previously to the begin-
ning of the war.
“Having thus introduced brlefly the character and
ground of the present claim 1t becomes necessary to con=
sider more carefully the tracts connected with the claim
and the evidence end documents upon which 1t rests.”
The issues thus framed and stated in this Memorial were
understood and interpreted by the Government of the United States
as basing the Bedtish claiv upon the Treaty of Ghent, parti cularly
tho provisions of Article IX of that Treaty. The American Answer
was accordingly so framed.
The British Government thereupon filed a Reply and stated:~
Reply pede "The British claim is not based upon Article
Ix of the Treaty of Ghent."
Later in the reply, under the heading “The Basis of Liability
of the United States", the following is given as the first paragraphs
Reply pe7. "The liabllity of the United States rests
upon the Treaty of 1795, and the facts which
have occurred since the conclusion of that
Treaty, and the case of his liajesty's Gover-~
nent is founded by the Memorial, and will be
maintained upon an obligation for the perfor~
mance of which the United States tar esponsible
irrespective of the Treaty of Ghent.”
The Reply then undertakes a narration of o ertatn phases of the
relationship between the Government of the United States a nd the
Indians, end the state of New York and the Indians, inoluding the
relationship between the Federal .dovernment and the States , all
inadequately considered and all treated from the standpoint of
affording a background for the following statement regarding Israel
Chapin, who, along with nine others, including interpreters, signed
as a witness the Tpeaty of 1795. The Memorial then continues:~
Reply pelin12. "agcordingly the Cayuge Tpeaty of 1795
ESE ae was negotiated and executed in the presence
of and signed by General Israel Chapin as
Indian Superintendent of the Northern Depart~
ment in whose diatrict the transaation was
earried out.
“Tt is not denied that the Treaty of 1705
constitutes a binding obligation wpon the
State of New York, and that the State became
directly Liable to the Cayuga Nation or to
the United Statea Agent for the stipulated
annulty «
"Tt is maintained that the situation thus
oreated involves also the United States in
direst liability to the Cayuga Nation for the
fulflliment of the obligation of the Treaty,
"In any event it cannot be doubted in view
of the President's message,” (to certain Senecas
visiting Washington, not toe the Cayugas) "that
the Cayuges understood, when they negottated
the Treaty, that they were engaging the credit
of the United States, and, woether or not there
be any law In such direct liability, the United
States are certainly subject, in view of the
Puniary Claims Convention, to political or
international responsibility for the dta-
charge towards Great Britain of the public
obligations of the State of New York incurred
by the Treaty of 1795."
After noting that the claim had been made the subject of
diplomatic representations by the British Government, and that
those representations had failed to bring a payment to the Ganadian
Cayugas, the Reply concludes this branch of its discussions with
the following paragraphs~ ,
Reply pelds “And, further, even if, as contended by the
Answer, the obligation of the State of New York
under the Treaty was fulfilled by the payment
of the dnunulties to the United States Indien
Agent, the United States must be liable for any
misapplication of these payments by thelr agent.
The contention that he wag in law op in fact the
agent of the Ceyugss end not of his Governnent,
nor that the distribution of the Treaty payment
was a mere personal trust, having nothing to do
with his offictal duties, isy it is submitted,
obviously untenable."
The balance of the Reply ia taken up with ad iseussion in the
nature of a summary of evidence from the Britiah standpoint of the
question under the following headings:~+
“article IX of the Treaty of Ghent extends to the Cayuga Nati on"
"United States Relations with Canadian Indians;"
“the Indian method of tracing tribal elliance;"
"The claimants are not estopped;"
“the oleim is not barred by latches;*
"The Claimants Convention of 1853 4s not a bars" and
"The manner of distribution of a war,"
Assuming the 5ypitish have abandoned the claim to an award
under the provisions of the Treaty of Gyent and assuming, as it
would seem the United States has a right to assume, that the
grounds of recovery now urged by the British Government are to be
found in the British Reply, page 7, under the heading: "the basis
of liability of the United States," then it would appear that
relieved of all surplueage the British contentions come to thiar=
tT, That as to the Treaty of 1798, "the Cayugas under~
stood, when they negotLated the Treaty, that they were engaging the
evedLt of the United States," and that, therefore, the United States
is lisble.
It, That the signature of Israel Chapin aa a wltness to the
Cayuga Treaty of 1795 made the Governnent of the United States liable
for the carrying out of the provisions of the Treaty»
TIT. That since the Government of the United States Patled,
as a result of the diplomatic representations by the British Govern«
ment, to obtain for the Canadian Cayuges the moneys which they claim,
and Since the claim was by mutual agreement scheduled for the
27.
determination of this tribunal as a pecuniary claim outstanding
between the two governments, therefore, nothing is lacking to
constitute ability in the United States.
Iv. The United States ie liable for any misapplication
of the annuities which may have been mado by the Agent for Indian
apfairs of the United States, to who, under the treaty of 1795,
the annuities were payables
These points wlll be considered in their order:
i
That as to the Treaty of 1795," the Cayugeas understood, when
they negotiated the Treaty, that they were engaging the credit of
the Ugited States", and that, tmoenefore the United States ts liable: |
No basis of Liability could be more fanteatio and grotesque ;
than is this. It is so obviously at variance with the whole record
4
Bpitish and American, that it is not believed that Sritish Govern-
fo list afew of t he obvious facts and rebsons that show
thet the basis 1s whollyinfoundeds~
ment anticipates ita serious consideration by the Tribunal.
eens rm (A) the two Treaties of 1789 and r490 specifically
recite in their opening paragraphs that they are thade by and with
the Governor of the State of New York, together wth named Gone
missioners authorized for that purpose by and on /bghalt of the
people of the State of New York; the Treaty of 1796 recites that
Bye 959. the same 1s made with the tribe or natdon, of Indians
called the Cayugas by certain named agenta authopi sed for that
purpose by and on behalf of the people of the State é New York.
i |
ft
i
2B.
Ap» 8613 Bp. 676,
a ee
Ly @
Bogy Ap. S447 1p .840, (B}) Each of these Treaties was made at a -
SE. 889 :,
Counell Pire oalled by the Governor of the State of New York, -
the Treaty of 1795 being made upon the initiation of the Indians
themselves.
Bp. lL. At the conolusion of the negotiations for the Treaty
of 1790, at which Captain Brandt was present and participated, t he
old Cayuga sachen and warrior, Pish Carrier, than whom none were
more skiliful and astute, madesthe following speechs
Bp» Vile “Brother Governor of New York, with your
GoumissTorters, “you will not attend and open
your ears,
"The Gpeat Spirit has given us this day
to meet again atthe Gouncll Flre. After many
conversations together since our first meeting
and efter much deliberation of both parties,
you have found the means of restoring peace
andanity between us. This event, Brothers, we
must attribute to you. OUr peace is ono of he
seme thing. The great Spirit therefore will have
justice done to each party; when any misunder-
stending or misrepresontation has interrupted
theiy peace and friendship is again restored,
it is agresable to his: pleasure. You have
complied with every desire and wish of ours,
particularly in your lest promise what you
would make your assembly acquainted with our
wishes, and we have therefore acceded to every
proposal of yours to brings bout this accamnodations
"Bpothert«
"Having determined to aacede to all your
proposals, and having perfectly understood
thom, after conversation among ourselves, we
heve this day determined to eatablish our
pease and accordingly confirm the agreement
between us. We now therefore make this public
declaration inthe hearing of all here present,
of our acceding to the proposals and thia day
confirming the same.
“Bootheri~
“this is all we have to say."
How ldle to assume inthe fact of this atatement by’ Fish
Carrirthat the Indians understood they were dealing with the
B96
United States.
(G) The Sanadian Indians neve, from first to last, ap-
plied to the United States either for the payment of the annuities
or for assistance in securing their payment. There 1s not one
syllable in the entire vecord of this case which justifies the
conclusion that the inavena ever thought that the United States
was in any way connected with this transaction as the narration
of pacts alvoady given showae Their appeals were meade to the
State of New York and ita officers,
(D) ‘The suggested basis for this contention that the
Cayugas understood they were "engaging the credit of the United
Spates, “as made in the British Reply, ave of the flimsiest sort,
as the following matters show:s~
RpelO?. First: The petition (dated dyne 2, 1789) to the
President of i he United States cited in the British Reply (p.8)
against the actions of the State of New York (upon which the
British argument places reliance) was e general protest against
the dealings of that State with all the tribes and was, signed
by representatives of the Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and Mohawk
Nations>s furthermore, as is evident from a perusal of the
petition, it seems almost certain that it was prepared and
delivered at the Instigation of private parties who were then
seeking to purchase the Indian lands in opposition to the State's
policy, end witht he hepe upon the part of the private parties
that they could somehow ao involve the Federal Government as to
plock New York State in its effort to aequire the Indian lands.
The course pursued by these private parties leaves little doubt
fiers
on this point. But however “that may be, the matter of complaint
as set out in this petition In sof ar asthe Gsyugas were concerned,
was entirely adjusted by the Treaty of 1790, as 1s shown by the
speech of Pish Carrier quoted above, Fish Carrier being one of
those who signed the petition to the President of the United States
on dune 2, 1789.
Second: The suggestion that the appointment of an Tndten
Agent residing in the Iroquois territory somehow misled the Indians,
so as to make them understand they were "engaging the aredit of
the United States" in their negotiations with New York, is even
amore baseless suggestion than that Just considered. ‘To substan«
tiate this suggeation a quotation is made from the reply of
Washington (December 29, 1790) to o speach of Corn Planter, Half
Town, and Great Tree, chiefs and Counsellors of the Senecas.
Apes
quoted in the Bpitish Reply is intended to suggest, when taken
20» the first paragraph of Washington's speech which is
alone, that only the Federal Government would thereafter deal
with the Indians with reference to their lands, and it 1a upon
this inference that the balance of the British preposition is
hung. This Inference is, of course, wholly erroneous, ‘The Pederal
Government never has undertaken to acquire or dlapose of Indian
titles to lands within the jurisdiction of the State ef New York,
as is stated by Mr-Otla and quoted in the Oritish Reply, annex S63
Rpedliae "?he States owned, and never relinquished the
ultimate fee in the soil whieh the Indians right-
fully occupleds =~ - = "
MreChief Justice Marshall in Cherokee v. Georgia (5 Peters
# 16 to #20) sald, recognizing the validity of these very New York
Preaties:
#
"treaties were made with some tribes, by the State
of New York, under a then unsettled construction of the
Confederation, by which they ceded all their lands to
that State, taking back a limited grent to themselves,
in which they admittheir dependentness.”
Ap. 155. ‘That the State of Now York was entitled to deal as
it wished with the lands within its borders, was perfectly under-
stood by the Federal Bxeoutive at the time and expressly conoeded
by then, Seoretary of Wer, Knox, in s communication to Governar
ayinton of New York, said, under date of August 17, LV9ls~
"sdnt The President of the United States has
commanded me to transmit to your Hysellency, an ex~
tract of the report of Colonel Timothy Fickering,
who seted asthe commissloner of the United States,
at a late council held with the five nations of
Tydians at the Fainted Posty on the Sysquehanna.
"the object of the said council was, to con-
eiliate the sald Indians, end attach them to the
United States; to prevent them listening to, or
being combined with, the Yestern hostile Indiens,
Te more effectually to carry this deslgn into
execution, it was thought proper to draw them to a
greater distance from the theatre of war, andat a
critical period to hold out an object of employment
for the minds of thelr young mon, who erewlth dif
fioulty vestrained from indulging their ruling pa
for ware
“these objests appear to have been exeauted with
ebility and judgment, and good consequences may be ex~
pemted to flow from the councils :
“ But it appears, that the commissioner's desire
to accomplish the objects of his commission in the
greatest degree, has led him incautiously, atthe
earnest request of the Cayugas present, to ratify and
confirm a certain lease of lands, belonging to the
Cayuga nation of Indians, to John Richardson, and to
certify that a certain aselgnment of the Seneca Indlans,
to the daughters of Ebenezer Allen, wea done at a public
treaty, held under the authority of the United States.
No Goples, however, of either instrument, have been
retained, or produced by the said commissioner.
"to right of the State of New York, to the pre~
emption of the Cayuge lands, is unquestioned, and also,
that the said right embraces all possible alionations
of said lands by the Indians, with the concurrence of
Lon,
the United States, according to the constitution and
Laws »
"therefore, I do, by command of the President of
the United States, hereby transmit to your Excellency
an explleit disavowal of the conduct of the sald com
missioner, relative to the said lease of the Cayuga
lends to John Richardson, and also of the certificate
relative to the Senecas! assignment of lands, «o the
chlldven of Ebenezer aylen; and T am further ordered
to inform your Excellency, that the said acts of the.
sald commissioner were unauthorized by his instructions,
and will be considered as entively null and void by the
United States, :
"But if, however, the State of New York should
Judge that it would derive any benefit from the due
execution of said lease, the Executive authority of
the United States will do everything which may be
proper, upon tho occasion.
"Colonel. Pickering, who is Going to New York, will
personally wait upon your Excellency, to give you any
further explanations whteh you may request,"
The Syate of New York has from the date of the purchase of
these Indian Lands until the present time dealt with them as her
own, without question by the Federal Government: thereby establish-
ing the fact that Washington did not convey, and could not have
meant to convey, the impression whieh the British Case implies.
Ape Whe Tn the next place there are in Vashington's reply to
the Senecas from which the British Reply quotes, expressions omit~
ted in the 3pitish Gase, which clearly indleate that what Washington
head pelmarily in mind in speaking to the Benecas with reference to
their lands were the sctivities of Livingston, Phalpa, and Street,
who were seeking to purchase Indian jands under contracts which
wore regarded by both Federal and State authorities as imprudent 3
the speech of the Senecas to which Washington was replying dis~
cussed the negotiations between these men and the Indiens; these
were the same parties (with the inclusion of a Dr. Benton} whose
550
operations were refepred to with approval by the Indians in their
petition to Washington of June 2, 1789 referred to above, = the
fact belng thet the Indians seem always to have preferred to deal
with private partios inatead of with the Federal or State Govern-
ment, because the private parties made to them extravagant
promises and alee filled them wlth whiskey, All that Washington
sald to these Indians regarding their titles to land must be
read in connection with the particular thing which both the
Indlens and Washington had in mind. Washington's exact words
Ape71. vogarding the appointment of an agent should be 1n mind.
In his speech to Gorm Planter, Half Town, and Great Tree of Dec«
oniber 29, 1790, he used the following leuguage:-
"But your great object seems to be the security
of your remaining lands; and f have, therefore, upon
this point, meant to be sufficlently strong and olear
that you cannot be defrauded of your lends; that you
possess the plight to soll, and the right of refusing
to sell your lands; that » therefore, the sale of your
Tands in the future will depend entirely upon your-
selves, but that, when you may find 14 for your
interest tos ell wy part” 6 your Tends, the United :
wemeonanenaee parvrrcusensint £ rey enti
must be present, by thet? acent, “and wit be your
seourity that you shail not be defrauded tn the bar~
The peragraph in waieh Washington makes this statemont im-
mediately follows the one in which he diseusses the efforts of
Livingston, et al, to purchese Indien lands, Washington son-
tinuesi~
“Tt will, however, be 4mportant, that, before
you make any further sales of your lends, you should
determine among yourselves who are the persons emong
you, that shall give such conveyances thereof as
shall be binding upon your Nation, and forever prevent
all disputes relative to the validity of the sale."
B46
In the penultimate pavagraph of this reply, Washington mado
the following statements~
Ape’Be "Remember my words, Senegast Continue to be
strong in your friendship for the United States as
the only rational ground of your future happiness,
and you may rely upon their kindness aml protection.
dy agent shall goon bo appointed to reside in some
place convenient to the Sehecas and Six Nations. He
will ropresent the United States. Apply to him on all
oceastonsas TF any man bring you evll reports of the
intentions of the United States, mark that man is your
enomy; for he will mean to deceive you, and lead you
into trouble. The United Spates will be true aml faith-
ful to their engagements.“
In a later specch to these same Indians made January 19, 1791,
Weshington made this conment regarding the agent to be appointed:-
Ape79. "ne agent who wlll be appointed by the United
Spates, will be your friend end protectors, He will
not be suffered to defraud you, or to agaist in de-~
frauding you in your lends, or of any other thing,
ag all his proceedings must bo roported in writing
so asd tobe submitted to the Prosident of the United
States,”
Corn Planter, Half Town, and Blg Tree perfectly understood
the purpose of an appointment of an agent for they said in their
speech of farewell, dated February 7%, 1791:~
bp. 79. "Pather?: Weare glad to hear that you determmne
“ tO appoint an agent that will do us justice, in taking
care that bed men do notéome to trade amongst us."
EPs, 805 Nor were the $4x Nations themselves under any Lllusions
whatsoever as tothe Punction of this agent in the matter of the
transfer of Indien lands for little Cayuga Chief speaking at the
council at Albany on March 17, 1794, in a passage quoted by the
British in their veply (p12) said, voleing the precise sentiment
that was used by Washington in the first paragraph above quoted;
namely, ‘that the agent should be the security that the Indians would
nothe defrauded in eny bargain they might make:-
"spother; We wish the Superintendént apvointed
by the United States, General Chapin, to be present
and see justice done us in our negotiations, as we
look on him as our Mather. We do not expeet that he
will confine his care to us only, but that he should
be a medtator betwoen both parties."
stood that they were dealing with the State of New York and that
it was between the Syate of New York and the Indians that Chapin
should act as “medtlatoe between both parties." To read into this
statement the meaning, thet the Cayugas understood they were dealing
with the United States Government would be the groasest perversion
of the plain meaning of a plain expression.
Third: The use of the word "Father" Indicates moreover that
the Indians perfectly understood the distinetion between the Federal
Government and the different States, and wmderatood also when they
were dealing with one or with the other. This was not a new or
difficult concept, for thelr own Confederation was almost a veplica
of the Troquois Confemeration. In the Iroquole Confederation every
Nation had ite separate Gouneil Fire with one Gounell Fire for the
whole Six Nations, kept by the Cnondagas. ‘They understood the Gon-
federation of States to be of the same sort. They, therefore, ad-
dressed the keeper of the central Council Pyre as "Pather", bat
they addressed the Governoyw of the Spate of New York as “Srother".
They were scrupulous upon those technicalities, for they expressed
their concept of the situation wlth which they were dealing. Never
in all their negotiation with the Governor of the State of New York
did they make a slip in this regard. Thelr sense of national equal-
ity end independence did not permit them to deal withthe States
individually except on s basis of equalitys when they dealt wlth
the Federal Government, they edmitted the distinction implied In
“Father”, They recognized, in thelr dealings with other Indian
nations, like distinctions. No other nations have ever in their
negotiations been more punctilious in the observations of form
then the Iroquois Indiens. The record shows that on one ocdasion
Govyermor Clinton was taken to tesk by the Indians for his lack of
observance of their proper forms, and that the Governor excused
and apologized for his error. (Bp.697)
corn Planter, Half Town, and Big Tree perfectly understood
the difference. Intheir speech to the President on December 1,
1790, they saids~
Aps 63> "Rather! The voice of the Seneca Nation speake
Moreaver as showing how well they understood the difference between
the status of the States at the time of the Revolution and the s tatus
of the States under the Constitution, the following words of Corn
Planter and hie colleagues may be noted:~
Ap.64/ “Father? When you kindled your Thirteen Fires
separately the wise men that assén at then tol
‘ Us that you were all brothers, the children of one
great fire, who regarded, also, the red people as
his children. They called us Brothers, and invited
us to-hia protections"
In theiv speech of January 10, 1791, Corn Planter and his
colleagues speaking of the Treaty made by the United States with
the 51x Nations at Fort Stanwix in 1784, said, drawing a perfect
distinetions~
Aps Td. "Father, the Treaty was not madewith a single
State, it was with the Thirteen States.”
376
Bos 110. (2) When the full Cayuga Netion made tts fourth Treaty
for the disposition of 1ts reserved lands in New York, a
Treaty by which the, relinquished, as etted in the Treaty itself, “all
the land the sald Cayuga Nation claim or have any interest in in this
State”, they went to the State of New York to make such disposition and
not to the Pederal livvernasitt Nor does 1b appear that the agent
of the Federal Government Was even present at this negotiation,
Boy Loe ,
ot seg. (¥) Not only were these Tpeatles all made ot Council Fires
called by the Governor of the State of New York, but these
fires were all held in the State of New York, - The first (1789) at
Albany; the second (1790) at Port Stanwix; the thira (1795) at
Cayuga Ferry; and the fourth (1807) at Candarqua in New York,
Bp 942,
et Seq. (G) Rvery, annuity poid to end received by the Cayuga tn~
dians wes made by the State of New York; o very receipt whieh
wes signed by the representatives of the Cayuga Nation, including those
placed upon the back of the Treaty, recite the Cayuga Nation had
received “from the peaple ef the State of New York" the suns preceipted
Pore
Thus mist fel] any contention. that the Cayuges understood that in
dealing withthe Governor and the representatives of the Sate of New
York for the sale of their lands to the Strate of New York, they were
dealing with the Pederel Government. Ib seems idle to labor this
point further.
EL
‘That the signature of Israel Chapin as a wliness to the Cayuga
treaty of 1795 wade the Government of the United States Liable for the
“oorny ing out of the provisions sof, the Treaty
: Tmmediately following the discussion above considered the Reply
mpkeas the following statement
Gi i 5 otiated
yp sly, the Gayuga Treaty of 1705 was nese
ond deowatan WA the: epenge + tian het tenet ed ees
: qs " fas Indian Superinten :
; Eee tee Aik mane district the transaction was carried
‘ out. [ av " voaty of 1796 conati tutes
; ary t denfod that the Treaty of :
i a binding obligation upon the Strate of New Soe and that
the State became directly liable to the Cayuga NatLon or "
to the United States Indian Agent for t he stipulated annulty>
"Tt ip maintelthed that the situation thus created
{involves also the United Spates in direct liability to the
Cayuga Nation for the fulfillment of the obligation of the
treaty." |
1
AS a matter of: regal dlogte, this whole statement is nonsense.
furthermore, it does not, sate the facts»
At
Bp.» 100 In the iva place tho statement that this Treaty was
ie ‘ff
™ "sipned by Gene val Ysracl Chapin as Indian Superintendent of
the Northern Department" is untrue. The fact is, as show by the print
of the Treaty in the Brit! nh Case itself (Bp.109,942), Chapin signed
along with nine others, aa! a witness to the Treaty; his signature as
a witness is not “dgnoral Keraet Chapin’; and while his neme appears
first upon the copy! of tho! Treaty as given at Bp.109, 1t appears last
upon the scopy of tne Trea ty printed by the British Government as a
separate Annex at! Bp. 942 01
“A speculation might be indulged in by Inquiring whether t he
Labizity of these witnesses was joint op several, for certainly Lf
Tsrapl, Chapin rendgred the United States liable for the performance of
: ‘ ; wits igaed
this ride ty by sientig ag’ a witness, then every other witness who sig
vender: 4 himself able to the Canadian Cayugas for theperformance of
this — tmerg certainly ls no more reason in law or in facet for
/ treaty. © ¥
4 | bo
? t
fad !
4
L
holding one witness exclusively liable upon this endorsement as witness
then for holding another, and this ‘being so, one might, Lf he wished to
be technical, suggest that there is here a misjoinder of parties and
thet oll of these gentlemen who signed as witnesses should be made
parties defendant to this action of the British Government,
In the next place, it is not tre elther that "tt 41s not denied -
thet the State of New York bécame directly liable - » » to the United
States Indien Agent for the atipuleted annuity." Any auch contention
is most strenuously denied as being erroneous in point of fact and
wholly untenable in point of law. Tt makes no difference whose agent
"the Agent of Indian arfaire under the United States for the time being,
vesiding within this State" was (as recited in the Treaty), whether
the agent of the State of New York or the agent of the Cayuga Indians,
he was not a party to the contract (it 18 too elemental to require ar
gament that a person does not become a party to a contract merely be~
ceuse he is mentioned in it) and, therefore, not being a party to the
contract, but being in theory and in fact a mere stake holder ond dis
tributor, he was in no legal position to demand payment from the State
of Now York. Chapin was present at this Treaty.
Ape Tl. First: Pyrsuant to the polley involved in the state~
ment made to Corn Planter and his colleagues by Washington on
December 29, 1790, that “When you may find 1t to your interest to sell
any part of your lands, the United States met be present, by their
agent,» and will be your security that you do not be defrauded in the
bargain you make," end
Second: Pyrsuant tothe suggestion of Titgle Cayuga
Chief that "We wish the Superintendent appointed by the United States,
406
General Chapin, to be present and see justice done us in our negotia-
We do not expect that he will
tions, as we look on him as our Father.
confine his care to us only, bait that he should be a mediator between
both parties."
Thus Chapin being present as a medlator signed as a
witness. In what manner or way this situetion could, as is “maintained”
in the British Reply) involve “Aiso the United States in direct lia«
bility to the Gaviea Netion for the fulfillment of the obligations of
the Tpeaty", is not made ‘olear in the Reply andwithout some further
explanation cannot) be understood.
ire
Prvctcnoes
thet ginee the Government of the United States falled, as
a result of the diplomatia reprosentationa made by the British Govern«
ment to obtain forthe Cayuges the moneys which they claim, and since
the claim was by mutual acreement between two governments scheduled for
adjudication by this Tribunal as e pecuniary claim outstanding between
two governments , therefore, nothing te lacking to constitute Liability
in the United States.
the reasoning here 1s, of course, fallacious. If, the Inslusion
of the Cayuge elaim among the list of claims to be arbitrated between
the two governments constitutes an admission of Liability by the United
States, then the only question left to be determined would be the a»
mount of liability.
, By a parity of reasoning and of necessary conclugion, it woul
follow that the inclusion in the list of claims to be arbitrated of a
Claim against great Britain would likewise be on admission by Great
41s
Britein of her liebillty for the claim, leaving only the question of
amount to be determined; yet thewhole course of this arbitration hag in-
disated that such is not the result of an Inclusion of a claim in this
liste The only effect of the Inclusion of a claim in the list is to pro-
vide that the question of liebillity shall be submitted to arbitration. The
respective governments all but invartably assert non-liability upon the
claims brought againat each of them respectively. To argue that the
submission of a claim to arbitration involves the admission af lhebllity
for the claim on the part of the nation againstwhich it 1s made te to
atate a propoattiom too ridiculous to consider, As a matter of fact,
there does not appear in the dLplomatie correspondence as printed any
assertion by the British Government that the United Spates is liable
for this clatm. . : ;
Tt would seom that if the United Spates Government 1s to be
foujd liable upon thia claim udder Poknt TET Lt met be under one of
the following heathingss=
First: That the United States 18 under treaty obligation ~ the
Treaty of Ghent - to sce that the Cenadian Usyugas were restored to the
rights which they possessed in 1811. This ground has been slready
elaborately covered by the answer of the United States ~ Bo well covered
indeed that in Its reply, page 4, the British Governmont avers that:
‘Me British claim le not baged wpon Article IX
j of the Yreaty of Ghent."
fn view of the fact that paymenta actually ceased in 1809 when the larg-
feat movement of Gayugas took place to Ganada, and that the Canadian
Cayuges meade no effort whatever to secure a resumption of payment f or
more thantwenty years or until 1850, and after that at intervale of
from fifteen to forty ‘years, and that the British authorities had been
im
ia)
4B»
authorized to colleet for the Indians tor more than thirty-five years
before any action was taken, it 1s a reasonable deduction that the an=
nuities were not due in 1811 and were not by eny partles regarded as
due at that time, and that, therefore, the Cayuga Indians did not fall
within the perview of the Treaty of Ghent. This conclusion is forti-
fled by the fact that the United States scrupulously negotiated treaties
with the Western Indians within ite boundaries in accordance with and
0.
2B following its obligations under the Tveaty of Ghent,
pps 4-8 :
4s to the payment of annuities the Pacts seem to be thease:
(Bp. 110. In 1807 the Cayuga Nation made a treaty with the State of
New York which provided for the final disposition of all their lands
in that State. his Treaty provided for the payment to the Hation
of $4800.00.
Bp. 564, 566. The Genedian Cayugas admit partiolpation in this
Upeaty but deny that they have ever participated in any
treaties made since that date.
Bp. 945. The receipts upon the back of the treaty of 1795
acknowledge the payment of the annuity up to and including
the one made on the 12th day of June, 1809, except that no endorsemnt
is made on the Treaty apparently for the year 1908,
Moms pe a4 ~The prayer in the British Memorial edmitsa payment to
1810, by requesting payment from 1810 tothe present time.
Bos S64. The Memorial and Petition of the Indians of February 24,
1883, affirms that between Jyne 12 » 1809, and June 1, 1810,
Fish Carrier and all the vrema ining chiefs, warriors, end head~
men, together with many of the tribe, moved to Canada.
Taking these as admissions against interest and as representing
43 6
at least approximately the actual facts, 1t is evident no paymert was
ever made tothe Canadian Cayugas after this general movement of a
large body of the tribe im 1809-1810.
While hostilities were impending during 1810 and 1811, war was
not declared until midsummer of 1812, thus there were at least two
years; nemely, 1610 and 1811 1n which there was no annuity paid to
the Cayuga Indjens tn Canada, and yet there 1s no apparent veason, so
far as the pendency of hostllities.is concerned, why payment to these
Tndlans during these two years should not have been made, particularly
when 1t 1s recelled that these annuities were paid to the descendants
of Fish Carrier for those two years as also for the years during and
after the war, notwithstanding such a nnultants seened to have been
resident duving thia perlod in Canadd. Furthermore, the whole record
shows that instead of curtailing presents to the Indians ag hostilities
approached, both Great Britain end the United States increased them in
an effort to carry favor with the Indians and make oft hem allies.
Bpe 866. These facts raise a atrong presumption that 1t was
recognized at that time, as was expressed by Maitland
a fow years later (1621), thet thoso tribes which head moved to CGenada
from the States, "forfeited by expatrtation" these hunting grounds
and villege seats in which the Indians resided with their families
when not engaged in the hunt and which were located within the bound-
arles of the United States.
It wag not until twenty yearsimd elapsed end the old chiefs had
died that ¢laim began to be made for these annuities,
Tpus in 1310 the Canadian Cayugas seemed not to have regarded
‘themselves as entitled to a participation in the annuities paid by the
State of New York, which fact alone will adequately account for their
44.
failure to make demand for payment.
thus the Treaty at Ghent could have no application to the
situation arising betweon the Canadian Cayugas andthe State of New York.
Second: ‘That the United States is liable because the moneys
for a time were turned over to the Ssyuga Nation by the State of New
York through the Mederal Indian Agent presiding in western New York.
This wlll be discussed later. Legally, this avgunent means that if
A be the agent of B, end then © and D make A their agent, that, there-
fore, B becomes liable for the acts of 4 as theagent of ¢ and dD.
This ils legal nonsense, ‘that any such argument should be advanced in
support of this claim shows how attenuated the ¢ lain ta.
lpinds That. somehow the United States 4s liablo because of a
denial of justice to the Cayuga Indians on the part of he State of
New York: but no baste is leld In the record for any such claim as
this, nor could any such claim be austained. The matter has beenr e~
peatedly before the State of New York, and has besn before the courte
of New York. The Courts and the Bxeouttive have vopeatedly rmled in
effect that the claim of the Canadian, Geyugas te net a legal one be~
seuse they havé repeatedly held that the oleim is one for the exercise
of a sound Legislative diseretton. The Legislature on its part bag
vopeatedly had the case before Lt and has just as pepesatedly refused
tO grant any reltef., There is not in the whole record a sugeestion
of any corruption or malfeasance or improper prejudice upon the part
of either the courts, the’ Executive, or the legislature of the State
of New York with reference tothis ease. On the contrary, there is
an abundange of evidence that the case has been always considered by
45.
the Excoutive, and frequently by the Leglslature, with a sympathy
which at tlwes emounted almost to maudlin sentiment.
Fourth: That the Indians have been deprived of a remedy to
enforce their claim. Not all claims against any government canbe
the subject of judicial investigation and relief. Some grievances in
tholr very nature must be the subject of Legislative consideration and
disposition. In this cause,the complaining Indians have repeatedly
petitioned the Executive brand of the Government which haa patiently
Investigated the whole cause and declined relief. The Indians have
had thelr day in court which declared in effect that they had no legal
cause of action on the record as it stood. ‘They have applied to the
Legislature which has investigated and re~investigated and then has
declined to grant any relief. Thus they have had a hearing, not
meroly before one branch of the Govermment, but before ell branches.
The most that can be seid fer them is that which oan be said by and for
every unsuccessful end disappointed litigants; namely, that the tri«
bunals before whom they hed sppeared have not t aken the aame vlew of
the case that was taken by the failing litigants, and, therefore, the
tribunals have denied the relief asked for. Th every law suit there
must be one party disappointed; that is fully the situation in this
CASO.
Moreover, lt must never bo lost sight of that In so far as the
State of New York is concerned and in so far asthe United States ta
concerned, there is here no question whatever af “gotting something
for nothing; there is no question of unjuat enrichments there is
no question of either the State of New York or of the United States
466
having and holding something which ex sequo et bono they cannot re-
tein. For the facts are the State of New York has veligiously met
{ts obligations to pey the annuities called for by the Tpentles of
1789 and 1795 from theday of those Treaties down to the present time.
The only queation, therefore, 1s whether the United States shall pay
again an obligation which the Syate of New York has already fully mete
iy
Te United Spates is liable for my misapplication of the
amulties which may have been made by the agent for Indien Affairs of
the United States,., to whom, under the Treaty of 1795 the annuities were
payable.
Tiis contention is no better founded than the others,
Agsuming for the sake of the argument, thet it wastheduty of
the United States Indian Agent to see that thea nnuities were properly
distributed, s till under the wording of the Troaty itself and under
the custom established during the years 1796 to 1809, inclusive, for
payment under the Tpeaty - ae to which years there is no complaint what~
soever ~ it was not the duty of the United states fgent to see that
the money reached the Individuals of the tribe. The obligation of
the State of New York ran to the Cayuga Nation and no payment was ever
made except to representatives of the Nation. It was left to the
Nation to distribute the annuity as they saw fits. Ag was stated by
the Senate Committee on Indian Affaire in ita report to the Senate
BpAT5. of New York on April 15, 18912,
"Tat there was no obligation resting upon said Cayuga
nation to divide theannulty among the individual members
of sald nation, but that sald nation had the absolute right
to dispose of the same without aceountability to this
State, ani thatt he Stste of New York had ond has no
ale
right or authority to pay said annuity or any part
thereof to any individuel member or mewbers of sald
nation (gxcept when duly authorized so to do by said
Gayuge Nation} but can only discharge Lts troaty
obligation by paying said annuity entire to the duly
recognized representatives of the Ceyuga Nation of
Ipdians, so long as said people are recognized as an
existing nation.”
Bo» 651-656 « Tn answer to a letter from Mish Carrier and his friends
under the
eonplaining of the method of distribution of the annuity
Treaty of 1789, and to Fish Carrier's specific charge, "That
a fow Individuals --- run away withthe whole, to the prejudice ofa 11
the Pive Nations and tathe disgrace of your brothers”, Governor
Clinton voplicds
Boe 70e
“yg honestly paid them” (The Gayugaa attending the
Treaty) “a part of the purchase money before they left
this place, andthe residue we paid themat Port Stanwix
the beginning of Juno last, according to ow agreemmt,
and we cannot but think that they wlll make such o dia-
tribution of the money among those of their Nation who are
entitled to it, as 4s consistent with justice and the usage
among the Indian Nations. ‘This was our edvice to them, and as
far as we can with propriety interfere we shall always be
ready to give our assistance to see it done,"
In 1790, Governor Glinton, addressing a delegation of
Gayugeas under the leadership of Fish Carrier, saids
We paid ac onsidereble sum of money down and with the
consent of the Cayugas with whom wo negotiated and who ap-
peared to us disposed to do perfect Justice to the other part
of the Nation, we retained a very considerable sum of money
in our hands until the first of Jyne following, being the day
of the first ammal payment’ and upwards of three months after
the agreement was perfected. This sum, with an annual pay~
ment dipulated tobe made, we sent to this place by our
agent on the day appointed. Ue waited here a long time for
the aprival of your Nation, ac onsiderable number of whom
at longth came; among whom were several who we understood
resided at Butfald’ Greck and wio joined ti slentng the 2,e-
corpt fort he money. Tt equal Justice has therefore not
boon done to the different members of your Nation, the blame
fa not tobe fmputved to ts. Ve Gould usé no otier préeau-
tion than what we did to prevent Injustice. Wee ould ask
you to attend but we could not compel you.”
Bp. 58.
4B 0
Brendt, in weiting to Glinton, under date of March 4,
1791, (a yeer after the confirmation by Fish Carrier
and his assoclates of the Treaty of 1789) said:
~BR 1864-865
Bpse S69.
i
“I thank you and the Gomalssloners for the favorable
opinion you are pleased to entertain of the part I took in
accommodating the differences in the Gayuga Nation, but am
sorry the Nation have not succeeded better in the plan which
we thought most eligible, as well as correspondent with what
they were given to understand by the Commissioners at Fort
Stenwix. TI hope however the Legisleture will consider the
hardship of the majority of the Nation loosing the benefit
of the reserved lands, as well as the greatest part of the
proseeds of the rest, through the misconduct of a few of the
inferior part of the Natfon.™
The Sritish authori ties understood the matter in the
same way. Claus replying to a speech by Egho, deliv
ered on March’ 27, 1619, said:
"Your attachment to your Great Father the King of
England has never been questioned ani your adherence to him
during the two late contests with tho Amerloans certainly
has not been forgotten. The lends you speek of as having
jost in consequence have often been mentioned and I be-
lieve as often replied to and you cannot forget the Counell
held at Mort Bple where the late General Simcoo explained
fully to you thet by the treaty of 1763, they were particularly
secured to you and as a proof the American Government pur~
chased and paid you regularly until 1805, Why you did net
receive the regular instalments must be beat known to your
Nations (Onandagas and Cayugas) living at Buffalo, who I
should suppose have received the payment and withholds then
from you which must also ke the case with the Senceas and
TUB CALOPAS «
"You must be aware that this business was brought
before the King's “gniaters and an answer given which you
must have received.”
Chapin writing apparently to the Governor of the State
of New York under date of April 4, 1794, said:
“By the treaty the whole of the money for the Cayugas
ls tobe paid to me in trust for them, ond for this year
if I pecoive it will assemble the Chiefs of the whale
Netion, pay it to them, and let them make the divisiona
among themselves."
Bp 042» The recoipts show that this was the course taken by
Ot GB ge
— Chapin im 1796 and by himself or his successor up to
1809.
thus not only the wording of the treatios, but the understanding
of the parties and their practice under the treaties In distributing
the ewards during tie time that no complaint is made regarding such
diatribution, all chow that no one ever regarded either Lew York on
the party making the payment to the Indians es ever under any oblige-
tion to sce that Lt wes properly distributed among the individual
Indlans composing the Yayuga Nation. A moment's reflection will show
that at thet period of time it would have been impossible for the State
of New tork to have undertaken the responsibility of making such a dise
tribution, for as Governor Clinton’ said: "We could ask you to attend,
but we could not compel you". New York was dealing, as ther eport
of the Senate Legislative Comal ttee of New York stated, with the
Gayuge Nation as a nation and it was for that Nation to determine the
distribution waich should be made of its property.
But there is a more fundamental and vital objection to this con=
tention of the British Government than the ones alveedy given. This
point four (mow under discussion) is to be understood and considered
in somnection with point Iz (p.87 above), woich is “Yhat the alenature
of Isree] Chapin as a witneas to the Gayuga Treaty of 1795 made the
Government of the United States liable for the carrying out of the pro-
visions of the Treaty".
That polat and this point taken together are epparently intended
to make the following point that Chapin, being the Indian Agent of the
United Spates, end Chapin having put hls name upon the Treaty ~ even
thought only as a witness ~ thereby imposed an obligation upon the
United States, not only directly, as’ apparently intended mder point
two, but indirectly aab eing responsible for its agent as stated un-
der point IV. Or, to put it in other worda, 1t would seem that
the British Government by making point numbered II above intend to affirm
that the Upited States made a direct obligation through its agent and
by point numbered Iv now under consideration, the British Government
appears to intend to allege that the United St ates Government is
liable for the ‘acts of its agent even though not liable upon the original
obligation. This distinetion Is rather fine drawn at best, bub 1t
sooms to be thet which the British Government has in mind, In laying ;
the ground work for this latter contention, the British contend (bo quote
the words of the British Reply):
fopay ASt anawert tne orticatton of the State of ew York
under the Treaty was fulfilled by the payment of
the anoulties to the United States Indien Agent,
the U ed States must be liable for any mi
application of those payments by their egent.“
As a ground work for the discussion which follows, attention is
draym to the principle that » state ie responsible for and is bound by
those acta only of its agents whieh ere within the limits of their Gon-
atitutional capacity or of the functions or power intrusted to then,
put that for acts done in excess of such powers the state is not |
pound or responsible. Tis has been the law of the United States
from the very beginning. A similar rule. prevails in International |
lew (for collection of authorities, see Memorendm of Oral Argument . |
of the United States, Claim No.8, H.dsRandolph Homing).
Thia peineiple has beenc arpied so far in the jurisprudence of the
United G,etes that Naval officers acting under the positive instructions
Sie
of their superiors have not by their acts bound their government where
the instructions given by the superior officer were not warranted by the
laws
fais goneral principle is so much a part of ow law that nations
dealing with us must be considered to bé aware thoreof.
Tre Bei bish Governnent in its Reply (p+8) quotes os u ground of
inducement to its later peaition the provisiona of Section 4 of the Act
of July 22, 1790, thich was “An set to regulate trade and intercourse
with the Indian tribes.” ‘his section reads:
TL State. 138. "Bo it enacted and declered, that no sale of
lands made by eny Indians, or any nation or tribe of
Indians within the United States, shallbe valid te
any person or persons, or to any state, whether
having the right of preemption to such lands or not,
unless the same shell be made and duly exesouted
at some public Treaty, held under the avthority of
the United States."
It may in the first plece be observed that. as shown by the quotation
already made of the letter from the Secretary of Var to Governor Clinton
under date of August 17, 1781, (more than a year after the passage of
this Statute) the Federal Goverment expressly repudiated any rigat to
interfere with New York's disposition of the Indian lands and expreasly
afflemed that:
Seo page Sl, ‘the plght of the State of New York, to the
Supra, . peeemption of the Cayuga lands is unquestioned,
also, that the sald right embraces all possible
elienation of said lands by the Indians, with the
concurrence of the United States, according to the
Gonatitution and laws."
Furthermore, the form in which thia Treaty of 1795 was made indi«
cates that the United States hed no intent of expressing its concur
rence to this treaty or exercising ita authority with reference thereto.
As already stated, Israel Chapin was present at this Treaty at the ex-
press request of the Indians (see pege39~40 supra) as a mediator and
he signed as a witness and only as a witness with nine others
signing in tha same way. ‘thore fa no pecitation vhatever in the Treaty
that the United States was present In eny capacity vhatever. Thia is
probably to bo accounted for by the fact that the treaty of 1789, cone
firmed by the Treaty of 1700, was in reality a ceasion by the Cayugas
of all their lands with a grent back by the State of New York of certain
plghte of occupation. ‘hat such was the offeet of the original trans~
action is affirmed on the authority of Chief Justice Marshall, who in
Cherokee ve Georgie (see p.S1 above) getde
"Greatles were made ith some tribes, by the
State of New York, under a then unsettled construction
of the donfedoration, by which they ceded all thelr
lends to that State, taking back a limited grent to
themselves, in which they admit dependence,"
Thus since the State had alresdy in 1789 teken a full grant from
the Indians and had merely pr egranted back t o them aertain restricted
rights the Federal Government may woll have considered that the State
had authority to repurchase fromthe Ipdians without Federal inter posi-
tion rights which they had granted to the Indians.
As atated, the Tpeaty of 1795 when considered in contrast with
other treaties, negotiated under the authority of the United States as
provided for In the Statute above quoted, shows conclusively that the
Treaty of 1796 was not intended tobe so made.
On March 29, 1797, approximately two years after the making of
the Treaty of 1V08, New York made a Treaty with the Mohawk Indians
"under the authority of the United States", which 1s in words and
Figures a8 follows:
Z State. Gls it a treaty held under the authority of the United
States, wlth t he Nohewk nation of Indlans, residing
inthe province of Upper Canada, within the dominions
of the King of Great Britain, present, the honorable
Isaac Smith, commissioner appointed by the United
|
BSe
States to hold this treaty; éppahanm Ten Broeck,
Egbert Benson, and Szra t.'Hommedieu, agents for the
atate of New Yorks; captain Joseph Brandt, and captain
John Deserontyou, two of thes ald Indians and deputies,
to represent the said nation at this treaty,
"The said agents having, in the presence, ani with
the approbation of the sald commissioner, proposed to and
adjusted with the said deputies, the compensation sa here»
inafter mentioned to be made to the sald nation, for their
claim, to be extingnished by this treaty, to all lands
within the said state; 4t is thereupon finally agroed and
done, between the saida gents, and thes ald deputies,
ag follows, that is to say3 the said agents do agree to
pay to the sald deputies, the sum of one thousand dollars,
for the use of the sald nation, to be by the said deputies
paid over to, and distributed among the persons and
families of the said nation, according to their usages.
The eum of five hundred dollers, for the expenses of the
sald deputies, during the time they have attended this
treaty; and the sum of one hundrad dollervs, for thet xr
expenses in returning, and for conveying the said sun of
one thousand dollars, to where the sald nation resides.
And the said agents do accordingly, for and in the nane
of the people of the state of New York, pay the said
three several sums tothe sald deputies inthe presence
ofthe conmisstoner. And the sald deputies do agree to
eede and release, and these presents witness, that they ace
cordingly do, for and in the name ofthe said nation, in
consideration of the seid compensation, cede and release
to the poople of the State of New York, forever, all the
rlght or title of the seid nation to. lands within the
sald atate: and the claim of the said nation to lands
within the said state, is hereby wholly and finally ex-
tinguished.
“In testimony whereof, the said oomnissloner, tho said
agents, and the said deputies, have hereunto, am to two
other acta, of the same tenor and date, one to remain
with the United States, one to remain with the said state,
and one delivered to the saldd eputies, to remain with
the said nation, set their hands end aeala, at the eLty
of Albany, in the said. state, the 29th day of March,
én the year 1707.
TSAAC SMITH.
Joseph Bpandt
Abme Ten 3roeck
i John Deserontyon
Egbt. Benson
Bere L'fomedieu
Witnesses:= Robert Yates, John Taylor, Chas. Williamson,
Thomas Morris, The mark of Jahn Abeol, alias the Corn
planter, achief of the Senekag."
Goncerning this Tpeaty the folliwipg points are to! be, noteds
ii
Sas
(1) In its initlel paragraph tho Treaty recites that 1t is held
"under t he authority of the United States”;
(2) It recites the name of the "Commissioner appointed by the
United States to hold this Treaty";
(3) It vecites the namo of the “Agents for the State of New York";
(4) It veaites the names of the two Indians who "represent the
said Netion at this Tpeaty™ 3
(5) It specifies the swum agreed to be paid by the State of New
York: to the Mohawk Ipdians;
os
(6) the agents of the State of New York sgrea “in the name of
the people of the State of bew York" to pay the sane;
(7) It reoites the sgreement of the Indians through their deputies
to “cede and release tothe people of the state of New York, forever,
all the right or title of the said Nation to lends within the said
State; ' end the claim of the sald Netion to lands within the said State,
AS hereby wholly and finally extinguished";
(8) It contains, and this is most important, the name of the
U,Lted States Commissioner as the first signature upon the Treaty, and
this signature, as the Tyeaty is printed in the United States at large,
is: the most prominent and important of all the signatures. Below this
aigneture are printed the signatures of the agents of New York and the
deputies of the Mohawks:
(9) It algo carries the usual signatures of “witnesses”
(10) It specifies in the teatimonium clause that the Treaty is made
and signed in triplicate, one to go to the United States, one to the
Indiana, and one to the State of New Yorke
|
55.
The foregoing were the formalities which were observed when the
United States undertood to exercise authority over the making of
treaties between the States end the Indians.
No one of the foregoing charecteristios numbered 1, 2,
8, 10, above, appears in the Yreaty of 1705, thus indicating
that as to that Treaty the United States professed no such
right of intervention.
As to the Kohawk Treaty, this seems tobe the first and only
Treaty made by the State of New York with the Mohawks who had taken
up thelr residence "in the province of Upper Canada, within the
dominions of the Bing of Great Britain". ‘There was thus ample
and apparent reason for the Federal Government to participate in
the making of this Treaty.
Thus from the foregoing analysis it seems clear that
neither the United Spates nor the State of New York had ony thought
ov intention of concluding the Breaty of 1795 “ynder the authority
of the United States". When they wished go to act, t hey conducted
the negotiations and drew up their Troaty in a wholly different
form.
There is, however, still another reason way General Chapin
In signing the Tpeaty of 1795 as a witneas aid not bind the United
States, ond therefore make the Upited States lieble for hia act
as an agent; namely, that he had no authority to bind the United
Statese
Tt is elemental in the jurisprudence of the United States
that obligations may not be imposed upon the United States except
pursuant to the express authorisation of law. No executive officer
has any power whatever to engage the credit of the United states
B66
except pursuant to direct authorization, But the Statutes of the
time fail to Wield any intimation that an agent of Indian affatra
had any such power. By the agt of August 7, 1789, there was
created on ixecutive Department "to be dominated the Department
of War" which provided
I Stats. 80. that the Secretary for the Department of Var ahould
“perform and execute such duties as shall £ rom time to
time be enjoimed on, or intrusted to him by the President of the
United States, agreeable to the Constitution, --- relative to Indian
affairs ;"
i Gtats. 64, By a Statute dated August 20, 1789, provision was made
for "Defraying the expenses of negotiating and treating
with Indien tibes" through "Gommiasdioners who may be appointed
for managing such negotiations and treaties.” .
LStatse 67%. sn seb of September 18, 1789, provided "to the
Governor of the western territory, for bis salary
a8 such and for diseharging the duties of 8 uperintendent of Indien
affairs in the northern department, two thousand dollars,#
TBtatss 125. On May 26, 1790, @ Statute wae passed enacting:
Wan
tntondent of Imatan Mtaiee. por eee oF 8 Super
shall be united with those of the Governor,” a
L_ Stats. 156. On July 22, 1790, another Act was passed making an
appropriation "Vor defraying the expenses of negotiat~
me and holding a treaty, or treaties, and for promoting a frlendly
‘intercourse and preserving peace with the Indian tribes."
L_ Stats. 1376 Another Aet passed on the same day, July @end, pro~
vided that "No person shell be permitted to Gerry on
any trade or intercourse with the Indien tribes, without a license
for that purpose under the hand and seal of the Superintendent of the
Department, or of such other person as the President of the United
States shall appoint for that purpose."
Tt was thig Statute (p.188) which contained the provision con«
cerning the sale of Indian lands already quoted above.
T Stata, S29. On March 1, 1793, a second Act to regulate trade and
intercouras with the Indian tribes was passed, This
Aet provided as to the purchase of Indien lands as followss
“SEC. By AND BE TT FURVHER ENACTED, That no purchase op grant of
lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indiens or nation
or tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall
be of any validity in low or equity, unless the same be made by a
treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the constitution; and
it shall be a misdemeanor, in any person not employed under the auth-
ority of the United States, in negotiating such treaty or convention,
punishable by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprison~
ment nob exeeeding twelve months, directly or indiresetly to treat with
any such Indians, nation or tribe of Indiana, for the title or pur-
chase of any lands by them held, or claimed: PROVIDED NEVERTHELESS ,
That it shall be lawful for tho agent or agents of eny atate, who
may be present at any treaty, held with Tndlena under the authority
of the Upited States, in. the presence, and with the approbation of
the comaissioner or commissioners of the United States, appointed to
hold the same, to propose to, end adjust with the Indians, the com-
pensation tobe made for their claim to lands within such state,
which shall be extinguished by the treaty."
That at the time the Treaty of 1795 was made a Pederal
Statute provided not only that no treaty with t he Indians for their
‘ands should be of any validity in lew and equity unless the 6 ame
were made by a treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the
Constitution, but it made it a misdemeanor tobe engaged in the
negotiations of such treaty. It is, therefore, inconceivable that
the Federal Government end the State of New York should have pro-
coeded as they did if they had the slightest idea that by so doing
they were violating a Federal Act. ‘They must have considered that
(as intimated above) the Federal Statute did not apply to the
Gayuga lends title to which the State took in 1789.
Lspate. 4
le
On May 19, 1796, a third Act to regulate trade and
intercourse with the Indian Tribes and to preserve peace
on the frontiers was passed by Congress and which provided in Sections
12 and 15 as follows:
“SEC, 12. AND BE If FURTHER UNAGTED, That no purchase,
grant, lesse, or other conveyence of lands, or of any title
or claim thereto, from any Indian, or nation or tribe of
Indians, within the bounds of the United States, shall be
of any validity, in law or equity, unless the same be
made by treaty, or» convention, entered into pursuant to
the constitution; and it shallbe a misdemeenor in any
person, not employed under the authority of the United States,
to negotiate such treaty or convention directly or indirectly,
to treat with any such Indian nation, or tribe of Indians,
for the title or purchase of any lands by them Ield, or
claimed, punishable by fine not exceeding one thousand
dollars, and imprisonment not excecding twelve months:
PROVIDED NEVERTHELESS, that it shall be lawful for the agent
or agents of any state, who maybe present at any treaty
Weld with Indians, under the authority of the United States,
in the presence, end with tbe approbation of the cormissioner
oy comuissioners of the United Szates, appointed to hold
the same, to propose to, and adjust with the Indians, the
compensation tobe made, for thelr claims to lands within
such state, which shall be extinguished by the treaty.
“SEC, 13. AND BE IY FURTHER ENACTED, That in order to
promote civilization among the friendly Indian tribes, and
to secure the continuance of their friendship, 1% shall be
tewful for the President of the Unlted States, to cause
them to be furnished with useful domestic animals, and im-«
plements of hubandry, and with goods or money, as he shall
judge proper, and to appoint such persons, from time to
time, as temporary agents, to reside among t he Indians, as
he shall think fit; PROVIDED, that the whole amount of
such presents, and allowance to such agents, shall not
exceed fifteen thousand dollars per snnum.*
this ts the first mention found in the Statutes of the appointment
of Indian Agents.
These appear tobe all of the Statutes passed and affecting Indian
relations up to and including 1796. It will be observed that none of
50.
them mthorized the agents of t he Government acting under them to
greate obligations on the part of t he United States.
the early practice shows (sec Y Stats.) that whenever the
Government wished to incur en obligation with the Indian tribes that
it did so by meons of a forme, treaty which was in due course submitted
tothe Senate for advice and consent.
There is thus neither in the Statutes nor in the practice
of the Government any auggeation that the United States might tneur
an obligation with Indian tribes in eny wey excopt underand by virtue
of a treaty.
Por thermore, a consideration ofthe instructions given to the
various persons who acted as Indian Agents tothe Six Nations contain no
directions that could lead such agents to believe that they were author=
ized or empowered to obligate the United States, just as here 1a no
word iu this record that would lead to the opinion or justify Lt thet
Chapin in signing the Treaty of 1795 as a witness ever contemplated or
intended to bind the United Spates as a posponsible party to the Ceyugas. |
Ape80s Te first instruction appeering in the record was given
to Colonel Thomas Proctor under date of March 11, 1791.
It was signed by Genoral Knox, Seoretary of War, It chvered partiou-
larly councils with the Niemi and Wabash Indians, but Colonel Prator
bo reach the Mlamis and Wabash Indiens went first to Chattanooga and
Buffalo Cred in order to enlist the ald of the Six Nations in his
labors. He accordingly held various councils with the Six Nations
Ape lO. at Buffalo Gpeckand finally, through the Influence
of the women and over the seeming opposition of Fish
806
Carrier, 6b al, he secured the promise of a delegation from the
Six Netlons to accompany nim tothe Western Indians. The United
States having no boats on the Lays, Proctor endeavored to
secure a boat fromthe British authorities to make nis trip up Lake
fele to veech the Miamis, but the British authorities refused to give
him the uge of a boat.
Ape 85-86 » The Sesretary of War next gent ovt to the Yestern
Ind Lens Colonel Timothy Pickering under instructions
dated the second of Mey, 1791. Te opening paragraph of these In-
atruobions reads:
256 "sen: The Vice Prosident of the United States,
ABs AEDs. end t hd Heads ofthe Departments of State, who are
empowered thereto by the President of the United States,
having determined 1b to be oxpedient, at this t hse,
that the Six Nations of Indians, so termed, should be
assembled together, for the purpose of cenonting
the exiating friendships, andt hat this business should
pe performed by you, I have the honor of giving you
the instructions herein contained, which are to serve
as the general rules of your conduct."
Apsleds A succeeding paragraph of the instructions stated that
as tothe Six Nationa:
‘tHe gpoat object of the proposed meeting willbe,
to impress on the minds of the Indians, that their
interest and happiness depend upon the protection and
friendship of the United States end to conciliate their
affections, forwhich purpose you will vse your highest
exertion."
There was no word in these instructions even datimating that
Pickering had any authority to obligate the United States with ref-
erence to the payment of any obligations ineurred by a state. Indeed
the veal fact is that it is folly to look in any of thas correspondence
for any suggestion of that sort; the offleers of the United States
fromthe President down never had the slightest intention of ineurring
61.
any such obligation. Indeed one would be safe in saying the
thought never entered thelr minds.
APs 126 6 On May 18, 1791, Colonel Pickering received further
instructions fromthe Secretary of War. In these he
was told:
"Tt is sineerely tobe desired thet every effort be
made to establish peace with the Indians on a solid basis,
and, if possible, previously to an active campaign against
them. But, if foree must be exercised to prevent their de~
predations, 1t is to be hoped that lt will be administred
in sueh a manner as to bring them to terma, so as to pre-
vent the necessity of another campaign. You will, there-
fore, to the utmost of your power, give every facility
to all the messages of peace, and impress all the Indians
who shall come within your sphere of action with the
justice and humanity of the Ugneral Government."
Ape le? Bubsequent instructions , dune 15, 1791, from the Sec«
cretary of War to Colones] Pycokering contained nothing
that changed the general tonor of the instructions already quoted.
Ape 120. On the 12th of April, 1791, the Secretary of War had
written to the Governor of New York; he wrote again
under date of April 28th.
Apslgls The Governor of New York replied under date of
, April 27, 1791, to which the Secretary of Wer returned
an answer under date of May 11, 1791. But this entire correspondence
related to the prospective hostilities with the Western Indians and
there is nothing in it suggesting that the United States would assume
with reference to the dealings of the State of New York with the
Six Nations the position of guarantor to joint obligor.
It wil] be recalled that St.Clair's humiliating defeat occurred
On November 4th of this year (1791),
26
Ape 158. Tt was in this year under date of August 17th that the
Secretary of War wrote to the Governor of New York the
Jetter already quoted above, recognizing the "right of the Strate of
New York to the preemption of the Cayuga lands" embracing "es 1 possible
alienation of said lends by the Indians." Furthermore, the report of
Colonel Pickering on the transection which the Seeretary of War repud-
tated in the letter last referred to, shows that he also recognized
“thet the preemption right wes with the State of New York", but
that he was misled by false Information.
Apes 248 0 On March 25, 1792, certein chiefs and werrilors repre~
senting the Troquols came to Phidadelphia to see the
president. ‘Vo these chiefs the President made a speech. The only
passages relating to lands therein reads as followa:
Apes 149% "y oem aware that theexisting hostilities with some
of the Western Indians have been ascribed to an unjust
possession of their lends by the United States. But
be assured, that this ia not the case; we require no
‘Lands put these obtained by treaties, whica we consider as
feirly made, and particularly confirmed by the treaty of
Muskingum in the year 1789.
"Te the Western Indians should entertain the opinion
that we want to wrest their lands from them, they are
laboring under an error, If this error could be corres ted
46 would be fort heir happiness; and nothing would give me
more pleasure, because lt would open to both of us the
door of peace."
fo"these Indians so assenbled certain presents were made and
#1500, annually, were stipulated to these Indians by the "President and
Senate of the United states".
Apes 150 Under date of April 25, 1792, the Secretary of war
gave the following instruetions to General Chapin:
"sors T have the pleasure to inform you, that the
President of the United States, appoints you a deputy
temporary agent to the Five Netions of Indians, until
further directions, ab the rate of five hundred dolliers
per annum ’
ttt will be necessary that you should take the eaths
whieh ave herein enclosed, before a magistrate, and trans~
wit the same to mes \\ .
‘1 herewith tranamit you, by the hands of\ Doctor
Deodat Allen, the sum of four hundred dollars. \ ‘
‘ihe mein object in placing thie sum In your hands
at present, is to enable you to make a guitable provision >
for Captain Joseph Brandt, who At is expected will shortly
make a visit to this city, and to request that you would) 1A.
either accompany him to this city, or thet you, would other- 4
wise prowide for his Journey in a manner perfectly agreeable,
to himy andthat you would give me due notice of his ap- 3
proach at least five days previously to his arrival here.
#7 shall shortly transmit you particular rules for |
your conduct in tiis ofLLoe. (
"ty the meantime I observe that it isthe firm deter~ |
mination of the President of the United States, that the H
utmost fairness and kindness’shall be exhibited to the
tndlen tribes within the United States. 4
tohat i ie not only his desire to be at peace with
all the Indien tribes, but to be their guardians and
protectors against all injustices Vo.
®you will please be observe, that a due accounting
of all moneya or goods, placed in your hands, will b ‘
rigidly exacted, ond that you ust always produc@ vouchers
for every dollar expended." :
}
i F
Aps 152. Tyo days later, april 26th, the President delivered’
through a delegation of the Five Nations at Philadelphia
! AA
the following measage to the Indlanss i
"yy Children of the Fyve Nations: You weve! invited
here at my request, in order that measures should be con~
eerted with you, to impart such of the blessings of eiv- |
Llization as may et present suit your condition, and give.
you further desires to Improve your own nappineds. !
“golonel Piekering has made the particuley arrange~,
menta with you, to carry into execution these opjects, all
of which I hereby approve and confirm. i
"and in order that the money necessary to defray the
annual expenses of the arrangements woich nave been made!
should be provided permanently, I now ratify an article!)
which will seoure the yearly appropriation of the sum off
one thousend five hundred dollers, for the use! ani penef it
of the Pive Nations « the Stockbridge Indians inciuded.’ »
‘me United States having received end provided for’
you as for a part of themselves, will, Tam persuaded, | -\
be atrongly and gratefully impressed on your winds, and those
of gil your tribes. : rook
*Let it be spread sbroad among all your villages , amd
(
64.6
NN
throughout your lend , that ib he United States are desirous
not only of a general peace with allt he. T,dian tribes, but
of being their friends and protectors.
"Tt has been my dirdetion, and T hope. it has been
executed to your satisfaction, thatd uring your residence
here, you should be well fed } well lodged, and well
clothed; and that presents ‘ahould be furnished for your
wives and families. Boy
‘yt partake of your sorrow on account that 1t has
pleased the Great Spirit to take’ from you two of your number
by death, since residence in! this olty. T have a@dered
that your tears should be wiped away according to your
custom, and that presents should be gent to the relations
of the deceased. : og
"OQyr lives ave all inthe hands of our Maker, and we
must part with them whenever he shall demand themy and the
survivers must submit to events they cannot prevent.
“Having happily settjed a1] your bisainess, andboing
about to return to your own cauntry, I wish you a’ pleasant
journey, and that you mey safely return to your families
after so long a journey, and find themaill in good, health,
“Given under my hand) ete.
GRO. WASHTNGTON"
Ap,153-156 Finally on April 28th, tha Scoretary of War gave his
final instructions to General, ‘Chapin, reading as
follows: :
“sipi Having transmitted you the original of the
enclosed duplicate on the 23rdiinstent, by Doctor Deodat
Allen, I now transmit you, by NeedJoseph Smith, the
following general rules and orders, for your government as
deputy tomporary agent fox the 'Pive Nations.
"Bnelosed you have a “Law of Congress volative to
Indian affairs, and certain regulations which have been
delivered to the superintenddénfiay all of which you will.
observe, as far as the seme shalilbo applicable to you
as deputy agent. ii
Yanthur StbeClair, Haqs, the Goyernor of the territory
of the United States northwest of tha Onio, 1s the super~
intendent for the Northern digtriet.' You being, there-
fore, under hin, will correspond with, aml inform him of
all general ogourrences in your fgenoy, and receive and
obey his ordegrp in all things relative thereto; and at
the same time jyou will constantly eorres pond with me
as Secretary of War, and receive and obey ell orders
I shell transmit to you, as the orders of the President
of the United) States. i :
"rt being important for the regular administration
; ef j
A | A
856
of the Departments of Govermnent, that every transaction
should be made with due foypmg you will, therefore, please
to observe, that,far ol] sums and effects you receive,
you must apedit the United States, by the department
through which you have received the sald sums and effects.
Yhat for all your deliveries you wlll debit the United
States, noticing the cause of such deliveries, and to
whom; and in all practicable cases, you will take re«
ceipts for the articles and-aums delivered; and for all
other cases, you wlll have certificates of respectable
witnesses, of the deliveries.
. "By adhering to these general principles, and keeping
your accounts in a persplcuous manner, they will be
passed with ease, and much perplexity prevented on your
parte 3 .
“Theat ib ia the most ardent: desire of the President
of the United Spates, and the Genewal Government, that
a firm peace ghould be established with the neighboring
tribes of Indians, on such pure principles of justice
and moderation, as wlll enforce the approbation of the
dispassionate and enlightened part of mankind,
“mat it is the intention of the President of the
Unibed Syates, thet an edherence to this desire, as to
a well founded maxim, shall be the leading feature in the
administration of Ipdien affairs, while he is atthe head
of the government. :
"Mat he shall lament, exceedingly, all occasions which
shall elther suspend or impéde the operations of those
principles, which he considers essential to the reputation
and dignity of the republic.
"that tn pursuance of these Ideas, he endeavored that
a genuine state of their situation, and of the general
dispositions of the Upnited Sates, upon this subject, should
be brought home to the minds of the Western Indians, before
any coercion was attenpted. F
‘that, although the essays to this end were then inef-~
fectual, yet it has been his directions, that similar inti-
mations shall be continued. (sie)
That, therefore, every effort is making, In order to
impress the hostile Indiens with their past errors. Theat
the United States require nothing of them but peace, and a
line of conduct tending to their own huppiness.
‘mat wll which is passed, shall still be buried in
oblivion, provided they wlll immediately agree to a treaty
of poace, in which they will obtain oll they can posaibly
desaive, and relinquish nothing; for we demand none of
their lands.
‘mat we are not sensible the hostile Indians, thet is,
the Miami and Webash Indians, have any ijugt claims to lands
comprehended in the former treaties. But, notwithstanding,
if they show they possess a fair right to any of those lands
they shall receive a liberal compensation for the same.
6G.
"It is presumed, 1f these sentiments could be full
impressed on the minds of the hostile Indians (and measures
are teken for that purpose) that the atablishment of
trangullity on the frontiers, would be the provable conse~
quente.
"put if the hostile Indians should, after having these
intentions of the government lald fully before than, sti 11
persist In their pre depredations on the frontiers, it will be
considered as the dictates of humanity, to endeavor to punish
With exemplary severlty, so incorrigible a race of men, in
order to deter other tribes, in future, from a like conduet,
"In pursuance of these friendly sentiments, the United
States have stipulated with the Pave Nations the following
article, and have thereon made the arrangementa contained in
your speeLal ingtructions of this dates
"' QNORGE WASHING
fmerica,
"TO ALL WHO SHALL SEF (NESE. PRESENTS, GREUTING:
"“Whoreas an article hes beens tipulated with the Five
Netlons of Indians, by and with the advice and consent of
the Sonate of the United States, which artlele 1s in the
words following, to wits
“'the Prosident of the United Statea, by Henry Knox,
Secrstary of tho Department of War, stipulates, dnb ehalf
of the United Szates, the following arti¢ie, with the Mve
Nations of Ipdiens, so called,being the Senecas, Oneldas,
end the Stoekbridge Indians, incerporated with them the
Tuscaroras, Cayugas, and Ongndagas, towlt: The United States,
in order to promote the happiness of the five Nations of
Indians, will cause to be expended, amuelly, the anount
of one thousand five bundred dollars, in purchasing for them
clothing, domestic animals, end implementa of husbandry, and
for emcouraging useful artificers to reside in their villages.
"In benalf of the United States:
(haGe H.KNOX,
Secretery for the Departiaont of ware
"Done in She prosende of Tobias Lear
Nathank Jones."
Hy President of the United States of
“Now, Know ye, That I, having Been and ¢ onsidered the
seid article, do accept, ratify, and confirm the same,
"In teatimony whereof, I have gaused the seal of the
United States to be hereunto affixed, and signed the same with
my hand. Givenat tho City of Philadelphia, the twenty
thind day of April, im the year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and Yinety-two, and in the sixteenth year of the
sovereignty and Independence of the United States.
GHO. WASHINGTON,
By the President:
THOMAS JEFFERSON,"
67.
"You will clearly understand, that the United 3 rates
have, under the constitution, the sole regulation of Indien
affairs, in all matiors Wnateocever. You wlll, therefore,
receive no orders but from me, in the name of the President,
and from the superintendent.
"In all your transactions, your conduct must be marked
with exonomy, and due ragard to the public interests. Your
permenent appointment ast your reputation, will matorially de»
pend on your attention to this order.
"Tt will, therefore, bo your duty, not only to guard the
public property from waste or embegzjoment, but to prevent
any other person from doing the samé. Your aecounts will be
pigidly examined, and ony devietions from this ordor will be
in yew own wrong. .
“You are to understand that any improper assembling of
the Indiens, will be considered as a violation of your orders,
and will be severely censured, besides the expenses disallowed.
"It willbe proper, that you establish some certain
mode of communicating with me, by confiding your letters te
some persons of reputation, on the route from Canandaigua
to Philadelphia.
"Colonel Plekering is of opinion that Matthias Nollen=
back, of Wilkesbarre, Buy Maxwell, Esquire, at Tioga Point, and
Mxvedohn Morris, at Newtown Point, would be proper persons
for this purpose; T shall, accordingly, direct my letters
to you through them until I receive your further commun«
ieations on the subjects
"Given, ete.
lL. KNOX,
Secretary for tho Department of War."
There ia not in any of these documents any statement whetsoever
that could be construed into an authorlty on the part of Chapin to bind
the United Statea as a guarantor of treaties between the Six Nations
andthe State of New York. On the contrary, it is evident from the
quoted article stipulated with the Five Nations forthe payment of
certain annulties that such undertakings were always made “with the
advice and consent of the Senate of the United States".
Ags 157. In the correspondence between General Chapin and the war
eb 2245, Department, there ls no expression whatever that can be
properly regarded as authorizing or as contemplating that Generel Chapin
had power to bind a General Government as a guarantor of New York's
686
under takings «
thus 1t would seew that the Bpitish Government is not entitl~
ed to e decision in this case on any ground which it has thus far
alleged.
Furthermore, a careful perusal of the Memorial and of the
Reply leaves no peasonable doubt but that there has been a shift of
position by thé Sritish Gevernment in the matter of thelr rights to
recovery. Clearly thetr first idea was to basethelr principal
argument upon the provisions of the Treaty of Ghent. From that
position they were driven by the americen answer. They have, theres
fore, in thelr Reply sought to develop other grounds which are even
less tenable than the one based upon that Treaty.
It will be observed that the foregoing memorandum contains no
discussion whatsoever of the liability of the United States under the
Treaty of Ghent. Such a discussion has beonr efrained from: Firat,
because tho British seemed to have ebandoned their contentions uder
this heeding, and, Second: because if they had not the subject was
already sufficiently cavered in the Answer.
SO.
Both in the Memorial end in the Reply, the Sritish Govern-
mont have madé certain statements of fact which in the form in woich
they are put are not borné out by the record, Those in the Memorial
are collected hereinafter under appropriate headings as follows:
(A) "Move of Gayugss to Cansda."
Hxtracts from Kemorlal:
Memo. pe 3, The settlements and villages of the league were
then found planted within the territory which
became the State of New York, where the con-
fedorate nations continued to reside In undisturbed possession
wntil the time of the Revolutionary War, shortly after
which they migrated to lands lying upon the Grand River in |
Canada where they have ever since been domiciled and estab+
lished, maintaining thelr cohesion, ancient constitution and
method of government.
Mem. pe Sa It 1s pertinent to observe that a considerable
movement of the Caoyugas to Canada took place = ,
imuediately after the Treaty of 1790, and that:
forthe purposes of the Treaty of 1795 the representatives.
of the nation from Ganada attended at Gsyuga Ferry, where the
treaty was made, upon the invitation of the authorities of, the
State of New York.
Meme pe 8. Only @ small remment of the Cayugas ~ probably
the aged and helpless ond those unqualified, for
war «~ were upon thelr ancestral lands.
Mem. pe» 9. Vhenthe State of New York, early in 1784,! gent
Peter Hyckmen os lts messenger to call in ‘the Mohewka,’ \
Onondagas, Gayugas end Senecas to a conference respeobing
peace, he was, lt will be observed from the letter of in-\
atructions given him by Governor Slinton, sent to Nidgara,
which wasthe heedquerters of the Bpltish in that region, |
the fort there not having been delivered to the United ‘
States until 1706, : A
yA
Mem. ps 10. ‘There was some delay in the proceedings pwing
to the deliberations of the Indiens who ‘had Keen
summoned, and it appears by the commissioners"
minutes that on 7th June messengers arrived from the Cayugas
residing at Buffele Creek, and from Chief Brant andthp ;>
Mohawks residing at the Grand River, stating that the Cayugas
{ Ph
We
and Mohawks were on thelr way to the treaty and asking
whether the commissioners would await their coming,
Gomment: This question is fully discussed in Annex E,
annexed hereto. From the evidence collected there,
it is perfectly clear t hat the bulk of the Cayuga Indians re~
mained in New York until 1809 or 1810. As alpveady pointed out,
Bp. 564 this was the declaration of the Indians themselves in
their Memorial to the New York State Legislature of 1883 »
It ls true the Indiana wore, from the period immediately following
the Revolution, collected in greatest numbers in the weat-
ern part of the State of New York, with headquarters at Buffalo
Creek, Where, until the middle of the 1790's the British held
Port Magara, but while they were thus under British influence
they were on American territory and were dealt with by the offi-
Olals of the State of New York as being still American Indians.
(3) NATIONAL sTtaTvs OF INDIANS.
Extvacte from Memorials
ems De Ss The Six Nations were recognized ag independent
nations and allies by the Dyteh and afterwards
by the Lnglish to whom the butch surrendered
thelr possessions in 1664. - :
ngs pe. When the thirteen colonies revolted aad subs
oltted their newly declared status of index”
pendence to the lasue of war, four off the Six Hations of
Indians; namely, the Mohawks, the Senecas, the Onondagas, and
the Cayugas remained true to their alliance and fought for
the Bpltish cause. wd
h
* i
Mom. Pe 8. Accordingly commissioners of the United States,
at Fort Stanwix in the State of New York fy ONL
the 2nd Oetober, 1784, held a treaty with the
Six Nations, made peace with them, defined the bounds of
their respective territories, and guaranteed the natlLons in
the possession thereof, f
/
Mem. p+ 9» In the result the General Government régognized
Ye
the natlonal qualities of the Six Nationa, and
by the Treaty of Fort Stanwix on end Ogtober, 1784, already
referred to, made peace with tm directly, and g ueranteed
thelr lands.
Comment a, This subject hes been auffictentiy dealt with
under Annex B, "Indien Nationalty* In constdera-
tion of this ease on the theory that the Indiens were inde~
pendent Nations, equal in position with the United Statea ox
with Gpeat Byltein fs wholly unsupported by the record and by the
facts. It is true the Indians, even the Pive Nations, like ta
pretend sucha peaition, but os was stated by the United States
Ape 258. Commissioners to the Confederated Indian Nations
assenbled at the rapids of the Miami River on
July 31, 179Gs«
"Brotheras We ave determined that our whole conduct
shall be marked with opennees and sincerity. We, therefore,
frankly tell you. that we think those commissioners put an
erroneous construction on that part of our treaty with the
Kind. As he had not purchased the country of you, of course
he eould not give 1t away; he only relinquished to the
United States his claim to its ‘That claim was founded on a
vight acquired by treaty, with other white nations to exclude
them from purchasing, or settling, in any part of your
country; and it is this right which the King granted to the
United Sfates» Before that grant, the King along had a
vight to “purchase of the Indian nations, any of the lands
between the great lakes, the COhlo, and the Kississippi,
excepLing the part within the ¢ harter boundary of Pennsyl-
venia; and the King, by the treaty of peace, having granted
this right to the United States, they alone have now the
right of purchasing; so that, now, neither the King, nor
any of hia people, have any right to Interfere with the
ited States, in respect to any part of those lends. All
your brothers, the English, know this to be true; and/it
agress with the declaration of Lord Porchester, to your
deputies two years ago, at Quebec.
"Bpothers: We now concede this great point. We,
by the express authority of the President of tho United
States, acknowledge the property, or right of soll, of/ the
great country above deseribed, to be in the Indian nations,
80 long as they desire to occupy the same. We only claim
particular tracta in it, as before mentioned, and the
general right granted by the King, as above state dy 3
is well known to the bnelish and "leaer cana, and aren
vight of prewemption, or the right of purchasing of tho
Indian nations disposed to sell their lends, tothe ox-
Clusion of all other white people whatever.®
(CG) AUMIORT TY OF INDIANS ATTENDING T HE C OUNGTI, 't
NEGOPIATE BREATY OF 1789, ONGEE TO
Bxtracts from Momortal:
Heme pe 4a This treaty was not in Lact, howe,
Ech ede “Se 8 2n, ver, executed
any sachem, or competent Indian author Ly. ae by
Moms pe 4e For reasons which will hereinafter be stated
arising fromthe absence of national euthority
On behalf of the alleged chiefa and warrlors
pertles to the treaty of L789, Lt was vound necessary or
to negotiLa wit @
Ge eas chiefs, the constituted phe on bi ene
yoyuga Setion, in order to make effective bar Pov ° 4
the treaty, end in the result sontirmation’ teak pines Er ‘a
treaty held at fort Stanwix on 22nd June 1790, between
Governor Clinton and others, comsissioners on behalf or
the people of the State, and the sachens, chiefs and
warriors of the Gayugas.
Moms pe D« There geens to have been some apprehension for a
time of conflict of authority in respeat of the
status which was tobe accorded tothe Indiana »
Melis Pe Oe While these procesdings were in progress, or while
the vopresentative Cayugas were absent in connes=
: tion therewith, Governor Cyinton and his brother
, comalssionera of New York negotiated a treaty at Albany with
eertala Cayuges, men and women, from the reservations, :
Lome De 9s Jhon the euthorities of the Cayuge Netilon were ine
formed of these proececdings Fish Carrier, who had
been absent withthe other Cayuga chiefs at Port
Hanmer 5 denounced the treaty of 1789 as made with “boys and old
women," not competent to bind the nation, and a written protest
on behalf of tho nation was sent to Governor Clinton.
Hem. pe 10 The *benevolence" was evidently paid to recoup tho
representatives of the nation who were not present
at the treaty of 1789 for their share of the money
they paid and which the Indians who executed the latter treaty
hed approprieted to themaelves.
Moms ps 15. He veforred to the purchase of 1789 in which, as
’
vier
hasbeen shown, the state had dealt with “boys ani
old wonen" of the nation who hapnened to be upon
their native lands, and not witht he governing representatives
of the nation, who were then at Buffalo Greek ani contemplating
a new settlement upon coming te terms with respect to their
interests within the State.
Memepel3. (These Cayuges were evidently from the reservation. )
— He sent them home, awaiting presumably the Indians
from Buffalo Greek and the Grand River, who had
been summoned pursuant to the resolution of the legislature.
Mgine pal4. O1ear Sky, an Onondaga resident at the Grant River,
— then made a speech to the General, who explained
that an ipregilar purchase of Onondaga lands had
been meade the previous fall against his advices
Mem» pe 1é. On 10th March, 1794, Governor Clinton by massage
—_— tL? Led the legislature that the Onondagas and
Cayugas from the Grand River were in Albany.
Moms pel4. On 13th Merch, 1794, Governor Clinton met “the
— “~~ Gayuzas and. Onondagas from Buffalo Creek and the
Brand River," and after referring to the negotia-
tions for the Onondage Treaty of 1788, said that "the winter
following the Cayugas who remained in thelr own country,”
(meaning on the reservation) “met me at a council
fire" at this place ani made oa similar covenant with
me. I then hoped "that everything was finally adjusted
to general satiefaction, but it was not long before I
was inforned that some of your nation who had left their
country and resided on Buffelo Greek were not. contented
with these agreements because they were not present ait! their
completion. |
1
gis Pe 15+ The Indlens to whom he was then speaking hed not
been on the reservations since at Latest the close
of the Revoluntionary ‘iar.
Mems pel5 On Vth March, 1794, the Governor held another
“ meeting witht he same Indians from’ Buffalo Creek anil
the Grand River, and Inthe result he obtained thetr
assent, as he had already obteined the assent of the Indians
upon the reserve, to the sale of thetwy lends.
MemspelS. The recognition on the part of the state of the
Cayuga nation as embracing those who had not re-
turned to their lands efter the war, and even
although some of them were residing in a fore¥gn furiadtetion
and others awalting only the disposition of their interests
comes
14.
in the atate in order to seek a new settlement, was this
deliberate and formal.
What would have happened ifthe State of New York
had not desired to purchase the Cayuga reservation
does not appear, but 1t is certain that the Cayugas
who remained upon the reservation, insignificant as they were
in numbers and in strength, had neither the power nor the
right to prevent the warriors of the nation under their ace
customed leaders and chiefs, civil md military, from resuming
the posseasion to whieh they were ontitiled, ani which they
had never abandoned, though they hed temporarily withdrawn
from their lends for purposes of war.
Mems+p. 16.
Moms pelSe
The account of Jasper Parrishs ent to the commis-
sioners and paid by they shows that he was
oveupled from 10th May to 9th July, 1795, in
collecting and conducting the Grand River and Buffalo
Creek Indians to Cayuga.
MemepolS. It appears from a letter of Wed Chew, dated 26th
“ dune, 1895, that at about that date some 150
Indians from the Grand River and Buffalo Greek
passed through Niagara on their way to Gayuga to sell their
dands. s . .
Memepal?e Of these, twelve, in the full enjoyment of their
official powers and jurisdiction, are known to
hove. settled upon the Grand River lands, of whom
six were resident there at the time of the oxesution of the
treaty, and the pemainder were either then residing there, a
removed thither shortly afterwards.
Moms pele May of the Cayugas were already in Ganada3 others
Joined them, andthe nation, headed by all its
sachens, became permanently established at the
Grand River, where it st111 flourishes in waion with the
‘ancient confederacy.
the British have attempted to make a great point
j of the alleged informality and insufficiency of
the Tre#ity of 1789 on the ground that that Treaty was made on
the part: of the Indians by individuals having no authority
to negotiate for the Nation. ‘the Indians themselves who did
sale of the lands had been made by a parole of boya and old
women, md not by the chiefs, and that these chiefs were de-
termined that the State should not hold the lends by virtue
Bp. 715. of said sale.™
4g to the partiolpation of the "old women" reference
is made to the material collected im Annex I, » "position of
Wonen as to Lend Owmership and Iq Indian Councils," and also
materials collected in the american Answer at pages 761, et
seqs 780, et seq; 801,e% seq; and 1086.
Ail such oriticims of this Troaty of 1789 as that
quoted above should be read and considered in light of the
fact that there was a very sharp and bitter division between
branches of the Cayuga Nation at this time, and nothing that
either branch did was apparently fully satisfactory to the
other branch.
An account of the negotiations of this Treaty as
contained in the British Gase shows the following:«
At a meeting of the Commissioners for holding treaties
with the Indians on February 14, 1789, at Denniston's Tavern
in the Gity of Albany, “the Chiefs and warriors of the Cayuga
Nation, with the female governesses ani other women
Bpsthts attendings" At this meeting an Oneida Chief, Domine
Peter, spoke for the Gayugas. After speaking for the warriors,
Peter continueds
Bp» 6180 "You have heard our Volee, we now entreat you to
open your cars and hear a speech from our Sisters, the
GOvernosses »
“BROTHER 3»
“Our ancestors considered 1b a great transgression
not attend the Treaty (Fish Carrier, et al) charged that "the to reject the Council of thelr Women, partioularly the
; female Governesses. Our ancestors considered thom Mistresses
a
1. i
i
1 /
{ /
i
i f
i i
Ai
76.
of the Soll. Our ancestors said : 1 Z "T am advancing In years and little accustomed to address
cultivate our Lends, who kindles ur pinse meg eee /} your sex in ‘public; you will therefore excuse the imperfections
Pots, but the Women. Our Women sa they ina e, ee : ‘ ‘) of this speech. IT have some Sachems here with me in the Vigour
hed of late lost t he Power of Thinks ng Beas ee SS Sngies . é ‘| Of Youth, who, if they could be prevailed upon, would be
their territory, They take this 0 portuntt SF theren sinking “ Z yable to express themselves more agreeabhy to you upon this
thet eee ne , than son falling Rowa t he Precipice pant ies is y RORRRED ES
riles ha rougl them. We : ak : say a :
igeg of the Fathers with wapeey te rer awe fi /at a couotl held between ‘the Governor and these Cayugas
8 em not be despised, God is - ; a 3 ' Oh og
they eee bebind are waiting with ee fe bags sn sins on pebruary 24, 1789, Good Peter, speaking for the Cayugas, made
16 female Governesses beg leave to s 746 ‘ : \
PS e ey exhort t b bi , i ‘
. he great Chief to put forth his : Bre ‘sb1. "arter much conversation with our Sisters it willbe
necessary for us to know your mind es towhat would be best
Strength and preserve their Peace, for theyave the life ‘of
pao
\ nl
the Nations; “tr 5
: ls gh RE your Fowsy. tp any body dis~ You told us that you knew our situation andc lroeune
for use
wo have heretofore thanked
stences and compasslonated us;
siobe, ion ogy A, your auboote, and’ you oun puttat Tacs |
yAAU WALLS eir Counsellors are settling a a "1 4 4
Peace at iiuskingum md you here laboring for their gota” A pou, snd we noe gata with a loud voles thank you for your
: > ° is :
Peace will spread over thelr whole Country.”
"We have repeatedly sald, and we again say, that the
wapriora, and our sisters are well pleased withthe proposals
mentioned in your speech, and withthe erticles waich you have
atated to us tobe agreed on inthe presont Treaty - we receive
Oo 4 i a d he
To this Speech the Governor ma 6 to the y omen the fol lil»
th
lowing poplys
BROTHERS ¢ «
“We warriors with our sisters having expressed our appro-
BprG21. "l he
Governesses and Houen hare seggureelt to ay Sisters tho femate
en ney 9 ” “ y A
SISTER» anewer to thelr speech. j . bation of the artioles of the Tpeaty as proposed by you, would
"We are gonsibi ' ‘i { ‘ \wish tos tate some matters tobe stipulated by us on our Part.
haves nvS BO) © of your worth, Ww . } ; eee ee
eholent th eae peor tance to which a po ere. tied therefore to ' fo" fh iY “Tb ds an acknowledged truth that our sisters are the
Te ons and customs have been in the od by your “oh |, peineipal Inhobitents of the earth. the carth from whence
0@ leagt diminished, - | pring the articles necessary to sustain life 1s thelrs, and
t is thereupon necessary we should heerken to their advice.
80 nearly brov nt Ruin w On You: oun try & ved you o.
IU P i 5
b 16h t your count ¥ and. de prived u of {
"BROTHERS s «
\ “Ag your ears are atill open, you have heard what ad-
vances we heve this day made towards completing the business
now before us; we the warriors and sisters have thus opened
our minds to you.
Soll, that 1t 15 youp
inate ; your provinge to eultiva the Bart
naaaae Bs peed: to boll the Pots those fe ous atin
macawe Coe oe ving of particular attention uae duties
your due Weleht in your National Gounctie mat’ ats
. Bis-
ters we know p
- your importance &
could not have Pee eo tte human races wit i
this of itself entitle tet ee the mothers of marking i "BROTHER nn” nnn
ma 10d o e j 2 BR 5
deavoure wured, that we shall not fait to weer eeets and you i "The sisters now speek as the warriors have declared
privilege witho Kae and continue to our Sisters thet. pon q their approbation of the articles you have proposed. The
out the least diminution. We Sle ancient | alsters mention that there is a Salt Spring in thelr country
4 bre now shout j which they wish may be veserved. It ia therefore our mind
Tale
i that this spring should befneluded in the reservation.
fletentily lar fi is all we have to say eat present untll we have heard your mind
&e, however prolit e { th : ts"
B lo our Sisters may be, even if ; on this proposed amendment.
Final d Pet . hi. 3 a tl 7
| Finally Good Peter closed his remarks on this the last
they shoula ¢ 2 4]
nuniber . norease their Nation to tts aneient strength ang
a a
w i
SISTRRS;~
STERS méeting before the treaty was signed with these words:~
78.
Boe S35." “Attend while we speak o few words at the close of the
business. We thank you for your condessenaion in attending
to the request of our slsters as tot he proposed amendment res~
pecting the roservation of lands.
“Our Nation is at present much dispersed, but it is not
improbable but they will return to us witht helr wives end
children, and this 1s the reason for our wishing to have the
reservation of lends for our use extensive.” i
On June 5, 1789, at the time whent he Gayugas came for their
payment under the Treaty of 1789, Steel Trap made to the Governor
of New York the following statement :+
Bp e846 »
De 5 “Let not your Mind be disturbed at ou not appearing
here at the time appointed. ‘There were but a few,of us
sollected at Cayuga, our anciont aml beloved Place of -
Résidence. We wore desirous of having all together before
we set out to meot you; and another Reason of our Delay
was thia; we were anxlous to have an Answer from the
Gpeat Gouncil at Buffaloe Greek, as we were infomned after
we communicated our Transactions with the Governor of
Now York to. them, that there was’ a division smong then,
and just before we received this Intelligence (your
Message came to us) the Import of which was as Pollowa:
That in general they disapproved of our Negotiations
that all Contracts respecting lends should have the
Voice of Saptain Abéel, as Chief of the Five Nations
now to the Westward, Upon this I called together the
Warriors and female Governesses and all the Women, and
laid before them tho hiessage from Buffalow Creek, and
requested thelr Opinion, Apter much Deliberation they
unenimously agreed to abide by the Agreement entered tnto
by the Governor of New York and Paopie of Albany, which
was made last Winter; it was the Volee of one and all,; 3
thet they ought to support it at all hagerds, and that we
ought to be thankful for recovering such a Part of thelr
lost Tervitory & partioularly.the Place that was go dear
to their ancestors (I mean Gayuga), that they muat consider
this oe effected by the Interposition of the Governor of
New Yorks This being our unanimous’ Agreement we received
your last Message with pleasure, altho we had many thinga:
which obstructed our meeting with you previous. to that.
ee ey
"In the Agreowent made between us and the Great Chiefs
of New York, the Governor, as the Volee of the whole, assured
us thet he was able to protest us in the enjoyment of our
Reserve, ‘The Assurance that our Nothers the female
Governessea had in his protection gave them great Joys;
as the Proprletora of the Soil whose Happiness we Sachems
and Warriors ought always to consult, and you also exhorted
us to the same, therefore, when any thing threatens their
Peace we share in the Denger.
ee red
79,
"our female Governesses have exhorted us Warriors to
abide by the Agreement entered into by the Treaty last
Winter, for in maintaining them only they can enjoy Peace,
and we Warriors have engaged te support them in donfidence
that the Great Chief of New York will fulfill bis Engage-
menta, in Testimony of which we present you with this
string."
APs 85%» Regarding Steel Trap, Lt may be mentioned that at the
Conference held between tho Governor andthe representatives of the
Gayuga Nation at Denniston's Pavern on February 18th, 1704, as
to the ¢haragter and sufficiency of which the British have praised
no question, a Gayuge Chief named Key, who was one of the spokes~
man for the Cayuges, Le reported to have “mentioned the death of
theiv Chief Steel Tpap - that they wanted something to dry up thelr
tears « recommended his sister widow and children to the bounty
of the Spates.”
But whatever might be the facta as to the negotiation of this
first troaty, if it stood by itself, yet Pash Carrier and the other
malcontents having in 1790 formally vatified and confirmed this
Treaty of 1789, the ineffictency of the First treaty, If ony ox-
lated, was wiped out and the two treaties standing tegether form
a complete transaction of the State of New York, the legltimasy of
which from the Indian standpoint cannot be controwerted.
At a meeting held on dume 17, 1790, Captain Grant, iIntro-
duced by Fish Carrler end speaking for the CGayugas said to the
Governor, who had made a apeech detalling his various negotla=
tions with the Indians sinee the Revoluvitionary Wari~
Bps 1040
—_ "We ave witnesses to the trugh of all your declarations.
We acknowledge that you have paid « due regard to the customs
of our ancestors and that you are not chargeable wiih my
evils which have taken place smong us. i,
80.
"BROLHER GOVERNOR r=
“We have listened patiently and witha ttention to what
you have said, and we have frankly confessed that you are
not to blame for any of the evils whieh have taken place,“
At the final meeting prior to the signing of this Tpeaty of
1790, Fish Garrier made the following speech;~
Boe TLL "Brother Governor of New York, with your Commissioners,
you will now attend & open your sara, ,
"The Groat Spirit has given us this day to meet again
at the Gouncil Fire. After many conversations together since
our fLrst meeting and after much deliberation of both part-
tea, you have found the means of restoring peace and
anlty between us. his event, Brothers, We must attribute
to yous. Our peace is one of the same things. The Great
Spirit therefore will have justice dene to each party;
When any misunderstending or misreopresentation has
interrupted théiy peace and frlendshitp is again restored,
it is agreeable to hia pleasure. You have eonplied with
every desive end wish of oura, partieulerly im your tast
promise that you would make your assembly acquainted with
our wishes, and we have therefore acceded to every proposal
of yours tobring about this accomodations 7
m BROTHER = i
‘Having determined to accede to all your proposals;
and having perfeetly understacd thew, afer Roto
among ourselves,we have this day determined to establish
our peace & accordingly confirm the agreement hetweoen ue,
We now therefore make this public deceleration inthe hearing
of ali here present, of our acceding to the proposala-
and this day confirming the same." oO
(D) REASONS FOR DISCONTINUING PaYNEWRS oF ANNUTOIRS.”
Extract from Memorials
Hots p.6. They continued to do a0 until shortly before the
war of 1812 when the payments ceased owing to fhe
approach of hosllities andthe causes and
events which led to the war,
COMEENT: This matter has already been covered auffictently
for the present purposes in the "Summary of Facts®,
(B) "PISH CARRIER'S WaEREABOUTS."
Extracts from Memorials:
Memepeli. In 1791 Fish Carrier and his followers were
in Canada. a
Mem«pel2s on eth June, 1792 (American State Papers,
ol.
Indian Affairs, Volel, pege 257), the
Socretary of War wrote to the Governor of
New Yorkt~ "He (Brant} “appears anxious that his friend the
teagh Carpier of the Cayugas, may be satilefied about their
reservation."
Momepel@. Pish Carrier who, although present was then re-
siding in Ganada, replied that they could not
attend until the following spring.
Moms pels Fish, Carrler, who happened to be there, referred
omen 40 the previous Lrreguler purchase of Lend, and
asked for time until they could send to the
Grand River for “two of their principal mens®
MemepolS. Fish Carrier and many of the nation had
“ ; followed Josegh Byant to the Grand River |
as early as 1791.
Mewsp»lS. Those reservations consist of the areas al~
““" veady meritioned, two miles square and one
whlle aquare for the nation, md one mil
square for Fish Carrier and his posterity.
COMMENT: This matter is covered in Annex K, "Pish Carrler."
(F) "BFPORTS OF NEW YORK INDLANS TO COLLECT ANNUITY."
Extract from Memorials
Momepe Ts, Thereafter the agents of the Gayuga Nation from
—_" time to time made various journeys to the State
of New York in the fruitless endeavor to obtain
payment of the snoulties which had previous to the war been
customarily paid»
COMMENT this matter is sufficiently covered in Annex A
“Representations of Canadian Indians to New York State.”
(G) “a7g eREATY aS lSVIDENOE oF TITLE,"
Extract from Memorials
Mems peGe The said counterpart of the treaty, which, it
_ will be observed, is made evidence of title, was
delivered by thee ommissioners to Fish Sarrler,
who had attended with his brother chiefs from Ganada for’ the
purpose of the negotiation. aed
There is nothing in the Treaty itself that justifies
the contention that the possession of the Treaty of
1795 was to be the evidence andthe only evidence of the vight to
a i
B26
collect the annuity provided for tn the Treaty. As has been
pointed out in the “Summary of Pacts" above, end as was somewhat
discussed Im Annex A, the treaty was not alwaya produced in order
to obtain payment of tha aumity prior to 1809. Tt was not so
produced in 1806. That the annulty was paid that year is not
denied and nowhere 1s complaint made as to the distribution of
the ennulty of that year. Turthermore, for that year, as for all
of the other years duping the time that the payments were endorsed
upon the back of the Tpeaty a receipt was taken, Jyst why no
endorsement was made upon the treaty after 1809 1s nowhere stated
ApsBe2. in the record except as might be inferentially
Sh Beds. :
inferred fromthe stetenent - contrary to the
fact that payment was discontinued to the Indians because of the
approaching hostilities. It isolear thet the State of New York
always (during these early yoars at least) took a receipt down
to as late as the yoar 18286 at any rato. Tb will be recalled that
a new treaty was mado tn 1829. :
AS a physelal matter, 1t would be quite impossible to have
endorsed on the back of the Treaty for any great number of years
the statement provided for in the treaty itself, and the treaty
should be carefully oxemined to seo whether or not, as a matter
of fact, the payments endorsed on the back thereof did not mtirely
flll the space on the back of the treaty. In this connection, 16
is worth noting that the treaty and its signatures cover approxi=
mately three printed pages, andthat the endorsements as printed
cover approximately the same espace, so that the likelihood ia that
the reason no other endorsements were made on the back of the treaty
is because there was no room to make them. Should such prove to
B55
be the fact, 16 would, of aourse, dostroy entirely any argument
such ag that which the British try to meke upon this point.
ApaB92.» ;
et seq, It does not appear that any of the recolpts of payment
rooite the production of the treaty « ven during the
period when the treaty was evidently produced, Therefore, the
only evidence of: he production of the treaty at any time Is the
endorsement upon the treaty of the fact of payment. The records
contain nothing except the alleged absence of endorsement on the
pack of the treaty to show that the treaty was not produced after
1809. According to the contention of the British Government,
which is not sustained by the evidence elted therefor , Fish
Bpeeed. Carrier left this treaty with the Montures im--
mediately after its negotiation. If that be true,
then 1t was for the years 1796 to 1809 taken from Ganada to
the United States for production before the Indien Agent
paying the annuity, As stated above, there ts no evidence in
the record that this was not done after 1809, except the
absenee of endorsement »
Tye points made in the British Reply efter the dis-
cussion of "The Bases of IqabilLity of the United States,” whieb
follows the statement that "The British Gjatm is not based upon
Article IX of the Treaty of Ghent" are the following:-
ARTEOUE IX OF THE TREATY OF GHENT EXTENDS TO TIT GAvUGA
NATION.”
This matter is gufficiently covered in the Answer of
the United States.
84.6
"ONTITED STATES RELATIONS WITH CANADIAN INDTANS,"
It does not appear that there is anything in this dise-
sussion that requires consideration here.
oe INDIAN METHOD OF RAGING TRIBAL ALLE atancs."
Tt is not believed worthwhile to enter into ony elaborate
analysis of the evidence on this point. Xf the United States
loses its case on the other points noted and an award ts made ,
the Trlbunal will probably reach some estimate based upon the
relative number of Indians in Canada and the United States, and
leave 1t to the Sritish Government to dietribute such sum as
they award,
VOLATMANTS ARR NOT BSTOPPED"
"TWH CLAIM IS NOT BARRED BY LACHES."
These questions are primarily matters of law andthe law
under the facts of the case are believed not to be as stated
by the British in thelr Reply. ‘the suggestion that the Treaty
"qualified" certain Indians to recetve the annuities is not in
accord with the facts. To assume that Le to assume the whole
controversy in favor of the British Claims; that is the essence
of the question to be decided by the Tribunal. ‘
So far as laches are concerned, the facts brought out in
fnnex A would seem to make out a case not only of laches, but
of abandonment. The record shows no effort made to colleet the
annuity from 1809 until 1830 and iow cone sort of informal en
quiry only was apparently made. ‘Then no effort from 1880 until
apmoximately 1845, woen there were further informal representa~
tions, so far as the record goes, with the first formal represen-
tation in 1849, or thirty years after the Genadian OCayugas had
B5e
ceased to share in the annuities. Then « further petition in
1851 and from then nothing formal happened until 1652, another
period of thirty years, during twenty years of which time the
matter was in the hands of British authorities. Since 1882
the matter has been more or lesa active and has been passed upon
ag has already been pointed out by the Executive, Legislative, and
Judiolal branches of the State of New York, each end every one of
them failing to give rolief. Ag to the alleged principle that "no
equity arises from mero delay to enforce a legal demand, and ‘en
less there are other circumstances to eveate an equity, the only
question ls whether the legal demand has been barred op not", 16
may be observed that there ls abundant equity other than this in
this ease, The State of New York has punctuelly and punctliiously
paid the annuities due md accruing under that Treaty. Further
more, Whereas these Canadian Gayuges are seeking to renover a part
of the fund whieh the State of New York has paid tothe American
Coyugas, yet the Sandlan Ceyugas at the same time have refused
to pay to the American Gayugas any part of the funds which they
have received from the Cenadian or Bpitish Governments. ‘These
matters have been more fully covered in Annex h to woich reference
is made.
TL may be here stated again that the two most natural
reasons for the failure of the Ganadian Cayugas to apply in the
early years for their share of the New York annuities are:
Firsts That they considered themselves as not entitled to
the annmiitles when the bulk of them moved to Canada in 1809
and 1810. In this connection 1t is to be noted that the policy
of the United States as dectared in the Treaty of November
LL, 1794, at Konondaigna waa;~
7 Stats 46. "Wote: Tt is clearly understood by the parties to
this Ureaty, that thea nnuity stipulated in the
86.0
sixth article, le to be applied to the benefit of
such of the Six Nations and of their Indien friends
united with them as aforesaid, as do or shull reside
within the bounderies of the United States: Por the
United States do not interfere with nations, tribes or
femiiies, of Indians elsewhere resident."
The gecond reason for auch feilure to apply is probably to
be found in the fact which is well end suffietently evidence that
at or near the beginning of the Yar of 1812, the Tydians agresd
among themselves that they would mutually relinquish all claim
to any ennui ties ov bounties which the respective governments
under whose protection they were then placing thenaslves might
crant. The admissions of council in a discussion which tool
place in the course of the hearlug before the Now York Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs is most significant, Tho record
shows the following discussiont-
Bes 295 298, 204. "Sonator Vedder:. Then there is another point,
gentlemen, about it, and that is this: ‘“hethor it
is not strange that, of all the sounciis they have
had here in the last sixty years, that these Cayugas have
not raised a clamor and made a very great noise about the
claim that they were b elng defrauded out of by the State
of Now York and the ayerican Gayugasse Why have they not
wade more noise about it at thelr councils here in Sana~
da, among themselves? There does not seem to be any
evidence on the subject.
‘ip sRiteble:- Perhaps it wes on account that they
were sensible people and came to thes onclusion that
no’ noise would do them any good.
"General Strongi~ I think it waa because thay were
thoroughly discouraged.
"Senator Vedder:- I have thrown this out to see if
we cannot got his down to some practical points for the
comiulttee to consider. i think kx-Ritehie and tir,
Johnson wight yet together and stipulate in regard to
certain facts about this and save much testimony.
"We Ritchie:- All I can say le this, Senator,
that Lf underatand every possible effort had been made
to ascertain why it was that these payments were stopped
about 1809,
B76
"Senator Vedder:~ Yes, that is a mystery to my mind.
"ur Ritchler- The offieial records, T understand, of
the government at Albany do not show end de not suggest any
pose sfble reason way they were stopped, Of course, one
might very well ask, as they put it a moment ago, why the
claim had been allowed to romain in abeyance so jong with-
out some effort being made. Onthe other hand is it not
reasonable te suppose that if any od and sufficient cause
existed why these payments were stopped that you world not
find some records In roference to it in Albay? But through
out the vhole correspondence and throughout all the official
documents thore 1s not, as T understand, from beginning to
end, a single idea or suggestion as to why these payments
were stopped. Then, If we find the payments stopped some
two or three years prior tothe way, it wight be inmputeble
to the fact that the war was coming and the same thing
continued and those who got It night say ‘we have get the
money and are going to keep Lt.
“THE CLAIMS CONVENT TON OF 1863 Is Nov A BAR.”
For a discussion of this matter see the momorandum of
July 14, 1924,
ANNEX A,
REPRESENTATIONS OF CANADIAN INDIANS TO
NEW YORK STATE.
The British Case contains two New York Senate documents; one
is New York Senate Document No. 35, 1889, Annex 3 of the British
Case (pp, 477-559)
This document contains a record of the testimony taken before
Herbert P, Bissell, Commissioner, from May to December, 1888.
The other document is New York Senate Document No, 58, 1890,
(pp. Se472,) This document contains a record of hearings before a
Senate Committee composed of senators Vedder, Laughlin, and
Pierce. A report of this Committee upon the evidence will be
found as Annex 2 of the British Case (pp, 473-477.)
At each of these hearings a considerable number of Indians
were examined, as also some other witnesses, By far the greatest
number of these witnesses were on behalf of the Canadian Indians,
who were seeking to secure a participation in the annuities paid
to the American Cayugas for the future, and also a payment to
cover annuities which had in the past been paid to Amerioan
Cayugas, but of which sums the Canadian Cayugas had received no
share,
The evidence taken can hardly be regarded as of great value.
the witnesses were largely ignorant, belng people able neither to
read nor write, and most of them evidently could not speak Inglish.
Thein examination appears to have been largely through interpreters
hostile to the State of New York, At times it appears there was no
interpreter present who could check for the State of New York the
testimony given by the Indians, Furthermore, most of the alleged
evidence given consisted In the repeating by the Indians of alleged
traditions of the tribe or of statements made to them in their early
Annex A.
ae
youth by their ancestors. A reading of the evidence moreover
justifies the conclusion that the Indians teatifying were so
anxious to establish their case against the State of New York that
theiv evidence is scarcely to be relied upon.
A interested memory is never entitled to be implicitly trusted
and when such a memory belongs to an ignorant Indlan, becomes even
more untrustworthy, As to this evidence and the manner of its
taking the following colloquy between the Gommiseion and the at-
torneys in the case is of interest. My, Johnson represented the
State of New York, Mr. Ritehte the Canadian Government, and General
8trong the Indians:
"Me, Johnsoni- This evidence is to be taken and submitted
to the Senate.
"My. Ritehiet» Perhaps the whole thing 1s answered,
“wie, Johnsont» I desire to get down to the proposition as to
the manner in which this thing should be con~
dusted. Our very shrewd and adroit friend puts
questions here to be answered yes and no, and 1t goes
through an interpreter whom we understand nothing from,
whose interest is against us, and it is a witness
whose witnesa 1s against us, and the record, when
it goes into cold print and is submitted to the
Legislature, does not come in the pleasant shape
that 1t does here. But it seems this man is telling
these things of his own volition and of his own
knowledge, when it 1s simply dragged out of him
by virtue of a cross-oxamination in amawer to
direct questions in which the question suggests the
answer in all cases. I only make these suggestions,
and it is for the committee to decide,
“Mr, Ritehtet~ What I wanted to ask is this: At what date he
fivst heard of that treaty; how early; whether
it was bis earliest recollection?
"Senator Pierce: » J quite agree with Mr. Jounson, that 1f
we were sitting here as a judicial tribunal,
in reference to the introduction of evidence,
his objection would be entirely proper, and I
recognize the further fact that our friend 1s putting
questions that practically puts into the mouth of the
|
Annex A.
aga
witness what he wants him to answer. But I think the
committee understand the surroundings thoroughly, and
we are looking for facts under unpleasant surroundings,
and wo want‘to get all that we can. TI do not believe
that the State will be prejudiced by our receiving
this evidence in perhaps the widest latitude. I would
submit,of course, to the chairman of the commlttee in
reference to it.
"Senator Veddert « Well, the elieiting of testimony here is
: rather difficult, because it has to be all
filtered through an interpreter, and to
pursue the inquiries in the usual way would
take a good deal of time. I have been watehing the
things pretty closely, and I do not think 1t is Mr.
Ritchie's intention to ask questions that he may answer
by yes or no, simply. He seems to be very fair about it.
“Me, Ritehiet « As a matter of fact, I will say, this, Mr,
Chairman, that I am ignorant of what the
witnesa will say, except what I see on this
prief. I do not know anything about it, and
I have asked him a great many questions which I thought
he was just as likely to answer one way as the other.
"Senator Vedder: « I think it is well for Mr. Johnson to make the
objection, because some of the questions might
be put in the other shape, and escape criti-
eism. They might be varled so as not to put
words in the mouth of the witness.
"Me, Ritehle: ~ I said did the witness hear of the treaty from
his earliest recollection, or not3 did he fix
the date, and the stenographer is looking back
to see if he £ixed the date.
"O, Ask him how old he was, not when he first
saw the treaty, but when he first heard of its
when he first heard that there was a claim.
"General Strong: While he is thinking, let me say this: Hea it
not always been the rule of courts to take into
consideration the education of a witness, and
has it not always been pulable to explain to a
witness a question in such a way as to make
it apparent to his comprehension?
"senator Vedder:- I do not think we should have any question
about that." (Bp. 2826283,
Annex A.
dee
One illustration as to the lgorance of the Indians to suf-
ficient. During the examination of Indlan Jacob Jamison, when they
were endeavoring to secure from the Indians some estimate as to the
time when a certain Canadian Cayuga made a visit to the State of
New York, with reference to this annuity General S,rong, the at=
torney for the Indians, saids-
"Te witnesses are all so ignorant that they may get
mixed up on the time.”
fo which Mr. Johnson, the attorney for the State of New
York replied:
"Tt think that 1g so. I think he does not know the dif}
ference between sixty years and thirty years." (Bp. 286)
This statement of Mr, Johnson's passed unchallenged and is
perhaps not far from the truth.
However, 1t is believed the United States is entitled to use
of all statements of this testimony that can be regarded as ad=
missions against interest, particularly in view of the perfectly
evident effort which the witnesses made to say. nothing that would
harm thelr case.
From this evidence as a whole, there would seem to be little
question but that the original Fish Carrier, who appears to have
been the head Chief or at least the most influential one of the
Cayuges during. his life, and who signed both the Treaties of 1790
and of 1795 with the States of New York, delivered the Treaty of
1795 to a Cayuga Indian named Monture, and thatthis Monture at a
rather early period relatively, and that the Monture family, retaine
ed possession of the Treaty until about 1860, when it was delivered
to the Canadian Government (Bp. 68)
The record seems to show (See Appendix BE = Move of Indians
Annex Ae.
= Ber
fo Canada) that the most considerable movement of the Six Nations
to Canada, except the Mohawks, who went just after the Revolutionary
War (as did also some amall portions of the other tribes) oceurred
sometime prior to the War.of 1812, and apparently around 1807 ~ 1809.
The Treaty of 1796 stipulated that a recelpt for payment bento)
the said Cayuga Nation" should be taken “on the back of the counter-
part of thia instrument In the possession of the said Indians in
the words following to-wit.” (Bp. 108)
Agacording to the evidence submitted by the British Government,
receipts were ragularly endorsed on this Treaty from and Including
the year 1706 until the year 1809, except the year 1808, for which
payment no recelpt seems to have been placed upon the Treaty
(Bp. 942-945)
No complaint, however, 1s made that the annulty was not pald
for that year. Indeed a reprint of the recelpt for that year 1s
given in the British record (Bp, $71) and 4b shows as having been
paid upon the certificate of payments made by the Comptroller's
office of the State of New York under December 16, 1613. (Ap. 892)
So far as has been noted the British Case makes no reference
to the fact that the @reaty contains no endorsement for the year
1808, and therefore, there is no explanation as to the reason for
the lack of the endorsement. However, the absence of such an en-
dorsement at such an early perlod, and when the bulk of the
Cayugas must still heve been resident in the State of New York,
goes far to show that the production of the Treaty at the time of
payment was not regarded even py those who actually slened the
Treaty to be necessary in order to make a proper payment, In
this connection moreover it might be added the only actual evidence
Annex A.
wae
noted as to the precise time when payments ceased to the Canadian
Cayugas is the absence of endorsement on the Treaty. Yet, as at
least one payment was made prior to 1809 without a receipt being
taken upon the Treaty, and as there was no reason why the payment
for 1810 and perhaps for 1811, might not have been made to the
Canadian Cayugas, as well as the Jmerican Cayugaa if the Canadian
Cayugas came over for thelr share (See Appendix F « Reasons for
failure of Indians to get pro rata share of Annuities) ib may very
well be that payments were actually made after 1800, notwithstanding
the Treaty doos not contain any endorsement, In this connection
it is worth while to note that payment was to be made by the
State of New York to the Federal Indian Agent, that in 1797
the Federal Indian Agent was General Chapin, and that he indiiw
cated his method of procedure in a letter apparently to the
Executive of New York, under date of april 4, 1797, in which
he saids
“By the Treaty the whole of the money for the Cayugas
is to be pald to me in trust for them, and for this year
4¢ I receive 14 I will assemble the Chiefs of the whole
Nation, pay it to thom, and let thom make the divisions
among themselves.” (Bp. 369)
At this point it may be wekl to have in mind that the
treaty specifically provided that the annuities:=
"Shall in future be annually paid on the first day of
June in each year forever hereafter at Canandaghque in the
County of Ontario, to the Agent for Indian Affairs under
the United States for the time being residing within
this State, and in case no such agent shall be appointed
on the part of the United States then by such person
as the Governor of the State of New York shall thereunto
appoint to be by the sald agent or person so to be appointed
paid to the seid Cayuga Nation... . (Bp. 108)
The British Government alleges that the Canadian Indians
Annex A.
oo Zon
have received no part of the annuities since 1609. In this con~
nection attention is called to the fact (See annex G ~ Agreement
between American and Canadian Cayugas for mutual relinquishment
of annuity claims) that there is evidence entitled to eredence
that 1t was mutually agreed between the two branches of the
Cayuge Nation ~ the Canadian and the American « juet prior to
the War of 1812 that they would mitually relinquish the one to
the other any claims which either branch might have to the |
annuities which were to be paid to it by the Governments under
which they respectively lived. But whatever the cause, 1b seems
clear that after about 1809, payments to the Canadian Cayugas
under the Treaty of 1796 stopped, though curiously enough, payments
to the heirs of Fish Carrier, said payments being made under and
pursuant to the terms of the game treaty of 1798 (Article Fourth,
Bp. 108, 941) continued to be made, (See Authorizing Statutes,
New York Legislature, Ap. 887-889) notwithetanding the War of 1812.
From the beat evidence obtainable no more was made regarding
the collection by the Canadian Indlans of their part of the annuity
due from New York until approximately 1830, at which time a man
named John Jacobs went from Grand River to New York State to make
inquiries, David Hill testifying before the New York Senate Com-
mittee In 1889, testified that he was seventy-nine years old at the
time of the taking of the testimony, which would make his date of
birth about 16103; that he hed been a chief of the Senecas for
about fifty-five years}; that when he was about twenty yeara old,
that is about 1830, John Jacobs came over to New York, (Bp, 201;
that Jacobs made two trips, the first about 1830 (Bp, 207); that
Annex he
“Be
on these trips Strong (Np. or NT.) and by. Wilson were his inter-
preters (Bp. 207-2809).
Isane E, Hill, testified that he was seventy-seven years old
at the time of the hearing, which would make him born in 1813, and
that he was about twenty years old when Jeeobs came over (Bp. 212.)
James Jamison teatified that he was seventy four years old at
the time of the hearing (born 1815); that he knew John Jacobs who
was one of the Cayuga Chiefs who lived next to Monture (Bp. 215.)
William Wedge who testified without an interpreter, stated that
he was born 1826 (Bp, 222); that he first heard of the Treaty when
he was about thirteen zéare old, that 1s, 1839 (Bp. 283); that about
three op four years after he first heard of the Treaty, that is
about 1642, or 1843, the Indians sent Johnson, Jacobs, and Monture
to the United States regarding it (Bp, 229); that this man returned
to the United States in 1845 and 1844, making three tripa alto-
gother (Bp, 230),
William Henyy testified that he was sixty-six years old
(therefore born 1623); that he was a direct descendant of the ithe
ginal Ojageghts and belonged to the Monture family (Bp. 237)} that
he first. saw the Treaty when he was about fifteen years old, that
is 1838, (Bp, 288); that some white man at that time read the
Treaty to them which was the first he knew about 1% though "16
seems the Chiefs knew before.” (Bp. 239), Wedge confirmed this
statement, but understood this was the first time the Indians
knew the contents of the Treaty (Bp. 228)3 that it was not until some
ten years after this event, that is 1848, that Johnson and Jacobs
went over to the United States (Bp. 240) though he later testified
that Jacobs died about forty years prior to the time of taking the
teatimony, that is about 1649, (Bp. 242). From the Index to the
Annex fe
we
British Gase it would appear that Henry was Ojageghti No. 4.
Jacob Silversmith testified that he was seventy-one years old,
(born 1818) (Bp. 269); that he first heard of the Treaty about 1880
(Bos @70)3 that his father (who 1t seems from the testimony of
Abraham 8, Hill, was Ojageghti No. 3, Bp. 90) and Joe Monture went
over to the United States about 1840 (Bp. 271.)
Jacob Jamiaon testified that he was about seventy years old
{therefore born 1619) (Bp, @77)3 that when he first heard of the
Treaty he was about twenty, that ia about 1840, but that he firat
saw the Treaty when he was about thirty, that 1s 1850 (Bp. 277) 3
that about sixty years prior to the time of his testimony, that is
about 1830, Jacobs went over the firat time (Bp. 261), 282. 286)5
that John Jacobs and Silversmith went over about 1850 (Bp. 285),
though later Jamison testified that Johnson and Monture went ever
about fifteen years after Jacobs, that is about 1645 (Bp. 299)
Jamison testified as follows regarding the firat trip of Jacobsr~
"Q, Were you present when Jacobs came back and made his report?
"A, Nog others were present and he heard it from them,
"GQ, Whom did he hear it from?
"A, Siiversmith,
"Q, What was it Silveramith told himt
*,, Siiveremith said to him that Jacobs, when he went over
some others me} him, end were trying to interrupt him
from going over, and still he did not stop; still he
went on the Albany, I suppose be means.
"Q, To Albany?
5A, Yea, sir.
"Q, Well, what does he say haypened when he got to Albany?
Sa. He says when he went to Albany, he saw the head of.
ficera there and explained about this claim, and then
the officer there told him the money was there and was
ready, and if he chose to take it he could have it, and
Annex A. i
Annex A«
710
«lle.
then Jacobs thought he was not authorized to take the
money, and he came back and he did not take it, and he go - the same case as that about this treaty and he
promised them he would go home and tell the chiefs the came to Cattaraugus and he got this man}; we called him
money was there and they could send some one to come Doctor Wilson =~ Peter Wileon you call him ~ and he went
for this money, on with him to try and get this money, and after he
went back they found out he deceived them, or somethings
"@, Now, he came home and told the chiefs, did hes did he then afterwards another man, who Lived in Cattaraugus -
hear that Jacoba came home and told the chilef'st hig neme was Strong, he took it up - Nathaniel ptrong,
he took 1t up and they used to come heres I don t know
"A, Noj this wag what Silversmith said. how many times; we sent money and we sent two men = &
man named Monture and e man named Johnson; they brought
"Q, Did Silversmith tell him that Jacobs came home and told back nice stories; they said we would get 1t.
the chiefs that thle money was there waiting for them;
did Silversmith say what the chiefs aid when Jacobs "Q, But they never did got Lb?
came home and told them that the money was there?
"A, No, sib." (Bp. 515, 516.)
"A, Yes; that 1s what Silversmith stated to him what
Jacobs says, John Sprague, sixty-elght years old (born, therefore, in 1821)
"Q. Then why didn't they aend over and get the money? testified that about 1849, Joe Monture had a conference with N. fT.
"A, They did send over men but they came back without Strong regarding the land in New York (Bp. 301) and he seems to flx
the money»
the vielt of Monture about 1848 ov 1849 (Bp. 201-804).
a 4
Q. Whom did they send over?
¥® There were a number of Indian witnesses examined and a vast
A. Joe Monture and Johnson.
tg
"A, No, not right away.
. amount of alleged testimony taken, but the foregoing summary covers
Well, did they send them right over?
the most definite parts of that testimony and doubtless covers all
the traditions regarding visite that could be dragged from the
"Q. Why did they not send them right over the same year?
7 / witnesses.
A. He did not know that.
So far as that evidence may be relied upon it would seem that
"Q. Why did they walt fifteen years before they sent them
over? John Jacobs went over about 1850, which was the first time the
"A, che epagae eee tl iter Steinges Sniphg Lhekisiven, matter had ever been taken up, after the annultles were no longer
tf coe euch sen eee oak to goods anything | paid. About ten years later, or 1640 - 1843 ~ Johnson and Jacobs,
in that way as to who to send. or Johnson, Jacobs and Monture, came to the United States regarding -
%Q, paeg as walter Pitteon yoars after they heard the money the matter, apparently making trips in two or three successive
after dig doay: ee hans. ty at tae illic years and that Jacobs and Silversmith went over about 1848 to
"A, Yes." (Bp. 209-300.) 1850. ‘hus the first trip made by any Indlan was in 1830 to
William Wedge, examined without an interpreter, testified:~ 1852. While there is some evidence wited above that Jacobs
"Q. What doea tradition say about some of the Cayugas at this time went to Albany and received there certain assurances,
coming over here about forty years agot
it is believed that little eredence should be given to t his
"As I recollect one time wo sent a mam named John Jacobs to
Annex Ae
“12=
evidence because Jamison, who gave the evidence, states that
Jacobs was told that "the money was there and ready.” The
fact that the State of New York had paid, and was paylng, each
year the annuity due to the Cayuga Indians, makes absurd any
suggestions that the money was there and ready. Moreover the
suggestion that the reason Jacobs did not take the money that
was there and ready; namely, that he did not consider he had the
authority to take such money, 1s almost foolish. The chances
are that this trip to the United States by Jacobs, and other
evidence aca Eo that point, was merely to see some attorney or
some of the American Cayugas, and that he never got past talking
with Dr, Wilson and N. T. Strong, who it appears from the evidence
above olted, he consulted.
Jamison also teatified that the next people who went over saw
Wilson and Strong and that all they were able to do was to bring
"pack nice stories."
fbug there is no real sround for believing that any real efm
fort was made by the Canadian Cayugas to secure a participation
in the New York State amutities until 1849, when the first formal
petition was presented to the Legislature of the State o& New York.
(Bp. 393.)
Before considering some of the pertinent details of this and
other petitions, it might be well to have in mind the following
facta.
From annex "Agreement between the American and Canadian Cayugas
for Mutual Relingquishment of Annuity Claims," it appears that ac-
cording to Dr. Wilson the following named chiefs took part in the
Council at whieh it was agreed that the Indians of neither sountry
would make claim upon the other for annuities after the close
of the war 1812:~
Annex A,
“13
Red Jacket, Farmer's Brother,
Young King, Destroy Town,
Captain Cole, Col. SLiversmith,
Hard Hiekory, Gaptain Smith.
As to these mon the following may be saidi~
Red Jacket: Ked Jacket, a Seneca, dled January 20, 1850,
which was prior to the first trip of Jacobs (Hand Book of Ameriean
Indiens, Bulletin 30, Bureau of American kthnology).
Farmer's Brother: Farmer's Brother, a Seneca Ghief, dled in
1814, sixteen years before Jacob! s/urip (op-Git, Subenomine 453).
Noung King: No specific data hes been found regarding Young
King, but from the very prominent part which he took in the ne«
gotiations between Gol, Practor and the Six Nations in 1791, he
then taking place alongside such Indians as Ked Jacket, Farmer's
Brother, Pish Carrier, and Corn Planter - at one time cooperating
with Fish Carrier and advising Hed Jacket while the latter made
a speech to Col. Proctor - and making the farewell speech to
Proctor on behalf of the Six Nations when Proctor left Buffalo
Creek, May 21, 1791, (Ap. 86-123), indicates that he must have
been at least a mature, and perhaps a relatively old man in 1791.
If so, he must have died long before any formal representations
ware made by the Canadian Gayugas.
Destroy Towns No data whatever has been found regarding
Destroy Town except that Henry Phillips, a Seneca born about
1796, stated in his testimony before the Now York Senate Committee
(September 11, 1889), that he remembered Destroy Town, as also
Red Jacket, Farmer's Brother, Captain Cole, Silversmith, Hard
Hickory and Captain Smith.
Captain Cole: Captain Cole signed the Cayuga annuity receipt
for 1624 (Bp. 821-822). Moreover he signed the letter to Governor
Annex fA.
“las
Van Buren under date of March 11, 1629, as one of the chiefs
"that stayed at home," when representations were made to the
Governor regarding the manner in which previous annulty payments
bad been made (Bp. 341).
Hard Sickory: Hard Hiokory signed the Cayuga receipts for
1825 (Bp. 881-822), and the Pish Carrier receipt for 1628 (Bp.186),
Col, Silversmith: There were evidently several Silveramiths;
for example, thera was one Silvergmith who signed the Van Buren
letter of 1829 (Bp, 342), and there were the Silversmiths who
apparently belonged to the Canadian Cayugas (See testimony of
Abram 8, Wi11, Bp. 90), and of Jacob Siiversmith (Bp. 269, et seq)
since the father of Jacob Silversmith testifying was alleged by
Jacob to have visited the United States in connection with the
Cayuga claim (Bp. 271). The Silversmith who participated in the
council must have been the same Silversmith wane so graphically
deseribed the matter to one of the Comulttee on Indian Affairs,
which made its report to the New York Senate on March 9, 1849,
(Bp. 397).
Captain Smith: Captain Smith signed the treaty of 1829 be~
tween the State of New York end the Cayuga Indians (Bp. 118);
the treaty of 1831 between the same parties (Bp. 345), and the
treaty of 1632 between the Senecas and the State of New York
(Bp. 753).
Thus the most illustrious of the ehlefs who were present at
this Gounell at which the mutual relinquishment agreement was
made; namely, Red Jacket and Farmer's Brother (the only Indians
of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the Hand Book) died
pefore the first visit (so far as any real testimony whatever is
Annex Ay
#15~
concerned) of the Canadian Gayugas to New York State in regard -
to the non-payment of this annuity. As already intimated above,
in 1812 these men must all mve been mature because young and
inexperienced men would not have been sent on so important a
mission as the council called of the Six Nations to determine
whether or not they ahould virtually engage in war against one
another - a council which the evidence makes perfeotly certain
was actually held.
CANADIAN CAYUGA PHETTION OF 1849,
The first evidence, other than that of the Indian witnesses,
the unreliability of which has been already pointed out, of notice
peing brought to the government of the State of New York that the
Canadian Cayugas might claim « share of the annuitles la to be
found in the communication of Peter Wilson to Governor Willian G,
Bouck, under date of August 4, 1845, wherein Wilson said, after
protesting against the payment of all the annuities due to the
Cayuga Indians residing in the western part of the State of New
York to that part of them who were then proposing the emigratet-=
"We wish your Excellency distinctly to understand that
the Cayugas residing in a forelan country, to wit, Canada,
have no just or legal claim to any part of the sannulties
coming from this State.” (Bp. 302)
This observation was made, as will be observed, at about the
time it 1s alleged (see testimony of William Wedge, Bp. 289) that
the Indlans sent Johnson, Jacebs, and Monture to the United states
in connection with the annuity.
The first formal action by the Canadian Cayugas, of which any
written evidence has been produced in making representations to
the State of New York by the Cayuga Indians is to be found in a
Annex A.
~1L6~
petition "the the Honourable the Legislature of the State of New
York," and dated Canada, Grand River, 6th February, 1849. (Bp. 393)
In this petition there were a nunber of misstatements, the more
important of which are as follows:-
"That previous to the year 1795 Jand ever since)
a majority of sald Netion have resided without the
limits of this State;" (Bp. 393)
That this statement is not true is abundantly shown by the
evidence guoted in Annex "Move of Indians to Canada." Tt was not
until after 1607 at the earliest that the bulk of the Cayugas
moved to Gansda. It is also avered:~
"That payments of sald annuity or purchase money was
Guly made and acknowledsed upon the back of said instrument
of treaty from Lts conelusion in 1795 down te the year
1807 inolusive." (Bp. 394)
The reoord shows that while the annuity was paid, yet that no
endorsenent was made on the back of the treaty as to the payment
for the year 1808 (Bp. 945). The petition also funther allegest-
"That an application by your memorlalists heretofore
at divers times, made to the officer charged by said treaty
with the payment thereof, your memorialists have been
denied thelr share of the purchase money annually payable
as aforesaid, sometimes upon the ground that we are
'Cahade Indians," at other times that we ‘live without the
U. States," again that 'during the sar of 1812 took up arms
against the U.S. at the time of its invasion’; and finally
that by virtue of treaty arrangements subsequently entered
into between Cayugas vesiding within the U.S. and Gow.
Van Buren and Gov. Throop, of New York, to wit: ton the 28th
of February, 1829, and 8th of September, 1821 (certified
copies of which are herewlth submitted) the purchase money
80 stipulated to be paid annually to the Cayuga Nation ag
aforesaid, was thereafter to be paid to the Cayugas of New
York, Ohio and a fraction of our Nation removed wost of the
Miesisaippa.?
"Do all which veasons for denying to your menortaliats
our just dues, we beg leave to oppose our soletin protest,
and forasmuch as we are remedlless in your Gourts, to re-w
monstrete and rely, first by pleading the present treaty
of July, 1795, never out of our possession as security for
our proportion of sald purchase money; second, that as to
being 'Canada Indiens' we were nothing less when summoned in
1796 to join in releasing the lands aforesaid.” (Bp, 304)
Annex he
wl Ta
The statements of this paragvaph are almost conclusive proof
that all of the representations theretofore madu by the Canadian
Cayugas through their various chiefs who wade trips to the United
States were made to the person who under the treaty of 1795 was
charged with the payment to the Indians of the annuity, that is
to say, prior to 1629, upon the United States Indian Agent (if
any application was made prior to 1628), and after 1829, to the
Agent of Indian Affairs, on whom the Cayugas after the date of
1829 drew thelr draft, (Bp. 118, 342). However, there is no
evidence whatever other than that previously summariged from the
oval testimony of the Indians, who, with two exoeptions, spoke
wholly from hear-say that any effort was made prior to 1829 to
secure participation in the annuities paid.
hat the statement, that in 1795 the petitioning Indiana were
Canadian Indlans has already been shown to be untrue.
According to the Memorial filed by the Canadian Indiana
through their attorney, James C, Strong, before the New York
Senate Committee of 1889 (Bp. 20), the Legislature referred this
petition of the Indians to Commissionera of the Land Office of
the State of New York (Bp. 23), such Commissioners consisting oft
Secretary of Stabe, Lieutenant Governor, Comptroller, Treasurer,
and the State Engineer and Surveyor, ‘hese Commissloners made a
report under date of March 16, 1849. there is no evidence that
this Commission ever went into the matter with any considerable
eare, and on the contrary, lt appears that in reaching their con«
clusions they adopted virtually the allegations of the petition of
the Indiens, For example, they appear to believe that even as early
as 1784 the Cayugas had virtually moved from New York to Ganada
Annex fA.
-18«
(Bp. £6). Uhis 1s contrary to the great preponderance of ovidence
(See Annex & “Move of Cayugss to Canada”).
the Commissioners also appear to consider (Bp. 2%) that the
Cayugeas failed to receive the payment of their annuity because
of an actual refusal from the State authorities based upon the
participation by the Canadian Cayugas in the “ar of 1612. ‘here
is strong reason to believe, and much evidence to support that
belief, (See Annex "Reasons for failure of Indians to get pro
vata share of annuities") thet one of the reasons the Ganadian
Cayugas failed ‘to receive their annuities from 1809 until 1849
a period of forty years, was because they failed to apply for
them, and permitted the American Cayugas, who declined to share
the annuities, to get and retain such annuities,
There La some rhetoric in the report of the Commissionera
(Bp. 27) which loses sight of some of the fundamental facts, {he
final paragraph of the report of the Commissioners shows that
emotion and sentiment, rather than reason and law, largely guided
them in their conolusion. It reads:~
"A kind apirit of conciliation could effect a just
dlatribution of this annuity. Its operation would result
in many compensating advantages and greatly tend to
harmonize the different trives of the Cayugeas, and bind
the whole dn mutual affection. It would brighten the chain
of frlendship, which was never sullied by our Dutch and
English ancestors, If judiciously distributed it mi ah
be made the moans of enlarging the boundaries of veliglous
and selence among the countrymen of Logan, and be the
foundation of improvement im the condition of this noble
race.” (Bp. £8).
According to the petition of Mr. Strong (Bp. 88), this
report was not acted upon by the Levislature,
REPRESENTATIONS OF 1860
Mr, Strong alleges in his Memorial of 1889 that:
"In 1850, the Indians made an attempt themselves to
Annex As
«1 O«
revive the matter, but with no one but themselves to attend
to it, and with no ‘friend at court', the attempt (as might
have been expected, as a matter of course) proved a miserable
failure.
"the Land Board of 1850, decided nothing, however 1b
simply held the satter open to afford tr. Peter Wilson: an
opportunity to prove the statements he made in his speech.
But he never attempted to do so...." (Bp. 28
The use of the phrase by tir. Strong, "friend at court™ when
taken in comection with the different treatment which the Indians
veceiyed in 1849 end whieh they received in 1850, when considered
in connection with the character of the report made by the Land
Commissioners in 1849, suggests very strongly that the aation of
= rather
the Comolasioners in 1849 was the result/of a "frlend at court”
than of a judicial consideration of the matter. ‘the atmosphere
and language of the report of 1849 justifies an inference that
the "friend at court” and not the Gomnissioners wrote it.
CANADIAN CAYUGA PETITE ION OF 1851,
While Nr, Strong makes no mention of it, it appears that
the Canadian Cayugas f1led a petition to the Legislature of the
State of New York under date of February 20, 1861 (Bp. 560).
This petition is written in the florid style of Indian oratory
and contalns little besides oratorical appeal, One or two points,
however, are worthy of mention, At the beginning the petitLoners
aet out thate~
“fhe Cayuga Nation, now no longer under your pro-
tection, come to you for justice » 5 + » The Cayugas though
dependent were free." (Bp, 560, 561)
fhe petition contained a defense and attempted justification for
the participation by the Canadian Cayugas in the war of 1812 upon
behalf of the British. ‘he petition also atcempts an argument to
show that the war should not be considered as heaving put an end
to the Troaty obligations, end that the Canadian Indtans had not
Annex A.
-20-
received large grants and great gifts from the British Government.
The closing paragraph of this petitlon also is worth quoting.
It readgin
"Listen - The Cayuga Nation ia just. The money
that comes to 1b, comes to it for its people, and is
always divided among them. Those who are not with us
at the time are not forgotten, but get their shares.
Thoae Gayugaa who choose to live eleewhere than with the
Nation may come and get their fair proportion or we will
leave it with you to be paid to them, As for the past,
they have had the whole, but have not grown eich upon
it. Let compensation be made for the two years sinee the
Nation made ita claims, and let the rest go." (Bp, 562).
The argument might be turned against the Canadian Cayugas
by observing that if they wished to share in the New York annul-
ties, let them come and live in New York, but that just as they
excluded their American Brethren living in New York from partici-
pation in the British amnuities, so they must expect to be ex-
eluded from the American annuities so long as they live on British
soil.
REPORT OF 1856.
The following extract from the report on Indian affairs
of 1856 by Messrs. Penny Father, Worthington, and ‘lalford is given
at (Bp. 408)i=
"the Cayugas have besides the claim against the
State of New York for %2300.00, being an annuity granted
to them in exchange for lands ceded in that State,
besides arrears since 1811. It uppears from statements
made that the annuity was paid several years, but that
on the breaking out of war it was discontinued, as they
remained firm under the British flag." (Bp. 402).
This ia apparently a British report. See Bp. 406,
Of course, it is a mistake to aay thet the annuity was paid
until the cutbreak @f the War, As a mabcer of fact, no evidence
appears that 14 was paid after 1609.
sti. NG'S LEGORR OF 1867.
Annex f,
ole
It haa already been seen that N. ?. Stromg was one of the
attorneys to whom the Canadian Cayugas went vinen they made cer-
tain of thelr several trips to Sew York te seeure the payment of
their annuity. The letter appears (Bp. 40%) under date of
December 21, 1857, written by Strong to a person not named, but
apparently to the Indien Commissioners of New York (Bp. 402), in
which Strong covers briefly the situation as he underatands ite
The letter is of no particular value except as showing now in
definite 1s the information possessed on this whole matter, bee
eauso Strong, writing in 1857, fixes the first petition to the
Legislature by the Canadian Cayugas as of 1847, instead of 1849.
POW OF ATTORNEY OF 1860.
Under date of July 17, 1860, at a Council held at Grand
River, the Canadian Ga,ugas granted the following authority:
‘we the Cayuga Nation in Grand Council assembled
do therefore solemly declare that our said Father and
Superintendent General of Indisn Affairs, 1s hereby
solewnly clothed with full and discretionary power to
ask for all wa are entitled to, under the Treaties and
Cottracts of 1783 and 1795, end any other Treaty and
Contract, and to adjust and receive such compensation
as our Father shall think good for bis children the
Cayuga Nation for the monies due, and we authorize him
to Bubstibute any other person to ask for us, in these our
claims, and we solemnly declare that whatever adjustment
our Father or any person eppointed by him as his substitute
shall make of our rights and interests with the state of
New York, shall be binding, and be held in good felth,
upon and by ua, and our posterity forever." (Bp. 405)«
Under this Richard Theodore Pennefather, Superintendent of
Indian Affairs of the Province of Canada, made the following
sub-delegation of authorityt-
"Now know ye, and these presents witness thet the said
Richard Theodore Pennefather, Superintendent General of
Indian Affairs of the Province of Cenada for divers good
causes and considerations him thereunto moving ag under the
authority to him given in and by the hereinbefore instru-
ment substituted, constituted and appointed The Comnission=
Annex A.
“Bee
ers of Crown Lands for the Yrovince of Cansda for the time
being to act in all and singular matters, claims and de-
mands of the Cayuga Nation of Indians in the said instru-
ment mentioned and referre. to, and to urge, prefer and
prosecute the said claims and demands, and the rights and
interests of the said Cayuga Nation of Indians in as full
and anple a manner, and as fully and effectually in all
respects as he the said Richard theodore Pennefather could
do if personally present.” (Bp, 407).
THis was dated January 1, 1861.
CANADIAN CAYUGA PETE DION OF 1888,
The attorney for the Canadian Cayugas, General J.C.Strong,
alleged that the Indians were so discouraged by the fallure of
their efforts in 1650-1851, that they did not attempt to do any~
thing further until April 24, 1882, when they presented a peti~
tion to the Commisstonera of the Land Gffice, asking for the
payment for thelr share of their annuities. General Strong as~
serts that this petition was referred by the Commissioners to
the Attorney General of the State, who, under date of October
R, 1682, made a report in whieh 1t is sald che following atate-
ment is madei~
"Tt the claim of the Indians residing in Canada
be deemed by them valid, it might be proper for them
to present it before the State board of audit, and thus
a judicial interpretation of their righta be had by
the courts, otherwise the whole subject should be left
to the Leslslature; that the board of comsiasioners
had no jurisdiction over it." (Bp. 2629)
There is no copy of this petition, nor of the opinion of
the Attorney Genoral, in the record.
CANADIAN CAYUGA PRUTVION OF FEBRUARY 24, 1685.
General Strong, attorney for the Indians, states that the
Indians, pursuant to the opinion of Attorney General Russell,
prepared and filed with the State Board of Audit under date of
February 24, 1883, a Memorial and petition (Bp. 29), Yhe text
Anna Be
Be
of this sppears at Bp, 56%.
thie petition contains a number of atatements that are of
interest, particularly in connection with thu statements made by
the Land Coumfissionara and their opinion of Merch 16, lado,
(8p. 23) to whieh reference has already been made,
It will be yecalled that the Lend Commissioners considered
the Gayuga Nation to be veatident in Canada aposrently as early
ae 17604 (Bp. 26).
the petition of 1883 merely avers that in 1796 "Some of the
Cayugas, quite a larze number, wore then residing in Canada,"
(By. 563).
Consideration should be given here to the avidenso collected
in Annex "Move of Cayugas to Conada."”
bnother allegation thet omy be adverted to in this Memorial
and petition is found in paragraph eight thereof, whieh roadai«
F “Between June 12, 1808 and dune 1, Lalo,
'Owjaegoghetd' op 'Pish Caprier', and all the remaining
Sachems ox chiefs, warclora and hesd mon, and many of the
tolbe (Making with thoas already residing in Canada, more
than three-fourths of the entire mation), left the Valted
Statea and moved over inte Canadm, taking up their residence
in thet country, and have rowsined there ever alnoe:” (Bp.504).
(The inference here 1s thet the origimeal Fish Carcier led this
movement to Canada, where ag the faet le Files Carrler died prior to
May 26, 1796, (Bp. 843) See tnex "Flak Carrier"),
The seventeenth paragraph of this petition is also intorest«
ing. It assertat~
"frat your Petitioners aver they ara not citizena or
rosidents of the State of Sew York, op of the United States,
and that they were never ditigens of either, neither did
allegiance to either, and thab they left the United
States prior to the war between the Unlted Atatea and
dveot Britain , commonly called ‘the war of 1612! and
took up their residence im Canada, and that thoy have
reaided thers ever since.” (Bp. 566).
Annex *,
“Bde
The alternative prayers of this petition are of interest
as showing how uncertain the Indians and their counsel were as
to the rights, if any, whien the Indians possessed. ‘These
prayers readi~
"Your Petitioners therefore claim:-
"1st. That the State of New York is indebtea to
them for the amount of thelr share of said amuity of
$2,500 from the lat day of June, 1810, with interest
thereon, at and afber the rate of six per cent per annum,
from that date until the dete of its payment; amounting
at the time of filing this claim to the sum of (448,000.
“end, If the first claim 1s denied, then your ?eti-
tioners claim that the State of New York is indebted to
them for the amount of their share of said annuity from
the firstcday of June, 1849, with interest thereon as
aforesaid, until the date of its payment.
"3rd. If the first and second claims should be
denied (on the ground that the Statute of Limitations
is a bar), then, and in thet esse, your Petitioners clain
that the state of New York is indebted to them for their
share of said annuity fron the first dey of June, 1877,
with interest thercon as aforesaid untill the date of its
payment.
"4th, If the first, second end third claims are
denied, then your Petitioners claim that the State of
New York is indebted to them for the amount of their
share of sald annuity to become due June 1, 1883, and
for the amount of theiy share of said annuity two become
due thereafter forever, according to the stipulations
and provisions of the aforesaid treaties of 1789 and
1795.” (Bp. 567)
It is significant that this petition alleges no application
for payment by the Canadian Cayugas prior to 1849. (Bp. 566).
General Strong, attorney for the Cayugas, Ssserts as to this
petition (in his petition of 1889 - Bp. 29) that as an Act was
pending in the Legislature to abolish the Board of Audit, the
latter took no action upon the petition, but that the Board of
Claims having been constituted with the same jurisdiction aa the
Board of Audit, the case automotically paased from the Board of
Audit to the Board of Claims, and on the 7th day of Lecember, 1883
the matter came on for hesring. Strong further avers that when
Annex Ay
25a
the petition came before the Board of Claims, attorney General
Ruasell moved to dismiss the claim for want of jurisdiction,
allesing that 1t belonged to the Board of Commissioners of the
Land Office - thus apparently reversing hia former opinion. The
Board of Claims thereupon dismissed the petition for want of
jurisdiction. (Sp, 29).
The record does not contain copies of any of these
proceedings .
CANADIAN CAYUGA PETITION OF MARCH 21, 1684.
General Strong, attorney for the Canadian Cayugas, then
alleges (1n his petition of 1869, = Bp. 29) that the Canadian
Ceyugas filed a second petition with the Board of Commissioners
of the Land Office under date given above, in which the Canadian
Cayugas ssked for partictpation in the annuities, General Strong
states that the Board denies this application on the ground that
the matter was one for the Lezislature and not for them, this
being in accordance with the opinion of a new Attorney General,
Honorable Dennis O'Brien, (For this opinion see Bp. 777)
Thereupon their "friend" (presumably General Strong, ~ Bp.
84) sued out a writ of certilorapi, and the case was carried to
the General Term of the Supreme Court of the Third Department.
The Court, after a somewhat elaborate argument on the
matter, made the following ordert-
"Ordered and adjudged, That the determination of the
sald Board of Commissioners of the Land Office of the
State of New York sought to be reviewed herein, was
erroneous, and the seme is hereby reversed; and it is further
"Adjudged, that said relators, that portion of the
Cayuga nation of Indlanga vesiding im Canada, are entitled
to their proportionate share of the annuity agreed to be
paid to the sald Cayuga Nation of Indians by the State
of New York, in and by said treaties between said State
and said Cayuga Nation dated respectively February £5, 1780,
and July 27, 17955 and it is further
Annex A.
oe BG m
‘ordered and adjudged, what said Board of Gommissioners
of ag office a forthwith proceed to ascertain the
number of Cayuga Indians Including the relators and to pay
the said annuity to the sald Indians per capita, or to
the person or persons duly authorized to receive the
same." (Bp. 34).
General Strong states (in bis petition of 1889, - Bp. 34)
that the Attorney Heneval of the State appealed from the foregoing
decision to the Court of Appeals, and that on the gist day of
June, 1865, the Court of Appeals rendered its decisiont~
Wiese ersing the decision of the General Term of the
geeitta Court, ot the ground of jurisdietion - holdings
that the courts had no juriadietion - that it was not in
the power of courts to gvant the relief, bub was @
matter entirely and solely within the jurisdiction of
the Legislature, which body alone should grant the relief
asked for, The opinion of the court of Appeals is not
reported, *o9 a majority of the court did not coneur in
it.' three of the judges concurred in the opinion, and
one in the result, which was sufficient to reverse the
decision of the General term." (Bp. 34)
CANADIAN CAYUGA PETITION OF 1886.
The sugceeding steps taken by the Indians are thus set out
by Attorney Strongt=
the goon as possible after the Legislature aonvened ,
a memorial and. satition was introduced {nto that body, and
on the 12th day of February, 1886, the Senate by resolution,
peferred the matter to the Board of Commissioners of the
Lend Office, requesting said board to examine into the
matters and things set forth in the seld petition, and to
take evidence and testimony in the case as it may deem
proper, and report to that body, with all convenient speed.
“iret. Whether said petitioners are a part of the
posterity of the Cayuga Indiana with whom the State made
the treaties mentioned in said petition.
“second. Whether tn ite opinion said petitioners are
entitled to s ‘per capita! share of the $2,500 annuity the
State agreed to pay in and by said treaties.
tone Commissioners of the Land Office having received
the aforesaid Senate resolution, veferred it on harch 4,
1886, to the Attorney General, Comptroller and Secretary
of State as a committes to investigate the matters inquired
of in the resolution and report.
"gata Gommitsee afterwards made their report, which,
on May 6, 1886, was adopted by the poard, finding:
ipipat. 'fhat the petitioners are probably the lineal
Annex fe
Oy
descendants of the Cayuge nation of Indians with whom ths
treaties referred to were made.
“Second. That 'the Legislature has undoubted power to
make a distribution giving the petitioners a part or
portion’ of said annuities, and 'that this ia a matter
appealing to the discretion and judgment of the Legislature
alone.
"On May fourteenth, said report was received by the
Senate, and was referred to its Comalttee on Indian Affairs.
this Committee afterwards asked that the report of the
Commissioners of the Land Office be printed.
"the next meeting was on the evening of the seventeenth
instant, just two and a half days prior to the final judg~
ment, which took place at noon on the twentieth instant.
It was therefore Impossible to get the matter brought to a
hearing, so 1t necessarily laid over until the next session
of the Legislature, in January, 1887.
‘tn the Legislature which convened in January, 1887,
a Bill was introduced in both branches, and was referred
to the Camnittee on Indian Affairs in the Senate, and the
Ways and Means in the Assembly, appointed William C. Bryant,
of Buffalo, N, Y., a comnisstoner to inquire into the Lacts
of the case, and if in his opinion the Cayugas in Canada
were entitled to a share of the annuity, 1t empowered him
to make an arrangemont by which they should receive their
share in the future; such arrangement to be subject to the
approval of the Governor,
"The Bill was reported favourably by both committees,
but too late to come up for final passage in elther branch
of the Legislature.
"ehe next stop in the case was the passage of chapter
84 of the Laws of 1688, authorizing the Supreme Court, sitting
in krie county, to appoint a commiasioner to ascertain who
are the payses under the said treaties of 1769 and 1795
"Herbert P, Bissell, Haq,, of Buffalo, N.¥., was
appointed such* commissioner, and had many hearings during’
the sumer of 1886, but the attorneys upon the other side
(Hon, #illiam F. Sheehan and Hon. Leroy Anrus , both having
peen elected mewbers of the Legislature of 1889), hed an
Act introduced into the Legislature to repeal chapter 84
of the Laws of 18688, which passed the assembly but failed
to pass the Senate. .
"Said attorneys claimed that the merits of the case
had not been settled; the petitioner's atuorney claiming
that the decision of the Commissioners of the Land Office
in 1849 end that of the Supreme Court of the Third Depart-
ment in 1885, had fully, faivly and equitably settled the
merits of the case and that all that was Left to be satiled
was provided for in chapter 84.
"Thus matters stood until a day or two prior to the
adjournment of the Legislature of 1889, when chapter 478
of the Laws of 1889 was passed, postponing the report of
Comalssioner Bissell until the 15th day of February, 1890.
"ht the same time a resolution passed the Senate
authorizing its Committee on Indian Affairs to sit during
the recess of the Legislature, and empowering it to
fanex As
a Bu
investigate the olaim of the Cayugas residing in Canada
and to report to the next Leglalatuve, by the 15th
day of January, 1800.
“The Cayuga Indlane residing in Canada, therefore,
appoay before sald Comuitton, and claim:
"ehats they ere a par of the poaterity of the Cayuga
nation of Indlana with whom she state of New York made the
treaties of 1789 end 1705, and that they bave never reline
guished their olaim to the annulties provided for in asid
treaties, and as a part of sald nation claim that they
should be paid thelr per gapita ahare of the moneys paye
able undor aald treatiaa.” (Bp. S6«56)
PROCEAIE RGU BAVORE COMRISS
seat ve
i BISSEEL, 168.
The progecdings before Commissioner Blesell, to whieh General
Strong made reference in the extract just quoted, are to be found
in Sp. 477-589, which contains an abstract of the evidence taken
by the Comdlasloner.
ARFAINS ONDER RRS
mUUsY
LUETOR OF
MPA CONMIT@RE ON DoulAN
MAY 16, 1809.
Progeedings before this Comalssion ere to be found on
Bp. S424
fhe veport of the Commlasion will be found on Bo. 475-4774
The following excerpts therefrom are worth quoting: «
S es
me Be Organ getion became ulvide: nto tes bards,
one Lovated with the Seneca netlon of Indians on. the
Cattaraugue Reservation, in thla State, the other at
Sandusky, Ohio, afberwarda weat of the Misslaalopl river
end now in the Indian territory, but said two bands have
always ote. together and in their united sapaelty heave
at ali times been vecogniaed by this abate aa constitubing
the said Cayuga setion of Indians.
+e be ee
nae » ee
‘“Poat theye was no obligation restine unen sald
Gavuaa ecton bo divide” the ater anon vie iidtva dual,
piembors of aaid nation, Uub thet seid nation
absoluce signe: nan
Annex A
~BQ«
tod tepose of the sone without aecountabl ity to this
ate, ead that “the State of New Poni LA oa UAL o
rignt, or authority to pay sald annuity or any pa
thereof to any Tnoividuel member oF Wombers-of Sai
Ration (except when duly authorized s0 to y sald
tevice nation) but can only discharge its treaty obli-
gation by paying said annuity entire to the duly recog-
nized representatives of the Gayuga nation of Indians,
so long as sald people are recognized as an existing nation.
'trem the evidence taken before your committee and the
conceded facts, Lt appears
Yesest. That the sald annuity money was pursuant to
the terms of the treaty of 1795 paid by the State of New
York to 'Phe Agent for Indian affairs under the United
States for the time being residing within thia state! up
to and including the year 1629, That said moneys were
by said Agent for Indian affairs! each year paid over to
the representatives of the Cayuga nation of Indians, as
recognized by said agent and the government of this State.
“second. That on the “8th day of February, 1020, a
new treaty was entered into by and between this Stete and
the said Cayuga nation of Indiana through their duly acored=
ited representatives by which the time and manner of paying
said annuity were change:, and the provisions of said former
treaties in seid respects released end discharged.
"Mird. That afterwards and on the Sth dey of |
September 1831,another treaty was entered into between this
State and said Cayuga nation through their duly recognized
representatives by which this State agreed upon a different
manner of paying said annuity and also assumed an obligation
to divide said annulty between those Cayugas who were about
to vemove from Sandusky, Ohio, and this State to some place
west of the Mississippi river as one band, and those of said
Cayugas who should remain in this State as another band,
upon & basis set forth therein.
"Fourth, At a treaty dated duly 4, 1846, made between
this State and that band of the asid Gayuga nation reaiding
in the western part of this State, the State of “ew York
agreed with said Indians that it would distribute among said
band the portion the said money belonging to them according
to the number of menbera in each family who may remain in
this State.
"e4fth, That the saeld wo bands of Cayugas have at
different times arranged among themselves the proportion
each should recelve of said annuity according to thelr
respective numbers at the time, and that this State has
divided said annuity among them in conformity with such
agreements,
“Your committee would further report that from all the
evidence prosented before us we have reache. @ conclusion
that no part of the sald annuity of @2,500 was ever paid
to those Cayuga diana who removed to Canada and” became
oe as nts of the bounty of the Rngifsh government. “That
“tiie 3 HG avidenas that this Tune ae over Gv dod among,
the individuals or families of said nation except as this
State has made such a division under the treaty with the
*
Annex. As
BO
New York band dated July 4, 1646.
"Your committee would further report that there is a
Large body of Indians residing In Canada who are descendants
of individuals whe were members of the Cayuga nation of
Indians at the time the said treaties of 1788 and 1795
were entered into. That the ancestors of said Ganadian
Sayugas left the United states and eonaee protection and
he bounty of the English goverment prior bo the war of
TSIs. ‘that they were recetved by sald government and pro-~
Vided for as its wards as a recompense for their services
or said government in tho war of the Revolution.
What when said Cayugas so removed To Canada they ceased
to be members of that Cayuga nation of Indians which was
recognized and acknowledged by this State. They ceased to
share in the funds and provisions mad: for the said Cayuga
nation, and that said Canedian Gayugas have not since they
so vemoved had any lot or interest with ssid Cayuga nation
as recognized by the government of this State. That by
anid removal they withdrew from membership in the said
Cayuga nation as so recognized. Ihat said Cayuga nation of
Mndians ceased to deal with om recognize snid emigrating
Indians as members of said Nation, and they heve never since
Pecosnized them as membérs thereot.
"hat by seh emigre ion acid Canadian Cayugaa surrene
dered a1] elaim or interest In the annuity funds and property
of suid Cayuga nation of Indians.
‘Your committes further report that the ground urged
by the elaimants ~ that they are entitled to a share of the
gaid annuity by veason of a provision in a treaty entered
into between the government of Great Britain and the United |
States at the close of the war of 1812, designated as the
treaty of Ghent ~ 1s not well founded. ‘The Canadian Cayugaa
were not in receipt of any part of suid annuity In the year
i8it" end wero not then entitled to receive any ‘part thercok
tinder thé rulés and regulations of seid Cajyuge nation of
Indians or by tbe terms of the satd treaties between said
nation snd this otate.
“Your eanalttee would further report that the Cayuga
nation of Indians have no lends in this state, Tuat those
members of said nation residing within our state nuwber shout
150 and reside at sufferance woon the lands of the Seneca
Indiana, with whom they have inter-married until they have
become substantially Senecas, having even lost the use of
their own language, ‘That the Gayugas have nowhere lands
belonging to them as a distinet people. That have no written
national records, no provision for national care of their
poor, for education, or for any general purpose. That the
bands are widely separated having no interests in common,
and that in the judgment of your committee the time has
avrived when this State should cease to recognize them in a
netional capacity, but should make provision for dividing
anong the members of said nation a sum equal to the value
of said annuity and. thus diacharge its obligetions.
"Your committee would further recomend that the
Cayuga Indiana in Canada be authorized by law to present
their claim to shave in the distribution of said funds to
the Board of Claims af this State, to be heard by said
Amnex A.
-3l-
board upon the oral. testimony taken before this committee,
and such documentary and historical evidence as said court
shall decide to be competent evidence, and that the Cayuga
Indians in the United states may be heard therein as parties
defendant, and that the findings of seid board shall be
conclusive as to the rights af said Canadian Cayugas to
share therein.” (Bp. 474, 475, 476, 477)
Proceedings before the SLAT LEGISLATURES OF 1690-1891.
It appears from the resume annexed to the report of the Land
Board (dated Way 17, 1911) that Senator Vedder, a member of the
Senate Committes on Indian Affairs, who conducted the investiga-
tion in 1889, Introduced a bill in the Senate In 1890.
"And again in the Senate in 1692, (Int, No. 540),
providing that the Cayuga Nation of Indians should there-
after be considered as having coased to exiat es a Nation,
tribe or dilatinct people; that Commissioners be appointed
to investigate and determine who are the posterity of those
Indtens who on July &7, 1796 composed the Cayuga Nation and
that the fact that any individual shared in the annuity
distribution in the State of New York or in the Indian
territory, in the year 1890, or thet his or her name appear-
ed upon the official census list of Cayuga Indians in the
Dominion of Canada for the year 1690 shall be prima facile
evidence that said persons are posterity of the Cayuga
Nation of 1795 and that no person shall be exeluded by
reason of non-residence or absence of himself or ancestors
from the limits of the United States or for misconduct
of any kind. The bill further provided for public hearings
by said Commissioners and that the evidence, reduced to
writing, should be certified and filed in State Comptroller's
Offices, It also provided for an appeal by any claimant
to the Board of Claims.
"$100,000 was intended by thia Dil to be appropriated
to pay the posterity of the Cayuga Nation in lieu of the
annual payments provided in the treaties heretofore made
by this atate with said nation, and in full payment of any
real or alleged arreerages in the payment of said annuities,
which was to be distributed by the State Comptroller equally
among those Indians who should by said Commissloners be
dstermined to be the posterity of sald Cayugas, paying the
shares of those residents of Canada to a person to be
ap-ointed by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs
for the Dominion of Ganada, and in other cases to individual
Indians or to heads of families, guardians or trustees, but
no payments to be made, until the heneficiaries shall
release to the State all claims past, present and future,
growing out of any treaties made with the Cayuge Nation
by thia State.
"Eech of these bills passed the Senate but were re-
Annex by
Bow
jected by the Assembly tn 1890 and 1891." (Bp. 775)
PROCHEDINGS BEFOR# THE STATE LEGISLATURE 1895,
A resume annexed to the report of the Standing Committee
of the Land Board of May 17, 1011, states further:~
"In 1895 the bil. of 18600 and 1891 was again intro«
duced with some slight changes (ee senate Bill 103 of
1895 ~ copy in Appendix) and later Senate BLL1 $81, au-
thorising the Court of Claims to determine the claim of the
Canadian Cayugas to their share in annuities and Senate
Bill 384, authorizing the Court of Claims to determine the
claim of the Canadian Cayugas for the profits on the sale
of their lands in 1795 to the State. Both of these two
latter bills were subsequently amended in, and were passed
by the Senate, and the claim bill for profits, as amended,
provided for the adjustment of the claims also of the New
York and Missouri Cayugas, (S66 copies of these billie in
Appendix Nos» and *
"Neither of these bills beceme law." (Bp. 776).
PROCHEDINGS BEFORE THE STATE LEGISLATURE 188941900.
The resume annexed to the report of the Stending Committee
of the Land Board of May 17, 1911, makes the following statement
regarding proceedings during this period:~
“In 1899 and again in 1900, Governor Roosevelt trans-
mitted to the Legislature correspondence received by him
from the Department of State at Washington, enclosing
lettera from Sir Julian Pauncefote, British Ambassador,
and a report of the Canadien Privy Council, with the sug
gestion on the part of the Governor that the claim of the
Canadian Cayugas should receive a thorough examination and
eareful consideration by the Lezislature. (See Sen.Doc.
20 of 1899 and Assembly Uoc. 12 of 1900, annexed Appendix
and, .
"No further attention, however, has apparently been
given by the Legislature to the claims of the Canadian band
of Cayugas." (Bp. 776—'7'77)
DIPLOWALIG GORKESPONDUNCEH,
Beginning with 1897 the question was taken up by the
British Government with the Department of State ay Washington.
(For this correspondence seo Bp. 79%~799 and Ap. 941-956).
| Annex A.
B=
REPORT OF SYANLING COMAT’ OF THE LAND BOLRD TO THK
COMBISSTONNIGS OF THA LAND OFFICE » May 17, 2011.
In 1911 the matter again came before the Commissioners of
the Land Office of the State of New York, and after en elaborate
exemination by the Standing Comittee heving the matter in
charge, that Committee made the following raporti~
"state of Sew York, |
Attorney General's Office,
&lbany, Hay 17, 19l1,
Bofore the Spanding Committee of the Land Board:~
In the matter
of :
fne claim of the Cayuga Nation of Indians residing
an the State of Sew York, under Chapter 85. of the Laws
of 1908.
fo the Cowslestoners of the Land Officer~
Gentlement« Ke recommend that the epplication of the
Cayuga Nation of Indians be denied on the groundai«
Pirsti« thet thero ia no legal basis for the clala.
Secondt« That there is nothing before the Land Board
fron wateh it can determine that the Indians have suffered
any damage by reason of the purchase of their landa by the
State of “Sew York.
Thindt. An extensive resume of the law and feots In
this oaue Ls hereto annesed.
Respectfully Submitted,
i Thomng Carmody,
Attorney Genoval.
doh J. Kennedy,
State Treasurett.
d, A, Bengel,
State kugineer & Surveyor.
(Bp. '756~'759)
on
ANNEX Be
INDIAN NATIONALITY «
THE STATUS OF AN INDIAN TRIBE OR NATION,
4t the end of the Revoluntionary “ar, the United States made
treaties with a number of Indian tribes or Nations resident with
in its borders. Among others, the United States made treaties
of peace and friendship with the Six Nations. ‘Tho earliest. of
these appears to have been made on Ootober 22, 1784, at Fort
Stanwix with the Seneoas, Mohawks, Onondagoes, and Cayugas, the
opening paragraph of this treaty readat=
"The United States of Amerlea give peace to the
Senecas, Mohawks, Onondagoes,and Cayugas and receive
them into their protect’on upon the following conditions:"
(7 Stats, 15)
This was the earliest of the treaties(as recorded in 7
Stats.) In which this language was used, but lt is the basis
upon which all other treaties are bullt, as will be seen from.”
the following statement, in the treaty dated January 21, L788,
at Fort M'Intoah, between the Wiandots, Delawares, Chippawas,
and Ottawas « "Nations of Indians" » the provision (Article Ti)
readsi~
"The gatd Indian nations do acknowledge themselves
and all thely tribes to be under the protection of the
United States and of no other sovereign whatsoever,"
(7 stats.16)
Ab the Hopewell treaty with the Cherokees, dated November
28, 1785, it reads in this wiser
"The Comuissioners Plenipotentiary of the United
States, in Congress assembled, give peace to all the
Cherokees, and receive them into the favour and pros
tection of the United States of America, on the follow=
dng sonditionsat®
By article TIT of thia same treaty it was stipulated that
"the said Indians for themselves and their res
pective tribes and towns do atknowledge all the cherokees
to be under the protection of the United States of
Ameriloa, and of no other sovereign whosoever,"
(7 State, 1819)
Annex B.
~Q~
On January 3, 1786, the United States concluded at Hopewell
a treaty with the Choctaw Nation, the opening sentence of which
readsie«
"The Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America give peace to all the Choctaw nation,
and receive them into the favour and protection of the
United States of americas, on the following conditions:
By Article IT of this treaty 1s was provided thats«
"The Commissioners Plenipotentiary of all the
Choctaw nation, do hereby ucknowledge the tribes and
towns of the said nation, and the lands within the
boundary allotted to the said Indians to live and hunt
on, a8 mentioned in the third article, to be under the
protection of the United states of America, and of no
other sovereign whosoever." (7 Stats. 21)
A few days later, on January 10, 1786, the United States
concluded at Hopewell, a treaty with Chickasawa, the opening
paragraph of which readsiq
“The Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America give peace to the Chickasaw Nation, and
_recelve them Into the faveur and protection of the said
States, on the following conditiona:"
Artiele II of this treaty provided thats
"The Commissioners Plenipotentiary of the Chickasawa,
do hereby acknowledge the tribes and the towns of the
Chiekasaw nation, to be under the protection of the
United States of America, and of no other sovereign
whosoever,” (7 Stats. 24}
A treaty between the Shawanoea and the United States, dated
January 31, 1786 (concluded at the mouth of the Great Miami)
reads somewhat differently. It 18 provided by article IT of
this treaty thati-
"The Shawano nation do acknowledge the United States
to be the sole and absolute soveréigns of all the territory
ceded to them by a treaty of peace, made between them and
the King of Great Britain, the fourteenth day of January,
one thousand Seven hundred and cighty-four.®
Article V of this treaty readst=
"The United States do grant peace to the Shawanoe
Annes By
Bon
“nation, end do receive them inte their friendship and
protection.” (7 Stata. 26-27)
On January 9, 1769, at a trcaty concluded at fort Harmar,
between the United states and the idandots, Delawaros, Ottawia,
and Chinpewea, and also with the Pottawatimes and Sees, it was
provided as followsi«
"The United States of ‘marica do hereby renew end
confirm the porce and friendship entered Into with the
seid nations, at the treaty befere mentioned, held at rort
Mikntesh; and the sald nations again acknowledge theme
gelvea, and all theiv tribes, to be under the protection
of the said United states, and no other power whatever."
"the United States of America do also racoive into
their friendship and protection, the nations of the Patii«
watimeas and Secs} ani do hereby establish a leasue of peace
and anity between them respectively; snd 811 the articles
of this treaty, so far.as they apoly to those nations, are
to be considered ag made and concluded in all, and every
part, expressly with them and each of them." (7 Stats. 26,51)
On January 9, 1789, the United States also wade at Fort
Havuar, a troaty with the Six Nations, all of whom attended
except the Hohawlts « thie treaty covered the question of boundaries
between the United Gbates and these nations, and vy Article IV
confirmed the earlier treaty as follow.t}
“the United States of Amerlea esnew and confirm the
peace and friendship entered into by the Six Nationa,
(except the Mohawks) at the treaty before maontioned, held
At Fort Stanwix, declaring the seme to be perpetual. And
if the Mohawks shell, within six months, deolare their
agsent to the same, they shall be considered ag inoluded."
(7 State. 33-34)
In 1605 (August latn), the United States made a treety with
the Saskeakiae, Im which it was provided by Articole Ti):
“the United States will take the Kaskaskia tribe
under their immediate eare and patronarze, and will afford
them a protection as effectual agsinst the other Indian
tribes ond against all other persons whatever as is enjoyed
by their own citisens. and the said Kaskeskia tribe do
heraby engage to refrain from making war or giving any
insult or offence to any other Indian tribe or toe any
foreign nation, without having fires obtained the
Annex B.
whee
approbation and consent of the United States. (7 Stats. 78)
On August 18, 1804, the United States made a treaty with
the Delaware Indians, in which the following provision occurs:~
"As the Plankishaw tribe have hitherto obatinately
persisted in refusing to recognize the title of the
Pelawares to the tract of country ceded by this treaty,
the United States will negotiate with them end will
endeavor to settle the matter, in an amicable ways but
should they reject the propositions that may be made to
them.on this subject, and should the United States not
think proper to teke possession of the said country with
out their consent; the stipulations and promises herein
made on hebalf of the United States, shall be null and
void.” (7 Stats, 8182)
On November 3, 1804, the United States made at St. Louis a
treaty with the Fox Indlans, In which it 1s provided in Article
T thatt-
"The United States receive the United Sac and Fox
tribes into their friendship and protection, and the
said tribes agres to consider themselves under the
protection of the United States, and of no other
power whatsoever," (7 Stats, 84)
on July 4, 1805, the United States made another treaty with
the YWyandots, Ottawas, Chipawas, Munsees, and belawares, Shawane
ees and Fottawatimas at Fort Industry, which stipulated in
Article Ite
Sone said Indian nationa do again acknowledge
themselves and all thelr tribes, to be in friendship
with, and under the protection of the Yaited States.”
(7 Stats. 87)
On Lecember 30, 1605, the United States made at Vincennes
a treaty with the Plankishaws, Article II of which veadsi-~
"the United States tuke the Piankishaw tribe
under their immediate care and patronage, and will
eatend to them a protection as effectual as that which
is enjoyed by the Kaskaskia tribes and the said
Plankishaw tribe «ili never commit any depredations
or make war upon any of the other tribes without the
consent of the United States." (7 Stats. 100)
At the treaty at Greenville, dated July 22, 1814, between
the United States and the Syendets, Uelawares, Shawanoeses,
Annex Be
= Be
Senecas, and Miamies, it waa provided in Article IIT that:~
"The Wyandot tribe, and the senceas of Sandusky
and Stony Creek, the Delaware and Shawanoese tribes,
who have preserved their fidelity to the United States
throughout the war, again acknowledge themselves under
the protection of the said states, and of no other
power whatever, and agree to ald the United States,
in the manner stipulated for in the former article,
and to make no peace but with the consent of the said
states.” (7% Stats. 118)
Tt was recited in this treaty that the Miamies nased weret
“formerly designated as the Mieml kLL Kiver and Weea tribes.”
This treaty was the first of a series of treaties made at the
conclusion of the war of 161, In compliance with Article Ix
of the Treaty of Ghent. (I Malloy, p. 612)
On July 19, 1815, the United States made at Portage Des
Siloux, a treaty with the Teeton Indians, of which Article III
peadsi«
"Che undersigned chiefs and warriors, for then-
selves and thelr said tribe, do hereby acknowledge
themselves and their aforesaid tribe to be under the
protection of the United States of America, and of no
other nation; power, sovereign, whatsoever." (7 Stats. 125)
Essentially ‘che same provisions were included in a treaty
dated July 19, 1615, between the United States and the Sioux of
the Lakes (made at Portage bes Sioux) (7 Stats. 126);
In a treaty made July 19, 1815, at Portage bes Sioux between
the United States and the Sioux ef the River St. Peters: (7 State.
12e7)3
In a treaty made July 19, 1815, at Portage Des Sioux between
the United States and the Uancton tribe of Indians: (7 Stata. 188)
In a treaty made July 20, 1815, at Portage Des Sioux between
the United States and the Mahsat (7 Utate. 120)
In a treaty made October #8, 1816 at St. Loula between the
United States and the Kansas Indians: (7 Stata. 18'7)
Annex B.
Gm
In a treaty made June 1, 1816 at St. Louis between the United
States and the Sioux of the Leaf, Sioux of the Broad Leaf, and the
Sioux whe shoot in the Pine Topat (7 Stats. 143)
In a treaty made June 3, 1616, at St. Louisa between the
United States and the Winnebago Indians: (7 Ssata. 144)
In a treaty made March 30, 1817 at St. Louis between the
United States and the Menonenee Nation: (7 Stata. 153)
In a treaty made June 24, 1817, between the United Statea and
the Ottoes: (7 Stats. 154)
In a treaty made June @5, 1817, betweon the United States and
the Ponoarer Indians! (7 stats. 165)
In a treaty made Juse 18, 1818, at stb. Louls, between the
United States and the Grand Pawnee Indiens: (7 States, 172)
In a treaty made dune 19, 1818, at St. Louis between the
United States and the Pitavirete Noisy Pawnee Indians: (7 Stats, 173)
In a treaty made June 20, 1818, at St. Louis, between the
United States and the Indians of the Pawnee Republic: (7 Stata.
174)
In a treaty made June 8%, 1818, at St. Louls, between the
United states and the Pawnee Marhay Indians, (7 State. 175)
In the treaty of September 8, 1615, (mede at Springwells)
petween the United States and the ‘iyandot, Delaware, Seneca,
Shawenoe, Miami, Chippewa, Ottawa, and Potawatimie Indians, peace
was given to the Chippewa, Ottawa, and Potawatinie tribes, and
the following undertakings were madet+
"they also agree to restore to the said Chippewa,
Ottawa, and Poyawatimile tribes, a1] the possessions,
rights, and privileges, which they enjoyed, or were
entitled to, in the year one thousand eight hundred and
eleven, prior to the commencement of the late war with
Great Britains and the said tribes, upon their part, agree
agein to place themselves undsr the proteation of the
Annex B.
= Tom
United States, and of no other power whatsoever.
"tn consideration of the fidelity to the United States
which has been manifested by the Wyandot, Delaware, Seneca,
and Shawanoe tribes, throughout the late war, and of the
repentance of the Wieaml tribe, as manifested by placing
themselves under the protection of the United States, by
the treaty of Greenville, in elghteen hundred and four-
teen, the said States agree to pardon such of the chiefs
and warriors of said tribes to restore them to the stations
and property which they held previously to the war."
(7 Stats, 141)
In a treaty made July 30, 1619 at Edwardsville, between the
United States and the Aickapoos, a variation irom the foregoing
types was made by a provision which readsi-
‘the United states will take the said Kickapoo tribe
under thelr care and patronage, and will afford them pro~
tection azainst all persons whatever, provided them con»
form to the laws of the United States, and refrain from
making war, or giving any Insult or offense to any other
Indian tribe, or to any foreign nation, without first
having obteined approbation and consent af the United
States." (7 Stata. 200, 201.)
Essentially this same provision was incorporated in a treaty
entered into September 18, 1625 at Moultrie Creck between the
United States and the Florida Indians (7 Stats. 284)
In the treaties with the following named Indian tribes,
thers was no specific agreement regarding the protection of the
United States or place of such a provision being taken by a
recognition of former troaties:
Treaty between the United States and the Poutawatemie
Nation, July 18, 1815: (7 Stats. 123)
treaty between the United States and the Piankishaw Nation,
July 16, 18153 (7 Stata. 124)
treaty between the United States and the Kickapoo Nation,
September &, 1815: (7 Stats. 130)
Treaty between the United States and the Great and Little
Osage Nations, September 12, 1815: (7 Stats, 133)
Annet Be
Be
Treaty between the United States and the fox Nation,
September 14, 1815: (7 Stats. 135)
"reaty between the United States and the Tawey Nation,
September 16, 1815: (7 Stats. 136)
Treaty between the United States and the Weas and
Kickapoos, June 4, 1616, (7 Sbata. 146)
Annex Bs
Gm,
It is quite evident from the language used in the treaties
eited that the easential part of sach of them is the assertion
that the various Indian Nations covered by the treaties are taken
“into” or “under” the “protection” of the United States. The
only possible question arises, therefore, as to what is meant by
the word protection.
It may be observed in oassing that this term protection,
which waa used with reference to the +roquois Indians In 1784 in
the treaty quoted, which treaty was confirmed by the treaty made
at Fort Harmer, January 9, 1789, between the same parties, ex~«
eept the Mohawks, (7 Stats. 33), was substantially the same
language as that used between the United States and such Indiana
as the Delawares, Shawanoess, Kaskaskias, and Pottawatimees, ag
well ag the numerous other tribes who were undoubtedly inhabl-
tants of the territory of the Ynited States alone, so that at
the time these treaties were made there would seom to be no
reasonable question but that the United States understood all
these Indian tribes were on precisely the same basis so far aa
their velationship to the United states was concerned; that isa
to say, that all of them were United states tribes or nations, It
is true that the Indian treaties mode pursuant to the Treaty of
Ghent contained generally the phrase, or its equivalent, - “under
the protection of the United States of amoriea, and of no other
nation, power or soverelen whatsoever." But the words under
lined were quite certainly added because of the action of the
Indians in the War of 1612, when emmable to British influence
and machinations, they had joined the British in the war against
the United States. ‘This extra phrase was, therefore, added to
protect the United States so far as possible against any re-
Annex B,
~1O~
oceurrence of this situation,
It is not believed possible successfully to contend that
that Indian tribes and nations are veglly, or ever were,
"yroteated states", in the true sense of that term. It is true
that the language in these Indian treaties is remarkably similar
in sense to the language, for example, in the Convention between
Great Britain and fustria and Russia and Prussia of November 5,
1615, by virtue of which the Tonlan Islands were placed under the
protection of Great Britain by an arrangement which made of the
Islends " a porfect specimen of 8 semt-severeign state." (I Philli-
more, pe 101, citing Kluber). Tho Second article of the Convention
veferred to, reads In this pertinent part aa followst-
pts state shall be pleced under the imuediate and
excluslvo protection of Mis wajesty the King of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Treland, his heirs and
successors."
Tt 18 also true thas some authorities would seem to treat
tho Indians as "seml-soverelgn states, under the exelusive protea-
borate of another power.” For example, ‘heaton, in his Inter»
netional Law, makes the following comnentt-
"Phe political relation of the Indian nations on this
continent towards the United states, is that of seml-sover-
eign states, under the exclusive protectorate of another
power. Some of these savage tribes have totally extin-
guished thelr national fire, and submitted themselves to
the laws of the States within whose territorial limits
they reside; others have acknowledged, by treaty, that they
hold their national existence at the wlll of the Staves
othors retain o Limited sovereignty, and the absolute
proprietorship of the soil. The latter Le the case with
the tribea to the west of Georgia. (a)
‘thus the Supreme Court of the United atates deter-
mined, in 1831, that, though the Cherokee nation of Indians
dwelling within the jurisdictional limits of Georgia, was
not a "foreign State in the sense in which that term 1s
used in the Constitution, nor entitled, as such, to pro-
ceed in that Court against the state of Georgia, yet the
Cherokees constituted a State, or a distinet political
society, capable of managing its own affeilrs and govern-
ing lteolf, and that they had uniformly been treated as
such since the first settlement of the country. The
Annex By
lie
numerous treaties made with them by the United States
recognize them as a people. capsble of maintaining the
relations of peace and war, and responsible in their
political capacity. ‘Their rolation to the United States
waa nevertheless peculiar. They were 4 donostic dependent
nation; their relation to us resembled that of a ward to
nis guardian; and they had an unquestionable right to the
lands they occupled until that right should be, extinguished
by @ Voluntary cession to our government »
“Pho same decision wea repeated by the Supreme Court,
in another case, in 1838. In this cease, the Court declared
Revolution, to interfere with the natlonal affaira of the
Indians, further than to g,
powers, who might seduce them Into foreign alliances. The
British Government purchased the alliance and dependence of
the Indian nations by subsidies, and purchased their lands,
when they were willing to sell, at the price they were
willing to take, but it never coerced a surrender of them.
The British crown considered thom'as nations, competent to
maintain the relations of peace and war, and of governing
themselves under its protection, Tne United btates, who suce
ceeded to the rights of the British crown, in respect to the
Tndiens, did the same, and no more; and the protection sti-
pulated to be efforded to tae Indians, and claimed by them, was
understood by all parties as only binding the Indians to the
United States as dependent allies. & weak power does not
surrender its independence and right to self-government by
aasoolating with a stronger and taking 1ts protection. this
was tho settled doctrine of the Lew of Nations; and the
Supreme Court therefore coneluded and adjudged, that the
Cherokee nation was a distinet community, o¢cupying its
own territory, with boundaries accurately deseribed, within
whieh the lawa of Georgia could not rightfully have any
forse, end into which the citizena of thet otate had no
right to enter but with the assent of the Cherokees theme
selves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acta of
Congress." (Dana's Wheaton, Highth Edition, p. 58)
Bub the true principle operative between the bmervican Indians
and the United States and Great britain, seems to be that stated
by Oppenheim +
‘rhe Law of Nations as a law between States based on the
comion consent of the members of the Family of Netions nature
ally does not contain any rules concerning the intercourse
with and treatment of auch States as are outside thet clrele.
That thie intercourse and treatment ought to be regulated by
the principles of Christian morality is obvious, But actue
ally @ practice frequently prevalia which 1s aot only con-
trary to Christian morality, but srbitrary and barbarous.
Be that as it may, tt 1s discretion, and not International
Law, according to which the members of the Family of Nations
deal with suoh States as still remain outside that family.
Annex Ba
whee
But the United states of smerica apply, ea far as possible,
the rales of International Law to their relations with the
Red Indians.” (Vol. I, seetion @9, pe 34, Second bdition).
Lana's note to the extract from Wheaten quoted ehove con-
tains a distinct statement of the general Law of the United States
regarding the relationship between the Indfans and the United
States; and while this note deals primarily with Indian titles to
lends, its comments heve a divect bearing upon the political status
of tho Indian NetLons es do most ell observations by International
law writers. ‘Tiles nobe readsi:-
“(24, It is important to notice the underlying fect,
thet the title to all the lands occupied by the Indian tribes,
beyond the limits of the thirteen original States, 1s in the
United States. The republie sequired lt by the treaties of
Peace with Great Britain, by cessions from France and Spain,
and by velinquishments made by the several Gtates. The Indian
tribes have only « right of occupancy. Their vossession was
held to be of so nomadic and unelvilized » character as to
amount to no more than a kind of servitude or lien upon the
land, eniofly for fishing, and hunting; the absolute title
being in the republic. henever the republic nas bought out
an Indian tribe, and induced it to remove from a seetion of
country, the act bas always been culled an “extinguishment of
the Indian title” upon the lands of the United States. This
title of occupancy the tribes are not permitted to convey
to any other then the United states, The United states pro»
tect the Indians in their possesslon, and make treaties with
the tribes; at the same time, the goverment makca laws,
which have effect within the oceuganey of the tribes, to
punish Indians as well as white persons for crimes, and to
decide cuestions vetween whites, or between Indians and
whites, and provide for the eduestion of the tribal Indians
in agrieulture and the arts of life, and plain school-teach=
ing at the public expense, Af tribe 1s not a "foreign state,”
within the meaning of the Constitution, for the purpose of
suing in the Federal courtae. where a teiba holds 2 distriet
within « State, and is recognized by the United States oe
heving tribal autsority and jurisdietio , the State cannot
meko penal and orliiinal laws to arveat Indians, remove them,
» try them for orimas in the State courta. The Indian
tribes ave not under State jurladiction where they hold
lands within tne State, an a tribe, wider treatLes and lawa
of the republic; and their rolations with the republic are
ris, heving been shaped and modified by time end events
rv. Georgia, Paters, Vi» 515; Altehell v. United
States, Peters, Lx. T7113 Latilmer v. Potect, Peters, xive 43
United States v. Fernandez, Peters, x. G05; United tates ve
Rogers, Howe Lvs 4673 Charokee Netion ve Georgia, Peteray,
v. 13 Srightiy's itgest of United States Laws, title “Indians,”
» BY (note 24, p, 60)
Annex Be
wloaw
‘Halleck's statement of the law ugon this napber is ag
followas~
"With respect to the North american Indians, upon
the discovery of the Amerloan continent, the prineiple
was asserted or acknowledged by all European nations ,
that discovery gave title to the government by whose
subjects or by whose authority it was made, against all
other Ruropean governments; which title might be consum«
mated by possession. This principle gave to the nation
making the discovery the sole right of acquiring the
land and making settlements upon it. The relations
which were to exist between the discoverers and the
natives were to be pegulated by Shemselves. In the es~
tablishment of these relations the rights of the original
{nhabitants wore in no case entirely disregarded, but
were necessarily to a considerable extent impaired.
They were admitted to be the vightful occupants of the
soll, with a legal as well as just claim to retain pos~«
session of 1b, and to use it according to their dis-
eretion; but their righta to complete soverelenty as
independent nations were necessarily diminished, end
their power to dispose of the soll by theix own will to
whonsoever they pleased was denied. While the rights of
the natives sa occupants were respected, Lt was assorted
that the ultimate right was in the discoverers, who
claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate
dominion, @ power to grant the soll while yet in the
possession of the natives. These grants have been under
stood to convey a title to the grantees, subject only
to the Indian right of oocupancy. The Indian tribes
were nob conceded the natural capacity to hold absolute
title to land, except in cases apecially provided by
preaty.” (I baker's Halleck, Fourth Edition, p» 80.
See note also).
_ Mail has an interesting note to his discussions of
protected states. it reads as followst~
“protected states euch as those included in the
Indien Empire of Great Britein are not subjecta of
International law. Indian native states are theoreti«
cally in possession of internel sovereigaty, and their
relations to the British Empire are in al] cases more
ov less defined by treaty; but im matters not provided
for by treaty a 'residuary jurisdiction’ om the part of
the Iihperial Government is considered to exiat, and the
treaties themselves are subjeat to the reservation that
they may be disregarded whem the supreme interests of the
Empire are involved, or even when the interests of the
subjects of the native princes arc gravely affected.
fhe treaties roally amount to little more than statements
of limitations which the Imperial Government, exoept in
very exceptional circumstances, pleces on its own action.
No doubt this wes not the original. intention of many
Annex Be
om Libe
of the treaties, but the conditions of English sover-
eienty in India have grestly changed since these were
concluded, and the modifications of their effect which
the changed conditions have rendered necessary are
thoroughly well understood and acknowledged. (By
notification in ite official Gazette, August 21, 1801,
the Indian Government declared. that "the principles of
international law have no bearing upon the relations!
potween itself and the Native States under the Suzeralnty
of the Queen-limpress. ) For the international aspects of
protectorates over tastern snd Afvloan states and communi-
ties, not themselves subjects of international law, and not
4dncluded in the Indlan tmpire, see poste pe les."
(Sixth Bdition, p. 27)
Later in his work, Hall discussed protectorates over uncolvi~
liged and setti~clviligzed peoples in this language:-
“States may require rights by way of protectorate over
barbarous or imperfectly civilized countries, which do not
amount to full rights of property or sovereignty, but which
ape good 4s against other civilized states, so as to prevent
occupation or conquest by them, end so as to debar them from
maintaining veletions with the protected slates or pooples.
Ppotectorates of this kind differ from colonies in that the
protected territory 1a not an Integral portion of the
territory of the protecting state, and differ both from colon~
des and protectorates cf the type existing within the Indien
Empire, in that the protected community retains, as of wight,
all powers of internal sovereignty which have not been ex-
pressly surrendered by treaty, or which are not needed for
the due fulfilment of the external oblig: ons which the
protecting stete has divreetly or imolictitly undertaken by
the act of assuming the protectorate.
‘International law touches protectorates of this kind by
one side only. he protected states or communities are not
subject to a law of which they never hoards thelr crolations
to the protecting state are not therefore determined by inter-
national lows, It steps in so far only as the assumption of the
protectorate affects the protecting country with resvonslbi~
lities towards the rest of the civilized states of the world.
They are barred by the presence of the protecting atate from
exacting redress by foree for any wrongs which thelr subjects
may suffer at the hands of the native rulers op peoples that
abate must consequently be bound to see that a reasonable
measure of security 1s afforded to foreign subjects and
property within the protected territory, and to prevent
acta of depredation or hostility being done by ita inhabi~
tants. Correlatively to this responsibility the protecting
gtate muat have rights over foreign subjects enabling 1t to
guard other foreigners, lta own subjects, and the protected
natives from harm and wrong doing.” (Jeall, Sixth Edition,
p. 125=126)
Wheaton, at a later point in his work, discussing ‘Rights of
Annex B.
=15<
Property", and particularly the theory and practice of the kuropean
peoples in their contact with the New Norld, and referring parti-
oularly to the Papal Bull of 1495, sald:-
"rndependent of this papal grant, the right of prior
discovery was the foundation upon which the different
European nations, by whou conquests and settlements were
successively made on the American continent, rested their
respective claims to aporopriate its territory to the exclusive
use of each nation. Even Spain did not found her pretension
solely on the papal grant. Portugal asserted a title derived
from discovery and conquest to a portion of South America;
taking care of keep to the eastward of the line traced by che
Pope, by which the globe seemed to be divided between these
two great monarchies, On the other hand, Great Britain, France,
Holland, disregarded the pretended authority of the Papal See,
and pushed their discoveries, conquests, and settlements, both
in the Kast and vest Indies; until conflicting with the parae
mount claims of Spain and Portugal, they produced bloody and
destructive wars between the different maritme powers of Kurope.
But there was one thing in whieh they all agreed, that of almost
entirely disregarding the right of the native inhabitants of
these regions. Thus the bull of Pope Alexander VI. reserved from
the grant to Spain all lands which had been previously occupied
by any other Christian nation; and the patent granted by
Henry VII. of England to John Cabot and his sons, suthorized
them "to seek out end discover all islands, reglons, and pro-
vinces whatsoever, that may belong to heathens and infidens;"
and "to subdue, occupy, and possess these territprles, as his
vassals and lieutenants." In the same manner, the grant from
Queen Elizabeth to Sir Humprey Gilbert empowers him to "disoover
auch remote heathen and barbarous lands, countries, and terri-
tories, not actually possessed by any Christian prince or people,
and to hold, occupy, and enjoy the same, with all thelr commo~-
dities, jurisdictions, and royalties." It thus became a maxim
of policy and of law, taat the right of the native Indians was
subordinate to that of the first Christian discoverer, whose
paramount claim excluded that of every other civilized nation,
and gradually extinguished that of the natives. In the various
wars, treaties, and negotiations, to whieh the conflicting pre-
tensions of the different States of Christendom to territory on
the American continents have given rise, the primitive title of
the Indians has been entirely overlooked, or left to be disposed
of by the States within whose limits they happened to fall, by
the stipulations of the treaties between the different European
powers. ‘Their title has thus been almost entirely extinguished
by foree of arms, or by voluntary compact, as the progress of
cultivation gradually compelled she savage tenant of the forest
to yield to the superior power and skill of his civilized
invader." (Dana's Wheaton, Highth Edition, p. 241).
But perhaps the matter has been best stated in the
lenguage of Chief Justice Marshall himself, who, in the
Cherokee Nation against Georgia, made the following commenta: -
Annex Ba
“16
"ts the Cherokee nation a foreign state, in the sense in
which that term is used in the constitution? The counsel
for the plaintiffs have maintained the affirmative of tails propo-
sition with great earnestness and ability. So much of the argument
aa was intended to prove the character of the Cherokee as a state,
as a distinct political society, separated from others, eapable
of managing its own affairs and governing itself, has, in the
opinion of a mjaority of the judges, been completely succesaful,
they have been uniformly treated as a state, from the set ulement
of our country. ‘The numerous treaties made with them by the
United States, recognize them as a people capable of maintaining
the relations of peace and war, of being responsible in their
political character for any violation of their engagements, or
for any aggression committed on the eitizens of the United States,
by any individual of their community. Laws have been enacted in
the spirit of these treaties. The acts of our government plainly
recognize the Cherokee nation as a state, and the courts are
bound by those acts,
"A question of much more difficulty remains. Do the
Cherokess constitute a foreign state in the sense of the con~
stitution? The counsel have shown conclusively, that they are
not a state of the Union, and have inaisted that, individually
they are aliens, not owlng allegiance to the United States, An
aggregate of aliens composing a state mst, they say, be a foreign
states each individual being foreign, the whole mst be foreign,
‘this argument is imposing, but we must examine it more
closely, before we yield to it, The condition of the Indians
in relation to the United States 1s, perhaps, unlike that of
any other two people in existence, In general, nations not owing
a common alleglanco, are foreign to each other. ‘The term forelgn
nation is with striet propriety, applicable by either to the
other. But the relation of the Indians to the United States is
marked by peculiar and cardinal distinctions which exist nowhere
else, ‘the Indian territory 1s admitted to compose a part of the
United States. In all our maps, geographical treatises,
histories and laws, it is so considered. In all our intercourse
with foreign nations, in our commercial regulations, in any
attempt at intercourse between Indians and foreign natlons, they
are considered as within the jurisdictional limits of the United
States, subject to many of those restraints which are Imposed
upon our own citizens. ‘hey acknowledge themselves, in their
treaties, to be under the protection of the United States; they
admit, that the United States shall have the sole and exclusive
right of regulating the trade with them, and managing all their
affairs as they think proper; and the Cherokees ia particular were
allowed by the treaty of Hopowell, which preceded the constitution,
"to send a deputy of their cholee, whenever they think fit, to
congress." Treaties were made with sowe tribes, by the state of
New York, under a then unsettled construction of the confed~
eration, by which they ceded all their lands to that state, taking
pack a limited grant to themselvea, in which they admit their
dependence, Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an un-
questionable, and heretofore unquestioned, right to the Lands
they occupy, until that right shall be extingulshed by a voluntary
cession to our government; yet it may well be doubted, whether those
tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the
Unites States can, with atrict accuracy, be donominated foreign
Annex Be
==
nations. They may, more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic
dependent nations. ‘They occupy a territory to which we assert a
title independent of thelr will, which mist take effect in point
of possession, when thelr right of possession ceases, Meanwhile,
they are in a state of pupllege; their relation to the United States
resembles that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our
government for protection; rely upon its kindness and its power;
appeal to it for veliefto their wanta; and address the president
as thelr great father. They and their country are considered
by foreign nations, as well as by ourselves, ss belng so com=
pletely under the sovereignty and dominion of the United States,
that any attempt to acquire their lends, or to form a political
connection with them, would be considered by all as an invasion
of our territory and an act of hostility. ‘These considerations
go far to support the opinion, that the framers of our constitution
had not the Indian tribes in view, when they opened the courts
of the Union to controversies between a ssate or the citizens
thereof ana foreign states.
"tn considering this subject, the habits and usages of the
Indians, in their intercourse wlth their white neighbors, ought
not to be entirely disregarded. At the time the constitution was
framed, the idea of appealing to an American court of justice
for an assertion of pight or a redress of wrong, had perhaps
never entered the mind of an Indian or of his tribe. Their
appeal was to the tomahawk, or to the government. This was well
understood by the statesmen who framed the constitution of the
United States, and might furnish some reason for omitting to
enumerate them among the parties who might sue in the courta of
the Union. Se this as it may, the peculiar relations between
the United States and the Indians occupying our territory are
such, that we should feel much difficulty in considering them
as designated by the term foreign state, were there no other
part of the constitution which might shed. light on the meaning
of these words, But we think that in construing them, considerable
ald is furnished by that clause in the eighth section of the t bird
article, which empowers congress to “regulate commerce with
foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the
Indian twrlbes." In this clause, they are as clearly contradis-
tinguished, by a name appropriate to themselves, from foreign
nations, as from the several states composing the Union. They
are designated by a distinet appellation; and as this appellation
can be applied to neither of the others, nelther can the appli-
cation distinguishing either of the others be, in falr construction,
applied to them, The objects to which the power of
regulating commerce might be directed, are dividea into three
distinet classes ~ foreign nations, the several states, and Indian
tribes. When forming this article, the convention considered them
as entirely distinct. We cannot assume that the distinction was
lost, in framing a subsequent article, unless there be something
in its language to authorize the assumption.
“Phe counsel for the plaintiffs contend, that the words "Indian
tribes” were introduced into the article, empowering congress to
regulate commerce, for the purpose of removing those doubts in
which the management of Indian affairs was involved by the language
of the ninth article of the confederation. Intending to give the
whole power of maneging those affairs to the government about to
be instituted, the convention conferred it explicitly; and omitted
Annex By
~1L8~
those qualifications which embarassed the exercise of it, as
granted in the confederation. ‘This may be admitted, without
weakening the construction which had been intimated. Had the
Indian tribes been foreign nations, in the view of the con-
vention, this exclusive power of regulating Intercourse with
them might have been, and, most probebly, would nave been
specifically given, in language indicating that idea, not in
language contradistinguishing them from foreign nations.
Congress might have been empowered "to regulate commerce with
foreign nations, Including the Indian tribes, and among the
several states," This language would have suggested itself
to statesmen who considered the Indian tribes as foretgen nations,
and were yet desirous of mentioning them particularly.
"It has been also said, that the same worda have not
necessarily the same meaning attached to them, when found in
different partes of the same instrument; their meaning is cone
trolled by the context. This 1s undoubtedly true. In eomaon
language, the same word has various meanings, and the peculiar
sense in which it 1s used in any sentence, is to be determined
by the context. This may not be equally true with respect to
proper names, "Foreign nations" is a general term, the apvli-~
cation of which to Indian tribes, when used in the American
constitution, is, at best, extremely questionable, In one
article, in which » power is siven to be exercised in regard
to foreign nations generally, and to the Indian tribes partiou~
larly, they are mentioned as separate, in terma clearly con-
tradistingulshing them from each other. We perceive plainly,
that the constitution, in this article, doea not comprehend
Indlan tribes in the general term “foreign nations;" not, we pre-
sume, because a tribe may not be a nation, but because 16 ia
not foreign to the United States. When, afterwards the term
“foreign nations;" ia introduced, we cannot impute
to the convention, the intention to desert its former meaning,
and to comprehend Indian tribes within it, unless the context
force that “construction on us. We find nothing in the context,
and nothing in the subject of the article, which leads to it.
"The court has bestowed ite best attention on this question,
and, after mature deliberation, the majority 1s of opinion, that
an Indlan tribe or nation within the United states ls not a
foreign state, in the sense of the constitution, and cannot
maintein an action In the courts of the United States."
(6 Peters 13 pp. 1420)
Lawrence, in his Edition of Wheaton, quotes Attorney General
Cushing as saying:+
"The moment it comes to be seen that the Indians are the
domestic subjects of this zovernment, that moment it is clear
to the perception that they are not the sovereign constituent
ingredienta of the government. This distinetion between
gitizens proper, that is, the constituent members of the
polleloa. sovereignty, and subjects of that soverelenty, who
are not ‘therefore citizens, Is Keoognized in the best authorities
of the public law. See Puffendorf de jure naturae, lib. vid.
eap, 25. For the same reason, a alave, it is elear, cannot be
a citizen." (Second annotated Edition, p. 899)
Annex By
~10~
Chief Justice Nott, delivering the opinion of the Court of
Claims in the case of the New York Indians versus the United States
~ an opinion which 1s produced as evidence by the British Government
in this case as Annex 120 (Vol, 3, page 958) ~ containg statements
of principle which are of interest and which also appear destructive
of the claim of the British Government, because they indicate that
the mere removal of American Indians to Ganada can never bestow
upon such Indiens a British or Canadien nationality. ‘The Gourt af-
firmed that the right of expatriation does not exiet among the
Indians. ‘the tenth point of this decision as quoted in the British
case, readsi~
"10, ‘The Oneldas, of vntario, Canada, wore domieiled and
living in New York in 1638, and were then parties to and bene-
ficlariles under the treaty. In 1848 they sold their lands in
New York and moved across the border into Ganada. The number
who went (320) and the number who remained (300) were about
equal, Thelr going was before the breach of the agreement and
while the Government was anxious and willing to remove all New
York Indians to the Wesat. Did they by moving across the border
forfeit all right to be removed? r were they free to move back
across the border prior to 1860 and be among those who might be
removed west of the Missiasippi? and what rights have they within
the intent and meaning of the decision of the Supreme Court? i
"@he judgment ($1,967,056) which the Supreme Court has |
directed in favor of the claimants represents 1,824,000 seres
of land reserved by the treaty of 1838, and those 1,824,000 acres
of land represent the 6,485 Indians enumerated in Scheaule A of
the treaty and 215 Indians not enumerated in the Schedule. The
Supreme Court has declded that the claimants are entitled to
recover this gross amount of 41,967,056, but has not directed
this Court to so distribute it that one man shall recover another
man's money or that one portion of a tribe shall recover the dam~«
ages suffered by another portion. It did lie in the mouth of the
defendants, the United States, to say that the Oneidas in Ganada
had forfeited their right to recover, but it does not lie in the
mouth of the other Oneidas to aay that they are entitled to both
thelr own and the others’ damsges,
"If the 300 Qneidas who remained in New York had been removed
west of the Mississippi immediately after the 520 passed over the
border into Canada, it is inconceivable that they would have been
awarded lend for 620 Oneidas, If the Oneidas of New York have no
right to recover for the lands of the 320 has the Government done
anything to declare a forfeiture on the part of the 320%
"Our Indians are and have been the wards of the United States,
and the Indien has no right of expatriation. Whether they may not
leave the country 1s a question of Indian policy, In Sitting
Annex B.
Que
Bull's case they removed to Canada with the intent of remaining
there, and became domiciled so far as indians could be. The
Indian policy required that they should be brought back, In
the case of the Kickapoos, they removed to Mexico with like
Sntent to remain and be domiciled there. the Indian policy
required that they be brought back, and they were brought back,
In 1642 the Indian policy might have required that the Oneldas
be brought back, and if it had, they would have heen brought
pack, They did not cease to be wards of the United States
pecause they had crossed the border and attempted to domicile
thomselves in « foreign country; and it was expressly held in the
case of Lowe v. tthe Kickapoos, (7 C. Gls. F., 415) that ‘the
Indiana being wards of the United States can not suspend that
relation without the consent of the Government.’ There was no
law which prohibited these Oneldas from returning; they hed sold
their land, but the Senecas might have thrown open their doors
as they did to the Cayugas. The United states took no act to
sanotion their expatriation or to deprive them of their rights
under the treaty, and those rights continued until the breach of
agreement in 1860, From an equitable point of view it may be
added that they did more to carry out the policy of the United
States by removing from the States of New York than any of the
Indians who are now represented in this Court.
"the facts to be noted in relation to these Oneldas of
Ontario ave these: There was no individual emigration; it was
not the case of an individual here and there withdrawing himself
from the community and ceasing to be a member of it, leaving the
commnity intect. On the contrary, by communal consent a part
of the tribe separated from the other part, taking with them
their portion of the communal property. Politically they were
nit expatriated; they did not become citizens of Canada. Some
of them returned to the State of New York, and some of them
peturned to the United States, going to Wisconsin, It is settled
by the decree of the Supreme Court that Indians had acquired in
4838 an undivided legal estate in the sestern lands. Tt seems
tolerably clear that the separation of these Indians as a distinet
part of the Oneida community, by mutual consent, retaining thely
share of other communal property, did not work a transfer of thelr
interest in the lands Neat of the Mississippi to that part of the
community which remained behind. After the decision of the
Supreme Court 1t ean not be sald that the United States declared
a forfeiture against them, either because they removed to Canoda
or because they failed to remove Seat of the Mississippi. How,
then, could their title have been divested, with no act of fore
felture on the part of the United States? It may be said that
their removal from the guardianship of the United States created
a personal disability to maintain an action ageinst the United
States. This may be true and might perhaps be upheld if the
United States had said so. But the jurisdictional act makes
no exception. It opens the doors of the Court to all Indians
who were parties to the treaty of Buffalo Creeks and it gives
all a remedy for all of the proceeds of all the Landa granted
to them in proesenti by thattreaty. The effect of the Statute
is to alYow all of the Indians to recover for all of the land
sold, and the Court can neither say that a portion of the Indians
may recover for all of the land sold, nov say that the land of
some of these Indians has, in some indescribable way, become
Annex Be
~21-
forfeited to the United States, nor that some Indians who
were parties to the treaty of Buffalo Creek are not to be
admitted within the furisdiction of the Court." (Bp. 962963)
Obviously if the Cayuga Indians have not acquired a
British nationality, there is no basis for the British pre~
tension of interference in this case.
Annex Ba
#BE—
Tne evidence in the record of this case is quite clear to
the point that Indlans never were dealt with on any other basis
thah that of the expediency of the moment, and that even at such
times rarely or never was a higher value given to the Indian
status than that of a mere sossessor or occupier of the virgin lands
A most significent statement to the point that even Great
Britain, to say nothing of the colonists, dealt with the Indians
under the influence of fear, is to be found in a despateh from
Sir P. Maitland to karl Bathurst regarding Grand River Indian
lands, under date of February 22, 1621. This despatoh discusses
the Haldimand letter to the Mohawks. Maitland sald:«
"The land however six miles on each side, the Grand
River waa by this document" (the Haldimand letter) "devoted
to the use of the five nations or Tribes of Indiens and
their posterity.
"Such a dedication wae sufficient, for their habits
required no further formality, they were Incapable of taking
a regular Grant; they had no capacity to sell or Lease or to
sircumseribe the possessions all tted by Government to them
or their posterity.
"Some however of each of these Tribes remained on their
own lands in the United States, and treated with that
Government or licensed individuals, for the sale of those
lands, in the produce of which Sale, that part of the tribe
removed to Ganada participated, and the sum received may form
some estimated of what they pretended to have lost...." (Under~
linings mine).
Maitland, commenting upon the fact that the Provinoial
Governnent indicated its view that the grant made to the Indians
was larger than that actually covered by the Haldimand letter by
reason of the fact that they had taken a surrender from the Indians
and then had regranted to individuals land whieh did not fall
within the Haldimand description, says:~
"Tt 41s not only true chat such e form of surrender
does exist, but also that in conformity to its object
Grants of the Tracts so surrendered, were made by the
Provinelal Government to the indlviduals named in express
defiance of Kis Majesty's Commands signified by His
Secretary of Stave on the partioular occasion.
fymex Be
m= 2m
vA transaction effected under the operation of terror
or delusion or from any less excusable motive, can never be
cited os favorable, to the partioa immediately concerned,
however it may be sustained in regard of strangers acquiring
supposed rights under the apparent sanction of a legal act
of the Government.
"Such irregularities speak volumes aa to the influence
acquired by these Tribes over the Councils of lils Wajesty's
bpovinelal Govermonte«s.s...” (Bp. 866, 868)
’ number of points are’ to be noted from the foregoing
quotations:
(First) that the ladians were incapable of taking a
regular grant}
(Second) ‘that they could neither sell ner lease;
(Third) They “pretended” to have lost property in the
United States, the implicetion being that they
had not lost such proverty3
(Fourth) That the British dovernrent frequently dealt with
them "under the operation of terror end that 8
when so doing 1t could not be regarded as bound.
Showing how persuasive this Indlan threat always wag in
those earlier dsys to the British Governmont, reference may be
made to the letter from feter Russell to General Sincoe,
September 2, 1796, where speuking of the desire by Brant to
dispose of these Crand River lends, Hussell seys:-
Sshould Captain Brant, however, in the meantime determine
to convey this land in his own way to these people and settle
them upon it, I am sorry to sey IT have not the means of pre-
venting hin without rigking.the chanee of involving this pro-
vinee in en Indien & perhkeps an ‘mexican Var, to which Your
Exeellency too well knows our present strongth & Kesources
are very inadecuute." (Ap. 998)
There may be here repeated what is quoted elsowhere;
namely, Wettland's statement regarding the legal result of
the removel of these bribes to Cansda. Me saldi~
"“iseh of these Tribes possessed in the old Provinces
considerable extent of bunting ground, and Village Geats in
which they resided with their families when not ongaged in
the hunt. So much they forfeited by espatriation supposing
them to have retained no interest in the lands abandoned,”
(Bp. 868)
Annex B.
~RAw
L795. In the course of the negotiation of the Treaty at
Groenville, and after the treaty had been agreed to, the fol~
lowing speeches were exchanged, they indicating the relation
petween the Indians and the United States which the taking of
the Indians wnder the proteetion of the United States premiseds~
"tarke, chief of the Wyandots, arose, and spoke as follows:~
"Brothers, listen! and you also, brothers of the different
nations present. The Great Spirit above has appolnted this day
for us to complete all the good work in which we have been en-
gaged, You remember that, some time ago, our brother, the Amer-
dean rose up and thanked the Great Spirit above for conducting
the good work so far as it then was; and he desired of us to
know whether we would acknowledge him, the fifteen United States,
to be our father} but we have not yet returned him an answer,
Now, this day, the good work 1s completed, TI inform you all,
brother Indians, that we do now, and will henceforth, acknowledge
the fifteen United States of America to be our father, and you
will all, for the future, look upon them as such; you must call
them brothers no more, ‘The Great Spirit has crowned them with
success in all their undertakings.
"Pathert You see we all now acknowledge you to be our
father, I take you by the hand, which I offer as a pledge of
our sincerity, and of our happineas in becoming your children,
"“Pathert Listen to your children, here assembled; be strong
now, and take care of all your little ones. See what a number
you have suddenly acquired. Be careful of them, and do not
suffer them to be imposed upon. Don't show favor to one, to
the injury of any. An impartial father equally regards all his
children, as well those who are ordinary, as those who may be
more handsome; therefore, should any of your children come to
you erying, and in distress, have pity on them, and velieve their
wants.
"Now, all my brothers present, you see that we have acknow-
ledged and called on the United States as our feather, Be strong,
prothers, and obedient to our fathers ever listen to him when he
speaks to you, and follow his advice. I now deliver this wampum
4n presence of you all, as a token of our being now the ehildren
of the Fifteen Fires. (A large atring, blue and white.)
"The General rose and seid:
"Listen! all you nations, to what your unele, the Wyandot
has said: (Tarke's speech was here interpreted to each nation).
*Tisten! all you nations present. I have hitherto addressed
you ag brothers. I now adopt . you all, in the name of the President
and Fifteen great Fires of America, as their children, and you
are so accordingly. The medals which I shall have the honor to
deliver you, you will consider as presented by the hands of your
father, the Fifteen Fires of America. ‘These you will hand down
to your children's children, in commemoration of this day - a day
in which the United States of Amerlca gives peace to you and all
your nations, and receives you and them under the protecting
wings of her eagle. (Council adjourned.)" (Ap. 406-408)
Annex 5.
@25=
1796. Jobn White, AG, weiting to fis Honor The fdministrator,
regarding the attitude taken by Brant over the transfer of the
Grand River lands to the persons to whom the Indians desired to
grant them, saidt~
‘The principal, and on wieh the other hinged, was that
the Six Nations do not acknowledge the sovereignty of the
Kind, They call themselves Allies; and in such case are I
presume to be considered as Alinese” (Ap. 994)
i797, %In 1797, Russell, writing to the buke of Portland
regarding a speech made by Brandt to Captain Claus, and of hia
comment to Brandt thereon, saidi~
"Gonseious that it might be impolitick in the present weak
State of this Province to provoke Insult even from an Indian
Tribe, tho! I was fully sensible of the propriety of supporting
the Dignity of Government, I addressed Captain Brant with great
Mildness and told him that I was very sorry to observe from a
Speech of his Just put into my hands, that he thought the five
Nations had cause to complain of being deceived and trifled with
by elther Governor Simcoe or myself; that not knowing what
promises might have been made to them by the Governor, I could
neither disprove nor vindicate the Breach of them, but that I
had reason to dvelieve from everything I had heard from Governor
Simcoe that he was fully sensible of the attachment of the Five
Nations to 4is Majesty, and that he had been uniform in his wishes
to render their situation comfortable & happy, and that I had
myself bean witness to many instances of personal Civility &
regard shown by fils Excellency to him in particular. With regard
to my own conduct during the short time I had the Honor of ad»
ministering this Government, I could with truth aver that I lost
not a moment in paying proper attention to the wishes of the five
Nations the instant I knew thems that I immediately summoned a
full Council to take them into consideration agreeable to my
promise to themy and that, if from the lateness of the Season and
other causes not within my power of removing the members of it
could not be collested before the Spring, nothing on that
account could possibly attach to me, ‘hat I instantly communi-~
cated this disappointment to him for the information of the five
Nations, and told him I whould transmit a report of their request
with the papers he had sent me to the secretary of State for the
King's informations and I expected to recelve His Majesty's
pleasure thereon in time to enable me to give a satisfactory
answer to thelr wishes. I was therefore surprised to find that
he had placed so little confidence in what I promised him, as
not to wait the stipulated time before he proceeded to such
extremition.eees
ao bene eee eeeneenoenranees
“But I hope that I am not passing the line of my present
station in humbly submitting to your Grace the possLlbility of a
case happening, wherein thé most hostile projects may be formed by
Annex Be
~B6—
the Indian inhabitants against the lives and properties of His
Wajesty's subjects in this Provines, and the pergon administering
the Government not have it in his power to take timely measures
to defeat their effect, should the management of Indian affairs
pe above his control, and the persons to whom it is intrusted
be thus even restricted from instantly communicating to him all
matters likely to affect the interests or safety of the people
under his charge which may come to thelr knowledge thrut Indian
Councils or any other channels. This ease, my Lord, I apprehend
to be in great measure exemplified in the present instance. An
Indian Council has been held at Newark, the Superintendent of
Indian Affeivs, the Officer commanding the Troops, two other
Military Officers, ond two Officers of the Department being
present. Before this audience a powerful Indien Chief, who has
nearly 400 warriors at his command made a speech with a manifest
tendency to impress on the minds of his followers a contempt for
the Executive Government and an opinion that the members of ib
are more inelined to be their enemies than thelr friends. And
the purport of this speech has been kept concealed from our
kmowledge and suffered to opsrate its baneful effects on Indien
passions for two months to the great perll of the whole Province,
before any one of the persons present vouchsafed to communicate
to me the smallest hint of its contents." (Ap. 1004, Ap. 1008)
As showing the attitude adopted by the British Government
towards the Indians, statements in a communication from the Duke
of Portland to President Russell, under date of March 10, LVO%,
may be quotedi~
“at the same time, you will make them duly sensible of
parental regard which His da jesty feela for them and of his de»
sive to meet their wishes in any manner, in which 1t can be dome
consistently with the principles on which the original Grant was
made to thems which principle it is our mutual interest to
maintain, and to be governed by, in every transaction which may
happen to pass between Mis Majesty and them, At the same time
that you explain these oireumstances to the Six Nations, and
His Majesty's Gracious disposition to obviate the difficulties,
which stand between fla Majesty, and His desire to gratify them,
30 far as it can be done consistently with their own safety and
nappiness, you will learn the terms proposed, and the amount of
the annuity which waa to have been paid to the persons with whom
the Six Nations were in Treaty for the landa in question, and
you will transmit to me the particulars in order that His
Majesty's servants may take the same into their consideration,
with a view of meeting the ideas of the 51x. Nations on this
subject and of substituting in lieu of the lands in question,
such an equivalent, as shall be equally beneficial and satis-
factory to the Indians at present, and ahall have an advantage
in point of security which it is not in the power of any indl-
viduals to offer.” (Ap. 1011)
1807. Willian Hull, writing to the Secretary of War, under date
Annex B.
«29
of November 24, 1807, eoneerning a Council held between the
British and the Indians at Malden, made the following statement:-
"That Aubayway called there on his way home from here; That
great attention was paid to him by McKee and the British officers;
Thet, four days ago, they were called to a council: That they were
informed that a war would soon take place between them and the
Americans, end that they (the Indians) must take up the hatchet,
in their favor, azainat the Americans: That, before they gave an
answer, they held a council by themselves, and appointed Aubayway
to make thelr answer, which was as follows:
"Phat they lived under the protection of the United States:
That they were treated with justice and kindness by their Great
Father, the Presidents That they had lately made a treaty, in
which they acknowledged themselves under the protection of the
United States, and no other Power: That they had received, and
were entitled to, valuable presents from the United States; That
their Great Father, the President, did not ask them to involve
themselves in the quarrels of the white people, but to remain
quiet spectators: That they were all determined to’ take his
advices That 1t was an evidence he was strong enough to fight
his own battles: That, after this couneil, many of them left
Malden, although they were all urged to remain." (Ap. 209)
1827, That the British Government never considered itself
under any oblivation of the Indians that migrated to their bere
ritory insofar as the payment of annuities to them 1s concerned,
ia shown by an order issued in the year 1827 by Major General
Dorland, then Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Afiairs,
who “provid d by the order in question that upon the return of
those Indians to their villages, and upon their surrender and
satisfactory explanation of the cause of thelr absence, they
might be readmitted to a participation in Her Majesty's Annual
bounty. (Bp. 810)
It appears that in 1844, thia rule was applied to "Indians
who may have remained absent more than two years." (Bp. 909)
1883. In the petition made by the Cayuga Indians at Canada
under date of February 24, 18865, a Memorial recites that It is
made by “That portion of the Cayuga Nation of Indians residing
in the Provincé of Ontario, bominion of Canada.” (Bp. 663)
Annex B,
2B
That same Memorial reeited in its paragraph "17th" thats-
"Your Petitioners aver that they are not citizens or
residents of the State of New York, or of the United States
and that they were never citizens of either, nelther did they
ever owe allegiance to either." (Bp. 566)
1888. In the examination of William Henry, an Indian ro-
called by General Strong, the attorney for the Canadian Indians
fin thelp claims made against New York, the following colloquy
occurred, during Henry's cross-examination by the State's
attorneyt-
"Q, Are you a Canadian subject?
"A. Yes, air.
"QQ. And you always have been?
“Gen. Strong ~ I object to that on the ground that he
cannot understand what you mean. Indians are subjecta
of no Government, nor cltizens of any government.
(Objection withdrawn.)" (Br. 493)
Later, however, Genoral Strong, in the course of this
exemination of Styres, stated that he conceded "that the Indien
Cayugas are subjects of Great Britain.” (Bp. 528)
NATUR OF INDIAN VIURLE.
1. he language of the reaty grant.
The claim is based upon three Treaties as follows:«
Treaty of 1789 Peice
Treaty of 1790 (Bp.105
treaty of 1795 (Bp.107)
treaty of 1789. By this treaty, the Cayugas "do cede and grant
all their lands to the People of the State of New York forever."
The Cayugas then "reserved" or took back from the State of New
York, a right of occupancy and use in these words, - "The Cayugas
shall of the ceded lends hold to themselves and to thelr posterity
forever, for their own use and cultivation but not to be sold, leased
ér_in eny other manner aliened or disposed of to others, “land then‘
desoribed,
Yor thie "cession and grant", the people of New York agreed to
pay certain stipulated sums and annuities,
The State also agreed to "Grant" to a certain Peter Ryckman a
tract of land one mile square at Cayuga Ferry, plus an additional
sixteen thousand acres described less $20 acres which was to go to
a white man who had married an Indian squaw, It was agreed that Fish
Carrier should have a mile square of the land set apart for the use
and occupancy of the Cayuga.
Treaty of 1790. Certain.of the Cayugas, Including Fish Carrier,
who were not present at the Treaty of 1789, held a treaty with the
New York authorities in 1790, at whieh they entered into an agreement
of which the following are the pertinent parte:
"We, the satd Cayugas, do hereby acknowledge to have
received from the People of the State of New York the sum
of five hundred dollars in Silver, being the annual payment
Stipulated to be made to us the said Cayugas on the first
day of June instant in and by certain articles of Agreement
or Desds of Ceaston hereunto annexed and executed at the
City of Albany, by and between the People” of thé said State
by their Commissioners authorized for that purpose and several.
ANNEX Cs
Qu
of the said Cayugas for and in behalf of tho sald tribe or
Wetton, and bearing date the e5th day of February, In the
year one thougand seven hundred and eighty nine. And also
the further sum of one thousand dollars as a Benevolence:
And We, the said Cayugas in consideration thereof Do by the
resents fully, frecly and abeolutely ratify and confirm “the
said agreement and cession snd alt and singular the Agticles,
@ovenants, wabcers and things thercin expressed and contained
on the part of us the seid Cayugas done or to bé done, executed
or performed, and We the seid Cayugas do further fered Grant
and release to the Poople of the State of New York all our
Teht, interest and Claim “in and to all Tands lying Kast of
the line of cession by the State of New York to she Comnon=
Salth OF Wiessachusetts, except the Lands mentioned in the
gaid Dood of cossion hereunto annexed to be reserved to us
the Cayugas and, our posterity. (Bp. io
Treaty of 1795, The Gayugas again entered into a treaty by which
Skucromciaaakeranao
they solid to the State of New York thelr rights im certain of the
Lands "reserved" in the Treaties of 1769 and 1700. This Treaty reads
in pertinent parti~
"Now know all men, that, in order to render the said
reservations more productive of annual income to the said
Gayuga Nation, it is convenanted, stipulated and agreed by
the said Cayuga Nation that they will sell and they do by
these presents sell to the people of the State of Wew York
all and singuler the lands reserved to the use of the said
Cayuga Nation in and By the Heretnbefore mentioned articles
of agreement; that ila to say as well the lands bordering on
and adjacent to the Cayuga Lake, commonly called the Cayuga
reservation as the lends as Secawyace and elsewhere hereto-~
fore or now appertaining to the said nation {except the lands
hereinafter particularly execpted and still to be reserved to
the said nation or the individual Sachem Fish Carrier) to have
and to hold the same to tha people of the State of New York
and to thelr successors Torever.
"Secondly, 1t 18 covenanted and agreed by and on the part
of the State of New York that for the lands now sold as
specified in the preceding first article the State of New
York shall pay and do now pay to the said Cayuga Nation in
the presence of the witnesses who have subseribed their names
hereunto the sum of eighteen hundred dollars on the firat day
of June néxt ensuing the date hereof and annually forever
thereafter on the first day of June jo each year the sum of
6iehteen nundred dollars,”
"Fourthly, the People of the Scate of Now York pesorve to
the Gayuya Nation and their posterity, forever for thelr own
Use and occupation but not to be Sold, Leased, or In any other
manner ailiened or disposed of to obmers unless by the express
Consent of the Legislature of the said State A Certain tract
of Land part of the reservation aforesaid of two miles square
ANSEX Ce
abe
at such place as the same shall be run out and marked by a
surveyor appointed by the said Agents on the part of the People
of the State together with such of the said Indians as shall.
attend for that purpose and also one other plese of land one
mile square part of the reservation aforosatd and the Mine
Within the same if any there be under the aame restrictions
and to be run out and marked in manner aforesaid, and also
one other piece of land ono mile square at Cannogai for
the use of an indian Sachem of the said NatTon called Fish
Carrier and for the use of his posterity forever under the
restrictions aforesaid which said last piece of land shall
be leased by the People of the State of New York for auch
terma on such Conditions as the Legislature thereof shall
direct and the Money annually arising therefrom shall be
aid unto the said Pish Carrier or his posterity at Genego gidue
g the said Apont or by such person as the” Governor 6 nis
geate shall thereunto appoint and unto such person as shall
produce a Certain Writing Subseribed by the sald Agent and
Sealed with their seals taking and recording the receipts
therefor in the manner aforesaid,” (Bp. 107, 108)
It will be thus secon that by stipulation of deeds themselves
the Cayugas never had, after the first treaty, any rights to land
in New York except the right of use and occupancy, and when the
first two treaties were made the Cayugas were undoubtedly still
located in New York State.
II. The lew of the United States and Great Britain.
To the cases cited on page 35 of the Appendix to the
American Answer, there may be addod,~«
Fletcher v. Peck (1810) 10 U.S. (6 CGranch) 873
Brightly's note to Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,
$0 U.S, (5° Peters) 23
Reply annex 37, 38, British Reply Vol.2,page LO7,et seq.
Peters note 7 U.S. Stats., pages 1 ~ ll +
fhe final paragraph of the Court's opinion in Fletcher v.
Peck, Supra may be quoted here for conveniencet«
“Some difficulty was produced by the lenguage of the
covenant, and of the pleadings, It was doubted, whether
a state can be seised in fee of lands, subject to the
Indian title, and whether a declaion that they were seised
in fee, might not be construed to amount to a decision that
their grantee might maintain an ejectment for them, notwith-
ANGEX CG.
wo A oe
standing that title. The majority of the court 1s of opinion,
that the nature of the Indian title, which 1s certainly to
be respected by all courta, until it be legitimately extin-
guished, is not such as to be absolutely repugnant to seisin
in fee on the part of the state.”
In Johnson v. scIntosh, Supra, the Supreme Court of the
United States had under veview the question whether individuals
holding Indian titles to land northwest of the Ohio River possessed
such a title as could be recognized in the Courts of the United
States, In deciding that question in the negative, Mr. Chief Justice
Marshall examined the subject very elaborately and the following
quotations will indicate the position he took on the matter:-
“on the discovery of this Immense continent, the
arent nations of hurope were eager to appropriate to
themselves so much of 1t as they could respectively
acquire, Its vast extent offered an ample fleld to the
ambition and enterprise of all; and the character and
religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for
considering them as a people over whom the superior
genius of Kurope might claim an ascendency. The poten-
tates of the old world found no difficulty in convine-
ing themselves, that they sade ample compensation to the
inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization
and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence.
But as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object,
it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settie~
ments, and consequent war with each other, to establish
a principle, which all ahould acknowledge aa the law by
which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted,
should be regulated, as between themselves, his principle
was, that discovery gave title to the government by whose
subjecta, or by whose authority, 1t was made, against all
other European governments, which title might be conaum-
mated by possession, The exclusion of all other Europeans,
necessarily gave to the nation making the discovery the
sole right of acquiring the soll from the natives, and
establishing settlements upon it, It was a right with
which no Buropeans could interfere. It was a right which all
asserted for themselves, and to the assertion of which, by
others, all assented. Those relations which were to exist
between the discoverer and the natives, were to be regulated
by themselves, The rights thus acquired being exclusive, no
other power could interpose between them,
‘In tho establishment of these relations, the rights
of the original inhabitants were, in no instance, entirely
disregarded; but were, necessarily, to a considerable extent,
impaired, They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of
the soil, with a legsl as well as just claim to retain pos-
session of it, and to use it according to their own discretion;
ANNEX Os
Be
but their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent
nations, were necessarily dimished, and their power to
dispose of the soll, at their own will, to whomsoever they
pleased, was denied by the oviginel fundamental principle,
that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.
While the different nations of Europe respected the right
of the natives, as occupants, they asserted the ultimate domin-
fon to be in themselves; and Glaiyed and exorcised, as a
eonsequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant
the soil, while yet in possession of the natives. These
grants have been understood by all, to convey a title to
the grantees, subject only to the Indlan right of occupancy.
Sone history of America, from lts discovery to the
present day, provesy we think, the universal recognition
of these principles.” (p. 572, S75, 574)
"No one of the powers of Hurope gave its full assent
to this principle, more unequivocally than England. The
documents upon this subject are ample and complete." (p.576)
"nyus, all the nations of kurope, who have acquired
territory on this continent, have asserted in themselves,
and have recognised in others, the exclusive right of the
discoverer to appropriate the lands oecupled py the Indians,
Have the American states rejected or adopted this principle?
"By the treaty which concluded the war of our revolution,
Great Britain relinquished all claim, not only to the govern~
mont, but te the “propriety and territorial rights of the
United States," whose boundaries were fixed in the second
article, By this treaty, the powers of government, and the
right to soll, which had previously been in Great Britain,
passed definitively to these states. Ye had before taken
possession of them, by declaring independence; but neither
the declaration of independence, nor the treaty confirming
it, could give us more than that which we before possessed,
or to which Great Britain was before entitled. It has never
peen doubted, that either the United States, or the several
states, had a olear title to all the lands within the boun-
dary lines deseribed in the treaty, subject only to the
Indian right of occupancy, and thet the exclusive power to
entinguish that right, was vested in that government which
might constitutionally exercise it. (p. B84, 585)
"ane United States, then, have unequivocally acceded
to that great and broad rule by which its civilized in-
habitants now hold this county. They hold, and assert in
themselves, the title by which 1t was acquired. They maine
tain, as all others have maintained, that discovery gave
an exclusive conquest; and gave also a right te such, &
degree of sovereignty, as the clreumetences of the people
would allow them to exercise, The power now possessed by
the government of the United States to grant lands, resided,
while we were colonies, in the crown or its grantees. The
val idlty of the titles given by olther has never been ques~
tioned in our courts. It has been exercised uniformly over
territory in possession of the Indians. The existence of
this power must negative the existence of any right which may
conflict with and control it. An abaolute title to lands
ANSEX C.
~G=
cannot exist, at the same time, in different persona, or
in different governments. An absolute, must be an exclusive
title, or at least a title which excludes all other not
compatible with it. All our inatitutions recognise the
absolute title of the crown, subject only to the Indian right
of occupancy, and recognise the absolute title of the crown
to extinguish that right. This is incompatible with an abe
solute and complete title im the Indians." (p.587, 588)
"We will not enter into the controversy, whether
agriculturists, merchants and manufacturers, have a right,
on abstract principles, to expel hunters from the territory
they possess, or to contract thelr limits. Gonquest gives
a title which the courts of the conqueror cannot deny,
whatever the private and speculative opinions of individuals
may be, vespecting the original justice of the claim which
has been successfully asserted. The British government,
which was then our government, and whose plights have pas«
sed to the United States, asserted a title to all the lands
occupied by Indians, within the chartered limita of the
British golonies, It asserted also a limited sovereignty
over them, and the/exclusive right of extinguishing the
title which occupancy gave to them. These claims have been
maintained and established as far wast as the river Mississ~
ippi, by the sword, The title to a vast portion of the lands
we now hold, originates in them. It is not for the courts
of this country to question the validity of this title, or
to sustain one which is incompatible with it." (P.588,589)
"Bub the tribes of Indians inhabiting this country
were flerce savages, whose occupation was war, and whose
subsistence was drawn ohiefly from the forest. To leave
them in possession of their country, was to leave tho
country a wilderness; to govern them as a distinet people,
was impossible, because they were as brave and as high-
spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by
arms every attempt on their independence. What was the
inevitable consequence of this state of things? The Ituropeans
were under the necossiry cither of abandoning the country,
and relinguishing their pompous claims to it, or of. enfore~
ing those claims by the sword, and by the adoption of
principles adapted ta the condition of a people with whom
it was impossible to mix, and who could not be governed
as a distinct soclety, or of remaining in their neighbor
hood, and exposing themselves and their familiea to the
perpetual hazard of being massacred, Frequent and bloody
wars, in which the whites were not always the aggressors,
unavoidably enaued. Kuropean polley, numbers and skL1L
prevailed; as the white population advanced, that of
the Indlans necessarily receded; the country in the
imnediate neighborhood of agriculturiats became unfit
for thems the game fled into thicker and more unbroken
forests, and the Indians followed. The soil, to which
the crown originally claimed title, being no longer
ocoupied by its ancient inhabitants, was pareelled out
ANNEX C.
ye
according to the will of the sovereign power, and taken
possession of by persons who claimed imaediately from the
crown, or mediately, through its grantees or deputies.
"That law which regulates, and ought to regulate in
general, the relations between the conqueror and conquered,
was incapable of application to a people under such cireum~
stances, The resort to some new and different rule, better
adapted to the actual state of things, was unavoidable.
tivery rule which can be auggested will be found to be ate
tendei with great difficulty. However extravagant the pre~
tension of converting the discovery of an inhabited country
into conquest may appear; if the principle has been asserted
in the first instance, and afterwards sustained; if a country
has been acquired and held under 1t; if the property of the
great mass of the community originates in it, it becomes
the law of the land, and cannot be questioned. So too, with
respect to the concomitant principle, that the Indian in«
habitants are to be considered merely as occupants, to be
protected, indeed, while im peace, in the posseasion of
their lands, but to be deemed incapable of transferring
the absolute title to others. However this restriction may
be opposed to natural right, and to the usages of civilized
nations, yet, if it be indispensable to that system under
which the country has been setiled, and be adapted to the
actual condition of the two people, 1t may, perhaps, be
supported by weason, and certainly cannot be rejected by
courts of justice.” (p. 590, 591, 592)
"Recording to the theory of the British constitution,
all vacant lands are vested in the crown, as representing
the nation; and the exclusive power to grant them ia ad=
mitted toveside in the crown, as u branch of the royal
prerogative. It has been already shown, that this principle
was as fully recognized in America as in the islands of
Geeat Beitain. All the lands we hold were ort ptneliy granted
by the crown; and the establishment of a regal government
haa never been considered as impairing its right to grant
ands within the chartered limits of such colony."(p.595,596)
The foregoing quotations, as also the authoritles cited, make
it clear that the Indians under the most favorable theory advanced
as controlling the relationship between the whites and themselves
were never pecognized as having anything but a right to the occu»
pancy of the land; the aoverelgnty end the fee were always recognized
by the whitesas belonging to them,
It 1s true that the history of the dealings of the European
nations and of the United States with the Indians show instances
where the whites have indicated or professed a disposition to
ANNEX Cs
~Be
recognize, or an actual recognition of, a more complete title than
that merely of occupancy, but 1t is equally true that there are.
numerous instances where the whites have in effect denied that
even this right existed in the Indians. It is true that perhaps
in a great majority of cases the United States has, in dealing
with the Indians, made some sort of agreement with them for the
velinquishment of the Indian title for which they have paid some-
thing of a consideration, These dealings, however, have rarely,
or never, becn on a basis of equality between the two races, for
the reason, wane others, that equality never did exist. It has
resulted that almost always when the United States Government haa
dealt with the Indians for obtaining their lands, the deslings have
gone forward rather on the basla of a relationship of conquerox
and conquered than upon a relationship of two equal parties deal+
ing upen an equal basis.
Those ineldents and oscasions in our early Colonial history,
when there are elements of negotiation indicating something that
might lead to an inference of a different relatlonship to that
set out above are to be explained, 1t would seem, not on the basis
of any different theory so far as the whites ara concerned, but on
the facts whieh were that at those particular times the indians
were in gueh a relative position of strength that flattery and
cajolery hed to take the place of the force which was later ap~
plied. For, as My. Chief Justice Marshall stated, the very fact
that the Crown of lingland granted to persons and colonies the
large extents of territory which were covered by the charters he
gave them, is positive proof that the King regarded himself as
being the Sovereign with the undoubted right to grant the territory
ANNEX Oy
“Qe
in fee.
So far as the British practice is concerned, something
of an idea may be gained as how they regarded the Indian title
by consideration of the fects apparently disclosed in the American
ease, where it appears that whenever lands which were in tho pos-
session of the Indiens were to be granted to white persons that such
grants were made in vogular form by the British Government} the
Indians were quite evidently not regarded as the owners in feo,+
(A.P, 1023), et seq; 1, b, 1016, et seq.
While the grants referred to in the foregoing citations were grants
of land covered by the Haldimand land on Grent Kiver, yet from the
Letter of Peter Russell to the Duke of Portland, Januery 26, 1797,=
(A, P. L008)
it would seom reasonable clear that the tenure by which they held
their lande was not essentially dissimilar from the ordinary
Indian titles, It is clear that not a11 Indians within the British
territery held their jends by the seme tenure; for exemple, Norton,
in his petition to the Privy Gouncil {date not given, but probably
in 1804), in commenting upon restrictions placed upon the Mohawks
as to the alienation of their lends quotes Lord Dorchester as say«
ing that hej
"saw no reason why the Six Netlons on the Grant Kiver
should not have the same permission, to lease their
lands and receive tenants thereon as the Roman Catholic
Mohawks af Caghnaneaga and Lake of the Two Mountains,"
Norton sontinues on his own account thatie
“thug the privileges, enjoyed by these, are refused to
the Protestant Mohawks, although their cases are similar,
with these remarkable differences however, that the for-
mer removed to their present place of abode through their
attachment to the French interest, end the latter through
their fidelity and zeal for the support of His Majesty's
Government, The one have been felt as enemies, the others
ANNEX @.
~10-
have only been known as friends.” (Apx. 1034)
The nature of Indlan titles was discussed by Kent (Vol.3,
P.#372) with bis usual learning and ability. He treats the matter
under the following headinga:~
"TMtle by Discovery"
“Qualified Indian Rights"
“The Hight of Colonigetion"
"Indian Rights How Regarded 'by the Colonists), (by the
United states")
Of his whole treatment the following may be quoted here:—
(3) Qualified Indian Righta:~ This assumed but quali~
fied domtnion over the Indian tribes, regarding them as
enjoying no higher title to the soil than thet founded on
simple occupancy, and to be incompetent to transfer their
title to any other power then the government which claims
the jurisdiction of their territory by right of discovery,
arose, in a great degree, from the necessity of the case,
To leave the Indlans in possession of the country, was to
leave the country a wilderness; and to govern them as a
distinct people, or to mix with them, and admit them to
an interconmunity of privileges, was impossible under the
clrcumatances of their relative condition. The peculiar
character and habits of the Indien nations rendered them
inexpable of sustaining any other relation with the whites
than that of dependence and pupilage. there was no other
way of dealing with them than that of keeping them separate,
subordinate, and dependent, with a guardian eare thrown
around them for thelr protection. (a) The rule that the
Indien title was subordinate to the absolute, ultimate title
' of the government of the European colonists, and that the
Indians were to be considered as occupants, and entitled
to protection in peace in that character only, and incapable
of transferring their right to others, was the best one that
could be sdopted with safety, The weak and helplesa condition
in which we found the Indiens, and the immeasurable super
lority of thelr civilized neighbors, would not admit of the
application of any more liberal and equal doctrine to the
ense of Indien lands and contracts, It was founded on the
pretension of converting the discovery of the country into a
conquest; and it is now too late to draw into discussion
the validity of that pretension, or the restriction which
it imposes, It ia established by numerous compacta, treaties,
laws, and ordinances, and founded on immemorial usage. The
@ountry has been colonized and settled, and 1s now held by
that title. It is the lew of the land, and no court of
Justice can permit the right to be disturbed by speculative
reasonings on abstract rights." (Vol. 3,p.#381)
The treatment of the Indians by New York will be found at
AHGSE Ge
olin
(p.8308 ab seq), A brlef account of the olx Nations will be
found in (Note (c) on page #804). See also (Vol. I, pe #286)
Goo bagie principle underlying the lew ana practice sa stated
by Kent may perhapa be found in the following excerpt Trom Vatteli~
“There is another celebrated question, to whieh the
discovery of the New World has principally given vise.
It 4s asked whether a nation may lawfully take posseaa@ion
of some part of a vast country, in which there are none
but erratio nations whose acanty population is Incapcble
of occupying the whole? We beve already observed (B1),
dn establishing the obligation to cultivate the santh,
that these nations cannot exclusively appropriate to then-
selves more lend than they have ogcasion for, or more than
they are able to settle and cultivate, Tholy unsettled
habitation in those immense regions gannot be gecounted a
true and Legel possessiong end the people of Europe, too
closely pont up at home, finding Lend of which the savages
steod in no partigular mead, and of which they made no
agbuel and constant use, vere lewfully entitled to take
possession of 46, end settle ib with colonies. Vho sarth,
ae we have alyeady observed, belongs ta mankind in general,
and was designed to furnish them wlth subsiatenee; if each
nation had, from the beginning, resolved to aporopriate to
itself a vaat commbry, that the people might live only by
hunting, Tishing, and wild fruits, our globe would nos be
auitiofens to maintain a tenth part of Its present ine
habitants. “e do not, therefore, deviate from the views
of mature, in confining the Indians within nerrower Limite.
However, we cennot help praising the moderation of the
English Purdtane who first settled in New Englands WHO»
notwithstanding their being furnished with e charter from
thely soverelim, purchased of the Indlans the land of
whieh they intended to take possession.+ This laudable
example was followed by ‘William Perm, and the eolony of
Quakers that he vondueted to Pennsylvania.” (Vatell, Book Ty
Seotion 2009).
ANNEX De
SUBSEQUENT TREATIES BRIWALN NEW YORK AND THis
GAYUGA INDIANS AND BLTWeHN BRANCHES OF
Til. GAYUGA NATION,
L807 On May 13, 1807, @ treaty was made between the State
of New Yor and the Cayuga Nation, by which the Cayuga Nation
surrendered to the State of New York for « consideration of
44,800.00, the two tracts of land which had been reserved to
them under the treaties of 1760, 1790, and 1795. Tuis Treaty
recites thatie "Said Cayuga Nation of Indiana have signfied
theiy desire to remove from the said lands and to dispose of
thetr interest therein to the people” of New York State. (Bp.
110). It appears that the Canadian brangh of the Cayuga Nation
joined in this Ureaty (sev Memorial Petition, February £4, 1885,
Bp. 563),
The statement in this Treaty that the Indians desired to
remove from these lands in confirmatory of the evidence set out
in Annex E "Move of Indlans to Canada” that the largest migration
of Cayugas to Canada occurred after 1807.
28e9- On February 8th, 1829, the Stato of New York (Martin
Van Buren, Governor) of the one part and the "Chiefs or Sachems
of the tribes or Nation of Indlans called the Cayugas residing
at Sandusky in the State of Ohio" concluded a treaty which pro~
vided a different method of payment of the annuity from that
which had been in force prior to that timo. (Bp. 111) This
Treaty was signed by the following chiefs or sachoms:~
fall Chief, who signed the Fish Garrier receipts for 1612,
1815, 1914, 1816, 1ee0, 1leeé, 1027, and 1826. (Rp. 179 et seq).
George Curly Eye, who aligned the Fish Carrier receipt for
ele (as "Cuply’). (Rp.179). :
ANNEX Dy
=e
William King, woo signed the Fish Carvior receipts for
1816 and 1827. (Rp.180, 185).
Cayuge George, who signed the Mish Carrier receipts for
1824, and 1825. (Rp. 184).
Captain Good Munt, who seemingly signed the Fish Carrier
rocelpt for lesa (Rp. 186), who may have been the same as Cay
uga Smith, who signed the list Carrier vecelpts of 1812 (Rp.179),
1817 (Rp. 199).
Captain Smith, who signed the Fish Carrler receipts for
1826 (Rp. 164 and perhaps of 1620 as "Gol. Smith" (Rp. 162).
1851, At a Treaty between the state of New York (Znos 7. °
®hroop, Governor) and the "Ghiefa and Sachems of the tribe or
Nation of Indlans ed. led the Cayugas, residing at Sandusky in
the State of Ohio, and on the Seneca Heservation in the County
of xrle, and State of New York, near the village of Buffalo"
concluded another Treaty which reelted the Ven Buren Troaty and
then provided for a division of the emuity between the two
branches of the American Cayuges. (Bp. 342). This treaty was
signed by the same Chiefs and Sachema who signed the Treaty of
18293; nemely, Tall Ghief, George Curly nye, Captain Suith, Capt»
ain Good Hunt, Hard Hockory, and Williem King, and in addition,
Jeseph Isaac and Jack Wheelbarrow. (Bp» 345).
e488. Sometime prior to May 4, 1846, two Cayuga Chiefs,
James Turkey and Joseph L. Peter, wrote to the Governor of' the
State of New York reawesting another change in the manner of
payment &8 provided in the Treaty of 1031, In so far as the
Cayugas residing in Yestern New York were concorned. (Bp.346).
Accordingly, under date of May 4, 1646, enother Treaty was made
ANNEX D.
Se
between the State of New York of the one part and the other part
“Phat portion of the tribe or Nation of Indilana called the Cayuga
Nation of Indiana rusiding in the vesatern part" of the State of
New York. ‘This treaty was signed on behalf of the Indians by
Peter Wilson, (Bp, 347).
On June 27, 1846, certain Cayugas signed a protest against
negotiations that were said to have been undertaken by Joseph
Isaac, Joseph L. Pater, and William King, their negotiations
covering as it seemed the “abstraction or removal of our funds
from the hands of the State of New York to be invested in the
stocks of some of the Western States"; and the "disbursement
the principal of our moneysamong the families and individuals
composing the Gayuga ation"; and declaring they had no confidence
in Joseph L. Peter, William King, and Jack Wheelbarrow; afflrming
thet Joseph Isauxc, and that they had not lost confidence in br,
Peter Wilson, This protest also affirmed that De, Peter Wilson
and Tsave Turkey were “both acting Chiefs of the Cayuga Nation,"
and that Willlam King had resigned in favor of Peter Wilson.
(Bp. 351-353).
Pollowing this protest a second Troalty was made dated July
2.1646, which provided for the distribution of the annuity among
the Cayugas president in New York State and Seat of the tiississippt
River and that the share of those residing In New York should be
paid at the duvpemengua Pa asarusvtar "under the direction
of the Ghiefs by an Agent to be appointed by the Comptroller of
this State." (Bp. 349350) This troaty waa signed for the
Indians by William King, Joseph Isaac, Jack Wheelbarrow, Peter
Wilson end Joseph L. Peter.
A recitation made in the memorlal and petition of the
ANGEX D.
ade
Canadian Gayugas of February 24, 1883, would indicate that the
protest of June 27, 1646, was made subsequent to the signing of
the Yreaty of July &, 1646 (Bp. 564-566), but that statement is
not in accord with the record.
1850. Qn June 24, 1850, there was negotiated between the
==
"cayuga Nation of Indlans residing Vest of the Wisalssippi River. -
by and through Major findrew J. Born" (who held a Power of Attorney
dated April 26, 1850 ~ Bp. 354) and the "Cayuga Nasion of Indians
residing in the State of hew York by and through Peter Wilson,
Thomas Crow, and Joseph P. Young, three of the Chiefa of said
Nation, “whieh stipulated the number of persons residing West
of the Mississipol River and the number of persons residing Hast
of the Mississippi River, which provided for the distribution of
a certain sum then in the hands of the Indian Agent at Cattaraugus
for distribution to the Cayuges which stipulated for future
distribution and for subsequent enumerations, eter (Bp. 356)
Let. Under date of April @7, 1871, the Cayugas residing
4n the Indian territory gave 8 Power of Attorney to John Winny
and James King, authorising them to receive a receipt for all
monoys they might get from the State, to take all steps necessary
to recover any annuities, moneys, oY lands that might be due them
and to make and conclude a Treaty with the people of the Govern~
ment of the State of New York or with the remnant of the Cayuga
Indians in New York. (Bp. 366, 359)
On March 27, 1671, a Treaty was entered into at Cattaraugue
Reservation between the "Chiefs, head men end warriors of the
Cayuga Nation of Indians residing in the Indian territory West
of the Mississippi River” and the "Chiefs, head men and warriors
ANNEX D.
a=Be
of the said Cayuga Nation of Indians vesiding in the State of New
York." This Treaty annulled the treaty of June 24, 1850, and
stipulated a new onumeration of Cayugas residing in Indian terri-
tory and Cayugas residing in the State of Sew York, providing for
a scale of distribution between the two branches and for the
manner of payment therefor. This Treaty was signed by John }inny
and James King for the indian territory Cayugas and by Levis
Jamison, Smith Wheelbarrow, and J.C,turkey for the Cattaraugus
Cayugas. (Bp, 360-362)
This Treaty was ratified by the Indian territory Cayugas
under date of Aprll 27, 1871. (Bp. 360),
ANNEX EH.
ee
MOVE OF INDIANS TO CANADA,
(Cayuga to Canada)
The question of the nationality of the Cayuga claim in
: its origin, depends upon the time at which the Cayuga nation
moved to Ganada3 if it had already moved to Canada at the time
the treaties were made, the elaim could be said to be British
in its ineeption.
It must be in mind that although under the treaty of Peace
between the United States and Great Britain, of 1783, Fort Niagara,
Located near the mouth of Niagara River, went to the United States,
it was not evacuated by the British and surrendered to the United
States until 1796, (Bp, 968) On thia matter the British case con+
taina this notet«
“The fort at Niagara, although within the terrl-
tory of New York, was not surrendered until June, 1796.
At this period it was the headquarters of the British
in that region, and the seat of an active fur trade
with the western tribes. Its possession geve effectual
control of this. trade to the Knglish." (Bp 569
Buffalo Greek was also within the United States.
However, as a matter of fact, until 1796, both localities
were to all intents and purposes British territory, and Indians
located there, were in fact under British supervision, control,
and domination,
The Haldimand Grant of Grand Kiver lands was made October
25, 1784, (1d, py 258% Ap, 10135) The grant was to the “Mohawk
nation, and such others of the six Nation Indians es wish to
G settle in that quarter.”
It ds evident that at the time of the grant, no nations
other than the Mohawk were seeking a location in British territory,
nor was it certain they would seek it.
ANNEX Ee
~Be
When did the branch of the Cayugas firat move there?
First, Evidence of treaties with our Fo.eral Government.
In 1784 at Fort Stanwix, the United States made a treaty
at Fort Stanwix with the Senecas, Mohawks, Onondagas, and Cayugas
tpeceiving them into their protection’. ‘These evidently were the
tribes which fought with the British during the kevolutionj the
Oneidaa and Tuscaroras supported the colonies. This treaty laid
out a boundary to the lands of the Six Nations, (7 Stats. p. 15)
Fish Carrier did not sign this treaty. i
In 1789 at Fort Harmer, Six Netions, "except the Mohawks,
none of whom have attended at this time” renewed and contirmed
the boundary of 1784, and quit elatnea to the United States all
ands west of said boundary, The United States confirmed them in
the lends recognized to them in the earlier treaty, and renewed
perce except with the Mohawka, who might assent to this treaty
within ale months. (7 Stats. pe 33) A separate article provided
for the jurisdiction to be exercised over crimes of Indians,
ngeinst Americans, and vice versa. Thia provision shows the Indians
must have resided within the jurisdiction of the United States,
and of the State of New York, Gthexwies the surrender of criminals
would be a matter of extbadition between the United States and
Great Britain, Fish Carrier did not sign this treaty.
In November, 1794, at Konondaiqua, the United States made a
third treaty "with the Sachems, Chiefs, and Warriors of the Six
Nations," establishing peace ‘between the United States and the
Six Nations," acknowledging their Lands on the New York Reserva~
tions "to be their property” and agreeing never to diaturb them
“in the free use and enjoyment thercof." The Six Nations agreed
ANTEX &
wba
never to claim any other lands than thelr reservations within the
boundaries of the United States. the treaty which was one of
“peace and friendship" was made following the war with the Western
Indians, which was terminated by Wayne's campaign in 1794, and was
made with the Oneida, ee cere nations. Fish Carrier
signed this treaty,
There was inserted in this troaty a "note" stipulating that
the annuity for which the treaty provided should be paid only to
these “as do or shall reside within the boundaries of the United
States! For the United States do not interfere with nations, tribes
or families of Indians elsewhere resident.” (7 Stass. 44)
Colonel Plekering, writing to Joseph Brant, under date of
November 2Oth, 1794, laid down the same principle. He said:
"a a % besides these relinquishments I have stipu-~
lated a perpetual Amuity of Four thousand five
hundred Dollars, to be applied to the Benefit of
those of the Six Nations, and theiy Indian friends
& Associates, residing among and ualted with them,
who do or shall reside within the boundaries of the
U. States for the United States do not mean to inter-
fere by any permanent engagement with Nations elae-
where resident,” (Bp. 835)
warlier in the letter Colonel Pickering had used thia language:-
"he Onondagas, and Cayugas, residing at the
Grant Kiver, who were not present 6° receive a part
of the goods given at this treaty may doubtleas be
also comprehended in providing a gratulty on the
present genere settlement with the Six Nations."
(Bp. 854
These expressions, taken together with the treaty terms
already quoted, clearly show that tribes themselves were still
resident in the United States, although eertein individuals of them
may have moved over to Canada,
It seems clear from this that at the time of thia Treaty
these nations lived within the United States, and this mst have
whe
included Fish Carrier who signed the Treaty. That a considerable
part of them may have lived at Buffalo Creek and around Fort
Niagara within the British influence and de facto jurisdiction
ia immaterial, for the British themselves were trespassers.
About three weeks later (December 2, 1794) the United States
made a treaty with the Oneida, Tuscarora and Stockbridge Indians.
(7 Stats. 47),
In the following June, 1795, at Cayuga Merry, the State of
New York made its third treaty with the Cayugas for their land,
This treaty was signed by Fish Carrier. (B.C. 2 pel02)
In 1797, at Albany,a "treaty was held under the authority
of the United States" between the State of Sew York and Mohawk
4ndtens, "residing in the province of Upper Canada, within the
dominions of the King of Great Britain" by which the Mohawks
relinguished to the State of New York all its claims to land in
New York, This treaty, thus dvaling with a nation resident in
Canada, specifically so recites. (7% Stata. 61)
The foregoing ia strongly persuasive that the Six Nations,
except the Mohawks, were in 1794-5 residents of New York, They seem
certainly to have been in 1784 (at Fort Stanwix): in 1798 (at Fort
Harmai), and in 1794 (At Konondaigua) because practically it 1s
so recited in the Treaties. ‘this residente having existed in the
United States at the close of the Revolutionary war and being
practically stipulated in 1704, it must be affirmatively sihown
to have ceased before the treaty of 1795 with New York, particularly
as in 1797 1t is specifically recited that the Mohawks reside in
Genada, while no such statement 1s made as to any other nation.
A national status once established is presumed to exist until a
change is proved.
= Ba
From the foregoing 1t seems certain that in 1795 the Cayugas
were resident in the United States.
ANNEX Eb.
ANNEX E
Gow
Second, « Kvidence in the British Case und Reply.
Considering first the evidence given before Commissioner
Bissell in 1888 (Bp. 477, et seq)
An Indian, Jacob Jamison, from Canada, testifying upon behalf
of the Canadian Cayugas, swore as follows:~
"QO, Where did the Cayuga live that lived here 105 years agot
in what part of Canada did he live in?
"a, They lived at Niagara when they first came there, and
then from there they lived at Grand Kiver.
"9g, How many of them were there that lived at Niagara’
"A, ALL the Cayugas lived over there,
"9, Who lived at Cayuga Lake at that time, then?
"A, Ojaghebty.
"@, Dta Ojaghetty live there alone; didn't no body else
live there?
‘A, That is all I can say.
"Q, Do you mean that Ojaghetty lived there solitary and
alone, and nobody else lived there au all?
"a, Yes, sirt that is the way I understood, because he
went from here and lived there at the time of their
pusiness.”
Another Indien, Henry Phillip, born about 1796, teatified
for the Canadian Indians: ~
» "Q, How old were you when the last war took place with
Great Britain?
"A, Sixteen years old.
"Qo, Did you know the Cayuga Indians at that time?
“A, Yes, I knew some of them.
#Q, Do you know of your own knowledge that great many of
them went over to Canada in 1809 and 18107
“A, Yes, airs I recollect of their emigrating over to
Canada before the war.
"(), How long before the war?
ANNEX be
="
" "a, T ean't say exactly how many years before the war they
wont.
"o, Bub you remember 1t?
"Re Yos, sir.
"OQ. Do you remember about how many went over?
"A. Wo, I don't remember.”
This Indian speaks of bis own memory, not by "tradition"
as did most of the Indians testifying at this hearing before Come
missioner Bissell, Furthermore as he speaks from memory the event
could hardly have been earlier than 1800. The evidence given by
he Indians, - Fish (p,505). “edge (pp 516-518), Styres (pp Sa4-
534) Silversmith (pp 689-540), and Hot (p 543), which would place
the migration before the Revolution 1s inaccurate according to the
admissions of the Indians themselves. Their statements mist be taken
as the expressions of interested memories atruggling under a con«
fusion between the first and second Ojaghetties. ‘This unreliability
ia further illustrated. (as to at least one of them Hot) by his
testimony that the Cayugas “were out upon the top of the earth”
during the first Ojaghotty's time.
In thelr memorial to the State Board of Audit in the State
of New York, February 24, 1883, the Cayuga Indians residing in
Canada, made the following statementsa:~
"That on the 27th df July, 17965, a grand council
of the Cayuge Nation was held at Cayuga Ferry, at
which was gathered all the chiefs, warriors and head-
men of the nation, as well as those residing within
the State, as those residing out of it ~ for some
of the Cayugas, quite a large number, were then residing
in Canada, and where especially called by the State to
meet thelr brethern residing in the United states, to
make the great treaty of 1795 = and the Ganadian band,
your Petitioners’ immediate ancestors, came and joined
in said treaty.
ab de ae de uk oe
"That on the 30th day of Ma
bo we
Y, 1807, another treaty
ANNEX I
wee
was made between the State and the Cayuges, by wh
they ceded to the State all the lands reserved ty thei
in the treaty of 1795 exeept the one mile square that
had been reserved and set apart to the head ehtief;
'Q-ja-geghti', or 'Fish Carrier'm and all the remalning
Sachems or chiefs, warriors and head men, and many of the
tribe (making wlth those already residing in Canada, more
than three-fourths of the entire nation), left the United
States and moved over into Canada, taking up their residence
in that country, and have remained there ever since.
So we Ue ee a me
"That your Petitioners aver they have never joined
in any of the so-called 'treaties' since the one of May
30, 1807, neither have they ever authorized any one to
join for them, nor have they in any manner consented to
the making of said so-called treaties, nor were they
ever notified if the intended making of them, or any of
Le mon pave meen ony manner coded, discharged or
release ely rights or claims unde t b
reas nce case der the treaties of
eb be ee RHO
"That your Petitoners aver they are not citizens
or residents of the State of New York, or of the United
States, and that they were never citizens of either,
neither did they ever owe allegiance to elther, and that
they left the United States prior to the war between the
United States and Great Britain, comaonly called 'the war
of 1812', and took up their residence in Canada, and that
they have resided there ever since.” (Bp. 563, 564)
Contemporary evidence shows that the Cayugas reaided in New
York in the 1790's.
Brant, writing from Grand Kiver, to the Governor of New York
regarding the proposed meeting at Fort stanwix, New York, said,
under date of May 26, 1L7901-
"As for the Cayugas and Qnondasas we \
yug 28. ean't tel
how they received the in “o
avitation, as they are some
distance from us at Buffalo Creek. (BD. bse}
At a meeting held between the New York Commissioner and the
Cayuga Indians at Albany in February, 1789, Good Peter, speaking
for the Cayugas, and addressing the Governor, salds-
"We are desirous of a large seat to s 4
3 a down on
though you are but few here we are many + paeinae
"WE have sald that Justice and Right
a gousness
tark all your paths and that you bear a love to us,
ANNEX lie
we Gem
the Six Nations, and that it 18 not your wish to
extinguish the fire in any of their tribes but that
the smoke of their habitations may still continue,"
(Bp. 626)
At a meeting held at Albany, Herch 13, 1704, with certain
Cayugas, the Governor speaking of the treaty of 1789, and the
patification thereof by the treaty of 1790, saidi-
“ene winter following, the Cayugas who remained
in their own country, met me at a CcouneLll Fire at
this place end mede a similar covenant with me, I
then hoped that everything was finally adjusted to
general satisfaction; but 1t was not long before I
was informed that some of your Nation, who hag left
thelr country and peaided at purralo Crook; were not
Sontented with these agreemonts » because they were not
present at thelr completion." (Bp. 767) (Ap. 861).
on November 13, 1792, a Council of the Six Nationa was held
at Buffalo Greek by the British officers under the order of Lisu-
tenant Governor Simcoe (Bp.829) to which Governor Simcoe reforred
to his speech to the Indians in 17956, as a General Council (1d.p.831)
Clear Sky, speaking to General Chapin on iiavoh 4,1794, saidi-
"the counoil which must finally terminate this
pusiness must. be holden at Buffalo Creck, the piace
determined to decide sueh business, so a the
hiefs an ce Nations may hava a proper understand~
ing of a1] that takes place, and as this place is the
‘lace of our doing business shall take the Governor
by the hand and Invite him here, It is our determin-~
ation to persuade the Governor to rise from his seat
and come into our sounbry at. Buffalo Greek, the place
of our doing business, and there to détérmine the
terms of our bargain, as we mean this meeting to be
fhe last respecting the lands.” (Bp. 367)
Colonel Pickering writing to Brant under date of November 20,
1794, nine days after he had made his treaty with the Six Nations
at Konondigua, which stipulated that the United States do not
interfere with nations, tribes or families of Indians elsewhere
resident,” calls attention to the treatment accorded the Mohawks
py that treaty, and states his opinion that those YOnondagas and
Cayugas, residing at the Grand River, who were not present to
ANNEX E.
~TOw
receive a part of the goods given at this treaty, “may secure some
goods. As sh Carrier was present at and signed this treaty, he
was evidently not then one of those then "residing at the Grand
River, (Bp.8354)
In 1808, John Norton, a Mohawk chief writing to Sir J.H.
Craig asserted thatt-
"After breaking the bands of American influence,
the next thing to be effeeted ts to collect the Five
Nations in one settlement, either in the Grand River
or on the River Thames." (Bp.849)
Thus even at.this time (1808) there was talk of » future gather~
ing of the Five Nations at Grand River,
As late as September 1, 1815, at a Councll held at Grand
River by a number of Indian nations, ineluding the Cayugas, lan+
guage was used showing that still, a good part of the Six Nations
were at Buffalo Creek. A Seneca Chief saidi~
"he River which separates us is opened that we
may have a free passage at all times.” (Bp, 860)
An Ondaga Chief saidi-
"I speak to the Senecas, Cayugas, and Onondagas
from Buffalo Creek." (Bp, 861)
ed Jacket saids«
"In the name of the Indlans from the other side
of the river” (meaning the American side) "I now
address myself to the King, the Commanding Officer
and Colonel Claus, our head, and to the Six Nations,
Wyandote and Shawanoes.” (id.p.862)
Red Jacket in a speech at a Council held at Buffalo on July
6th, 8th, 1812, used these words, addressing the Indian Agent of
the United States:~
"This is a full meeting. All our head men are
present. very village is represented in this council."
(id.p.138)
Tndian Agent, Granger, saidz-
ANNEX 3 <
alle
"T observe that the chiefa of the Seneca nations
and some of the Delewares ‘are present. The Mohawks,
who live in Canada, are not represented, and the
Oneidas, living at a distance, could not attend,"
(Bp. 138)
Thus only the Mohawks as a nation were even then resident in Canada,
To this speech Red Jacket made a reply, in which he made the
following statementst~
"Phe Six Nations are placed in an unpleasant
situation. A part of them are in Canada, and
the remainder in the “nited States i % % u % i om
we now declare to you that none have a cleht to
Hold council anywhere except at Chis place around
the council rire of tho Six Nations.” (Bpy 146-143)
As tho vesult of this Council, the following declaration
of war was madet=
“Wie, the chiefs and counselors of the Six Nations
of Indians residing in the State of New York, do here»
by proclaim to all the war chiefs and warriors of the
Six Nations, that war is declared on our part against
the provinees of Upper and Lower Canada, Therefore, we
hereby command and advise all the war chiefs and war-
riors under them and vut them in motion to protect their
rights and liberties, which our. brethren, the Americans,
ave now defending." (Bp. 144).
ANNEX Ey
who
Third, «Evidence in American Answer,
Writing from Buffalo Creek on July 9, 1788, in connection
with the then approaching treaty between New York and the Six
Nations, Brant said:
"We have held a great Council # 4 % # aw #
at which all the chiefs and principal warriors
of the Six Nations attended," (Ap, 1089)
Brant, writing to Sire John Johnson on November 8, 1790,
indicated that the Six Nations were still on the Ameriean side,
fe saldt
W 1. * r
touaht ng eee Ee ea en bo lL Eta EME AOGS°S Eb BoBiion
freely on matters in which the public was any ways
interested end have ever disapproved of its being
recommended to the Six Nations to remain on the Lands
they are now on, and not to cross to this side of
the River in order to settle, the evil of which may
at present not appear, but be assured that time will
point out the error, thel being settled on Government
jands was surely strengthening the British Interest in
this part of the Country." (Ap. 450-431)
Jom Butler, writing to Siv John Johnaon on the 20th of May,
L791L, in a letter dated at Niagara, said:~
"Stnee I had the honor of writing you last a good
deal of Indian business at Buffalo Greek hes been in
agitation, which required the Chiefs to send for me to
attend their Council, the proceedings of which I have
the honor to enclose herewith. # # & % ah Ww i ea ee
“tne object of his business with the 81x Nations
is not yot completed, but I am since Informed thab the
Gow Killer with some Seneca'sa and two Onéndagas have
agreed to accompany him, the Chiefs from Buffalo Creek
have proposed a Council at this place respecting these
matters, I expect them tomorrow and shall take the
earliest opportunity of reporting to you their pro«
ceedings, until this Council takes place nothing can
be said with certainty as to the part they mean to act.
(Ap, 432)
"
Israel Chapin, writing to the Secretary of War, July 17,
L792, saiai-
“and, indeed, I have not since been sorry, as T
have reason to believe that my continuance has been
the means of more perfectly reconciling the Onondagas
ANNEX Ey
«1B~
and Cayugas. The far greater part, of both nations,
have resided at Buffalo Creek, ever since the last war.
on"ny first arvival, the principal chief of the Caytiga
nation, commonly known by the name of Fish Carrier,
and, indeed, the whole of both nations, were extremely
disaffected, For the grounds of their disaffection, I
must refer you, sir, to the speeches delivered to me
on the occasion, which I ordered to be taken down in
writing on the spot, and transmit to you by this dig»,
patch, After several conferences with the Pish Garner,
in which I was greatly assisted by several chiefs who
attended Congress, he gradually relaxed in his severity,
and at last became perfectly friendly.
"The chiefs from Oneida did not arrive during the
council: I should otherwise have been able to have
dispatched the chiefs of the Five Nations to the Southern
treaty, previously to my leaving Buffalo Creek. Two of
the Massasolga chiefs attended council with the Five
Netionss thelr appearance was perfectly friendly. They
expressed 6 wish to be made acquainted with our great
mens Lhe Mohawks were sent for from the Grant River;
but, Gs Captain Brandt was absent, and tnetr princIpal chief
sick, they did not attend.” (Ap. 161 «168.)
Under date of “ay 2, 1791, the Secretary of War made Colonel
Timothy Pickering the sgent of the United States to induce the Six
Nations to keep out of the war with the Western Indians or else
join the United States, showing the Six Nations were then within
the jurisdiction of the United States. (Ap. 1283)
On Appll @7, 1791, at the great council held by Colonel
Proctor at Buffalo Creck, Kked Jacket, speaking to Proctor, saidr-
(Ap.
"Onis is, therefore, the compliment of the @hiefs,
and head men of Buffalo Creek to you and our great
warrior (O'Beel) and you may, each of you, go on safely
with your business." (Ap. 117)
At this CGourtcll, Pish Carrier was present and made a speech.
117)
It appears from Proctor's account that in 17@1, the Six Nations
at Buffalo Creek were principally supplied from the British stores
at kort Erie (across the river alx miles distant) (Ap. 87); that
there were "several villages adjacent to the castle of Buffalo,
' : ANNEX &.
wLdoe
to wits the Senecas, the Cayugas, the Ononadages, eto., there are
more thab 170 tolerable well built huts." (Ap. 111)3 with a village
of Onondaga! s about three miles east of Buffalo, with twenty-eight
cabins (Ap. 95-96)3 that the principal village of Buffalo belonged
to the Seneca nation (Ap. 87); that the Great Council] House was
at Buffalo (Ap. 8'7)3; which held at one time more than one hun~
dred fifty persons {Ap. 89-90); that British officers having
business with the Six Nations went to Buffalo Creek to transact
it (Ap, 90)3 that the Council Fire of the Six Nations was here
(Ap. 92)3 that the most of thee hiefs of the Six Nations, including
Fish Carrier, were under the influence of the Britian (Ap. 93);
that at this time (May 6, 1791) the Couneil Pire was for the first
time moved from the Buffalo villages and was taken to the shores
of the Lake (Ap, 95-96); that at this time the only Chief of the
Six Nations spoken of as belonging to Grand River was Brant (Ap. 96=
97); that the Six Nations in providing lands for friends who came
among them, did so from lands in New York, either adjacent to
Buffalo or to some of their ancient settlements, and that certain
other Indian tribes were preparing to Buffalo Creek for safety
(Ap, 99-119); that Fish Carrier was the right hand man of Brant
and Colonel Butler (Ap. 100-117); that the women of the nation
were the real power (Ap. 104-105); that Buffalo was the place
where the "Great Fire" was lighted (Ap. 115) which was, as stated
by a chief, the "Great council fire of the full nations. (Ap. 116)
In 1794, Little Cayuga Chief, speaking to the Governor of
New York at Albany, saidh-
"We are glad to see you at the Council Fire
which you have kindled at this place # 4 w % #
Some of us were at Buffalo Creek when we received
your message, others at Grand River. We thought it
advisable to send for them." (Ap.858)
Annex E.
“15.
Thus showing that the real authority was at Buffalo Creek,
Two days later Litsle Cayuga Chief stated to the Governor:~
"Let those who wish to treat with us send
Comuiasioners to our Counecil Bire which is
generally held at Buffalo Creek," (Ap. 859)
He later in his address asked that Commissioners be appointed
"to meet us at Buffalo Creek." (Ap, 861)
The Governor of New York replying to this speech traced the
history of his negotiations with the Cayugas, In the course of
this speech the Governor said:
"J was informed that some of your nations who
had left their country and resided at Buffalo Creek
were not contented with these agreements because
they were not present at thelr completion.” (Ap.861)
Thus at this time the Indian Nations were regarded as living at
Buffalo Creek and not Grand River.
In 1804, John Norton, in a “Memorial for the Six Nations,"
bouching the holding of lands on the Grand itiver, seld:-
"There La not the smallest doubt, that the
Major part of the Six Nations ~ more than one
half of whom yet remain within the American line,
would soon remove to their bretheren, now in the
British territory, which cannot be expected, from
the present unsettled, and undeetdeod nature of
their grant, and possesaion.” (ap. 10381)
In the seme year Norton, writing to karl Camden, under date
of September 18, 1804, speaks of the Indiana with the Siow Nations
then in Canada as the Mohawks, thus indieating that these still
were the chief Indians who were on the Canadian side. (Ap.1036).
ABNEX oe
#lG~
Fourth,» Evidence of the Sew York cbatutes authorizing
” the making of trosties with Indians»
The New York legislature in 1779 passed an Act authorizing
Commissioners to treat with the Mohawks, Onoridagas, Cayugas, and
Senecas, whieh had conducted hostilities against the United stated
during the Revolutionary Yar, and to ascure froa them guarantees
as to the future end compensation and retrlbution for the past.
(Ap. 678)
By an Aet dated arch 26, 1785, the New York Leaislazure
authorized the appointment of three Commissioners for Indian Af@
fairs, with power and authority to superintend the sonduct and af~
fairs, of the Indians and to perform acts authorized by the Le glen
laturea. (Ap. 878)
In 1784, (April 6th), enother Lot was passed by the seme Legis-
lature and authorized and required the Sovernor snd the Indien Com-
misaioners and augh other persons as thoy Choose ,«
Sen enter into such compact or compacta, agreement
or agreements, wlth any Indians, residing within
this State, ae he, auch Commissioners en such As~
Boetabes soall judze to be for the interest of the
people of this State, and to stipulate the vetifieation
of any such compact or compacta, agreement or agrea=
ments, by the people of this Stete, represented in
Senate and fasembly." (Ap. 879)
On Harch 1, L788, another act was passed specifying certain
persona named Rs Comalsstonera, at set either with like Commlesioners
from Kassachusetts or by themeelvesa, to hold treaties and conferences
"with the Indlang residing within this State, end every or any
tribe or nation of the sald Indiana «cee ana also to enter Into
such engagements and contracts with the sald Indians, and to pure
chase or procure from them" the Indlan Lands. (Ape 875)
Another het, passed Maveh 18, 1785, forbade the acquisition
of Indian lands except under the authorLty of the state. (fpB20~-
ANNEX E.
ol Te &
884)
By an Act of February 12, 1789, the Act of March 1, 1788, was
continued in sErest until a time specified in the Act. (Ap. 879)
By an Act of January 28, 1790, it was recited that the Act
of herch 1, 1786, and February le, 1788, had “expired by theiy
own limitation," and that it was neceasary "that the said Aots
should be revised (sic)", it was therefore enacted “that the
hereinbefore mentioned Acts, shall be and hereby aro vevived,"
and the Gommlssioners named therein “shall be Comnissloners to
hold treaties with the Indians within State, and shall have and
enjoy all the powers conferred on the scommissioners named in the
said flirat mentioned act." (Ap. 886887)
The first Cayuga treaty was negotiated February 25, 1789,
the second treaty was made June 2, 1790. Both of their treaties
must bave been made, under the authority given, with Indians who
were "residing within the State." If such treaties were not so
made, they were invalid.
The British Government asserts their invalidity and relies
upon them for recovery. Therefore , they must have been made with
New York Indians.
By an Act passed March 11, 1793, certain persons named were
appointed "to convene the Indians of the Oneida, Onondaga, and
hs
Cayuga nations, severally, at their usual places of residence
>
and being so convened to propose to the said nations severally,
that they should guit claim to the people of the Stat6" such lands
as they desired to dispose of. (Ap. S80; Bp. 806),
In the following year, the Legislature of New York, under date
of Msrch 27, 1794, "appointed" certain persons named,-
ty a
trustees for the Indians residing within this State,
ANNEX Ee
-18-
and for each and every trlbe of them with full power.
to make such agreements and arrangements with the
Oneida, Onondagas, and Cayuga Indians or any or either
of them respecting the lands reserved for their use or
any part or parts thereof as shall tend to produce an
annual ineome to the said Indians and to insure their
good wi Jd and friendship to the people of the United
States." (Ap. 883)
While in the Aot of April 9, 1795, under the authority of
which it would seem the Treaty of 1795 with the Geyuga Indians
was made, it is not specifically recited that those suthorized
to deal with the Indians shall deal only with those resident
within the State (at least as that sot is printed in the British
ease, page 607, et seq.), still the general tenor of the Act is
such, particularly of those provisions which stipulate the par-
celling of lands to Indian femilies, ete., that little support
can be found for any sugzestion that it was intended to cover
Indians not resident in the State.
So that so far as the Statutes go they clearly show that at
the time the various treaties were made the Cayuga Indians as a
Nation were regarded as being resident in the State of Sew York.
that the State of New York and its authorities always con«
sidered themselves entitled to deal with the Indians within the
State of New York and with none others, is borne out by varlous
expressions of the Governors of the State. For example, Governor
Glinton, writing to the Commissioners of the United States for
Indian affairs under date of August 13, 1784, said:~
"The Indians of the Six Nations, whom I have
requested to convene at Fort Sehuyler, have ada
vised me that they will be accompanied by Deputies
from other Nations possessing the territory within
the jurisdiction of the United States; I shall have
no objection to your improving this incident to the
advantage of the United States, excepting however and
positively stipulating that no agreement be entered
into with Indians residing within the jurisdiction
of thia State (and with whom only I mean to treat)
ANNEX Bae
wl Qe
prejudicial to its rights.
"These engagements being made on your part, you
may rely on every exertion in my power and that of
my colleagues to promote the interest of the United
States, whith f flatter myself no State in the federal
Union has at any time more cheerfully end efficiently
supported than this." (Bp. 576)
Governor Clinton in his speech to the Oneida and fuscaroras
on September 4, 1784, salds
"At the conclusion of the late War with Great
Britain, which terminated in a glorious peace, the
Legislature of the State thought 1t right to re-establish
the anclent harmony and friendship, which had se long sub-
sisted between this State and the six Nations residing
within 1ts limits, and which had been interrupted by the
part which some of the six Nationa had taken against us;
For this and other purposes we are authorised by a law of
this State to treat with them." (Bp,.586-7)
On September Sth of the same year, the Governor speaking to
Deputies of the Mohawks, Qnondagoes, Cayugas, and senecas ~ those
nations which had fought against the Colonies during the Revolutionary
War, saldi«
"The vight and power of managing all affairs with the
Indians, not members of any of the states, fs vested in
Congress, who have, as we are informed, appointed Com~
missionera for the purpose, e are appointed by a law of
the Legislature of this State, to superintend Indians af-
fairs within the same, by virtue of which we are suthorized
and vequired to enter into compacts and agreements with any
Indians residing within this State. It is in consequence of
this law and these powers that we appear now to treat with
you our brethren, with whom, when our present differences
are adjusted, we sre inclined to live as herefore, on terms
of the most sincere friendships; in testimony whereof we give
you thia belt.” (Bp,593)
Captain O'Beel, replying to the sapoech of the Governor on Septem-«
ber 7, 1784, saidie~
“vou again spoke and made us acquainted that the
powers of managing Indian affairs at large belonged to
Congress, snd that they had appointed Commissioners for
this purpose, end that you were appointed by this par-
ticular State, to manage Indian affairs with Indlansre-
siding within the bounds thereof, in consequence of which
you appear here at this place.” (Bp. 596)
on the 10th of September, 1784, the Governor reaffirmed the
ANNEX Ey
~20~
position he had earlier taken and explained to the Indians certain
difficulties they were experiencing In trying to understand tho
coordination of the powers of the Confeceracy and of the State:~
(Bp. 598)
To this speech Captain O'Beel returned reply:~
"We are exceedingly happy and return you thanks for
the candour and explicltnesa with which you have con-
ducted the business on your part. We have considered
the Confederation of the United States, the Constitution
of this State and the law under which you act and are
fully sensible of your right, as Commissioners of this
State, in treating with us the Gix Nationa who Live and
reside within its limits." (Bp. 600)
=l- ANNEX I.
REASONS FOR FAILURE OF INDIANS TO GET PRO RATA SHARE
OF ANNUL TIES » _ =
1789. Under date of Jyne gnd, Fish Carrler and Priends of the
‘Cayuga chiefs, writing from Buffalo Greek end complaining regarding
the treaty that year, statedi~
"We dld not expest that you, after advising us to
gbun private Treaties with individuals and avold sel~
ling owe lands to your disobedient children, that you
would yourself purchase land few of our wrong
Headed Young mon, without the consent “oy “ever Cue know.
Tedes oF the Chigfay tierePore we have at présont only
to communicate our disapprobation of those sales, and
request that you will not make any further settlements
or surveys on the lends till the money is p Us agree~
able tothe sale we made at Buffalo Greek last Summer.
Tt is not that we have any objections to you have the
landss it is equal to us who has it, as we have sold
it in public Council at our Gouncil Pyre Like men and
do not mean to deviate from it like children; but we
expect to be paid the money. we then agreed for wi Dre
Benton, and to have the distribution of 1t ourselves,
and not that a few individuals shall pun away with the
whole, to thé prejudite of ait the Five Nations and to
the disgrace of your Brothers." (Bp.681)
Governor Glinton in a letter to the Cayuga Indians, dated
July 14th, made the following statoment:~
"Before we left that place we again sent invite-
tions to our Brethren the Senecasa nd Cayugas to at-
tend at a Council Fire which we preposed to kindle at
this place in the Winter. The Cayugas accordingly came,
and the same reasons wiich influenced our Treaties with
the Oneidas and Onondagas, produced a similar agreement
with us and the Gayugas for their lands. We honestly
paid them a part of the purchase money before they left
this place, and the residue we pald them at Fort Stanwix
the beginning of June last, according to our agreement,
and we cannot but think that they will make such a dis-
tribution of the money among those of their Nation who
are entitled to it, as is consistent with justice and
the usage among the Indian Nations, This was our advice
to them, and as far.as we can with propriety interfere
we shall always be ready to give our assistance to see
it done." (Bp, 655)
Replying to certain letters of the Governor, Chiefs of the
Onondagas and Cayugas, and other Chiefs, including Brant of the
Mohawks, stateds
1790
on Bm ANNEX P.
"you say the treaties you entered into gave great
satisfaction to the Indians and would be much to their
advantage, .Undoubtedly a large sum of money to a few
Indians, vold of principal, would be pleasing, and
theiy ideas of advantage are but momentary and never
discend to posterity, and they are too blind to see
the traps laid to diganite the Nations to which they
belong. What youmean by offering your assiatance to
seo the money fairly divided among those of their
Nation who are entitled to receive it, we do not under-
ateand, unless you think none entitled te it but those
who remain in the preserve trap and who are intirely in
your power, Oyr Ancestors made no distinction In a
Nation; they held their lands in common, and we do not
wish to deviate from their customs," (Bp.657)
Governor Glinton, in addressing a delegation of Cayugas
under the leadership of Pash Gerrier, end in responding to certain
complaints which were made as to the non-participation of certain
of the Cayugas in the annulty which had been peld under the Treaty
of 1789, saldr~
1790
‘we patd a considerable sum of money down and
with the consent of the Cayugas with whom we negoola~
ted end who appeared to us disposed to do perfect
Justice to the other part of the Nation, we retained
a very considerable sunt of money in our hends until
the firat of dune following, belng the day of the
fivrat annual payment and upwards of three months
after the agreement was perfeoted. ‘This sum, with
an annual payment stipulated to be made,we sent to
this place by our agent on the day appointed. He waited
herve a long time for the arrival of your Nation, a cons
siderable number of whom at length came; among whom were
several who we understood resided to Burfraloe Greek énd
who” Tornéd in “slgning the recelpt for the money. IT equal
Justices has” therefore not been done to the different
metibers of your Nation, the blame Te not to be imputéa
to us. We could Use no Other precaution than Whee we
aid to prevent Infistics., “We could ask you to atténa
pub we could not compel you" (Bp.'702)
On the 20th dey of Jyne, the Governor made reply to
speeches of the Indians, uaing the following language:
"The Governor commenced the business of producing
to them the deed of cession entered into between their
Nation andthe Commissioners at Albany. He stated to
them the sum paid in the first instance as a consideration.
The measures which had been taken by the Commissioners
to effect an equal distribution of the money between
the whole Nation, by retaining the greater part thereof
~Sie ANNEX F
in their hands until the first day of last June, being
the day appointed for the flret annual payment. Te
also shewed them that the annual payment of five hundred
dollars to thelr Hation was equal, to the sum atipulated
to be made to thelr Nation by the confirmation to Dr.
Benton and others; admitting their country and that of
the Onondagoes to be squally valuable, whereas that of
the Onondagoes was a much larger territory. That by
the agreement with the State the first annual payment
had already commenced on the first day of last June,
whereas by the confirmetion to br .Benton and Cos
their annual payment was not to commence till the fourth
day of July, 1701. That exclusive of this advantage a
very extensive tract of. dountry waa reserved to them,
and the privileges of fishing & hunting as usual; so that
the state was the most advantageous to thems and he son-
eluded by observing thatnotwithstanding they were placed
in a much better situation than they would have been if
the agreement entered into by them with Dr.Benton had
been confirmed; the Commissioners were willing, from a
sincere desire of restoring harmony and friendship among
them, and removing every cause of complaint, to give them,
ag a benevolence, the seme sum of money and value in
clothing which they had given to their Brethren the Onon-
dogoes, whereby they would beenabled still to make such a
diatripution among themselves as to remove discord." (Bp.'710)
iL79L. Brant, writing to Governor Clinton from Gpend River on
March 4th, used the following language:~
"I thenk you and the Commissioners for the favorable
opinion you are pleased to entertain of the part I took
in accommodating the differences in the Cayuga Nation,
put am sorry the Nation have not succeeded betber in the
plan which we thought most eligible, as well as corres»
pondent with what they were given to understand by the
Commissioners at Fort Stanwix. I hope however the Legis=
leture will consider the hardship of the majority of the
Nation loosing the benefit of the reservad lands, as well
as the greatest part of the proceeds of the rest, through
e peng of a few of the inferior part of the Tetton."
ects
1794, Ata meeting between the governor and the Cayuga Indiana
from Buffalo Greek and Grand River, held on Maveh 17, 1794,
the following colloquy took place between Lyttle Cayuga Chief
and the Governor:
"Brother? You requested usto mention the time and
place where you have wronged us, end the particular inw
stances, as you consider yourself a Mptend we will tell
you . :
‘What we mean is that we wanted your Commissioners
+ to postpone the busijess last Year, as we were not ready,
be ke cet am dba Bee ee NTR BP wetdce ol tal d
but they came on like Strong headed men, and Treated with
Boys at Onondago- The annual payments are made to the |
Indians residing there also, who wrong the Majority of
their Property, when we speak of you we only mean the
Men you sent among us, we have buried the Bargain with
the Onondagoes ~ as well as those we meade with your
Young Nen, we hope there will be a New Bargain made; to
the satiafaction of the Nation."
The Governor veplied, ~
"Bpotherss As to the annual payments you know
they are by our agreement with you to be made at Fort
~5~ ANNEX PF.
CGamada and the objects which they hed commissioned you
to represent to His Majesty's Government # % 7 % ve
Lord Bathurat, howeverannot hold out to them any ex-
pectation of their receiving from this Government the
payment of the money due to them by the United States
on aocount of lands formerly sold by them to the United
Spates, thet being a transaction with which His Majesty's
Government have no corgerd.”” (p.978)
; Stenwix on a certain day, end it has always been done , 1819, At a council of the 8ix Nations held on March @7, 1819,
we pay them to those of your Nation who attend we “
gannot pay them to you if you do not attend to receive
Echo speaking to the British Representatives ea follows:
them, if you did you would got your full proportion,
and if there is anything wrong in this it is your own
fault end not ows." (Apes 866)
In a message dated February 26th » presumably 1794, or per~
haps.1795 - certain Indlané addressing Governor Olinton, said:~
"Brother: wish the money that you send us
may be left at Onondaga & if we agree with our Brow
4nne property that we had onthe other side the
AmerlLoans now. claim we have list it through the means
of your war. ‘The interest that Americans used to
pay us (@ small sum) we cannot recover from them and
we now give up the prospects of dvawing thé money from
them and will look te you to see whet ean be done. ‘The
reason why we ask you is that 1t was promised to us by
several officers during the war that we should not lose
riy if we were to assist.” (Bp.864
thers at Buffaloe that they have a part of the money om progeny ¢ (Bp )
we wish to have them come to receive it." fo this speech, Honorable W-Claua replieds~
2808. John Morton, Mohawk Onief, writing to Sir J,H.Gpaig, "tye lends you speak of as having loat in consequence
(of the "two late contests") have often been mentioned
and I believe as often replied ta md you sannot forget
the GOuncil held at Fort Erie where the late General Simcoe
explained fully to you that by the treaty of 1784, they
were particulerly secured to you end as ea proof the Ameri~
sen Government purchased and paid you regularly until 1805.
Why you did.net receive the reguler instalments met be
best known ‘to your Nations (Onondagas and Cayugas) living
at Buffalo, who I should suppose have reeelved the payment
and withholds them from you which must also be the case
with the Senecas and Tyscaroras,
"You must be aware that this business was brought
under date of Grand River, August 10, 1808, sayss-
rane Onondagas and Cayugas also recelve annuities
for thelr Tands of two thonaand five hundred dollars
each nation; these have suffered a considerable diminu-
tion this year through the medium of those of the nations
who remain within the American boundary, bt whether
at theiv instigation or not I cannot pretend to say.
“as the tribes are under the proteation of the
British Government and the annuities are no more than
a just debts; would it Be improper for Wis Majesty to
interfere and ensure the payment of them to the tribes before the King's Ministers end an answer given which you
should ey remove within the limits of his Government; mist have received." (Bp.864~865) ,
6 ould a” War take place & they espous bis cause. — . .
Te whole” anount of thts witth isthe only support or 1LB24. In a letter from George Martin, interpreter to William
Awerican influence with the Five Nations, falls short '
of twelve thousend dollars yearly, a sum not at all to
be compared to the great expenoe of the Indian Depart~-
ment» ‘The gale of a few Townships of Land made by Govern~
ment in this country might vaise a sufficient sum to
ereate such an annuity.” (Bp.849)
Claus, Indian Superintendent, to Glaus, dated July 51, 1884, Martin
refera to a visit from Tease the chief, and etates that Eocoe;~
“wants you Advice that is How he would work that
hia nation should get their proportion of the money
to the Sale of Land to the States Mr Webster the
aaee rie ee bt; et Hera Gawtbeamn Hartge eal 9p TADUBEY {tnterpreter wrate to me wile ago he says in his letter
re " ny on a re 7 ‘i j f
2, 1816, sayas~ it 4s not the falt of the government they are willing
they should have their Due the Indians would not Gon-
“Tt have laid before Lord Bathurat the several let- sented." (Bps875)
ters you did me the honour of addressing to me on the
subject of the present situation of the Five Nations
~B~ ANNEX F
1888. The following general testimony 1s to be noted: Testimony
taken before dommissioner Bissel] in 1888 was as followa:~
william Wedge, Indian, testify upon behalf of the Canadian
olLaimants stated as followsr-~
*Q, Do I understand you to say that at times the money
was paid to the Cansdian Indians thet they came
over here, or sent somebody over here, and they got
the money end brought it back to them?
“aA. That is the story." (Bp.815)
1889 In testimony taken before the New York Senate Committee
in 1889, Indian 3411 testified as followar~
"Q. Does he recollect Fish Carrier coming over here
before the way with any money from the United States?
"A. He says he’ remembers of his goming over here with
some money.
"Q. Before the war?
“A, Yas, oir.
"Q. Ask him whet he did with 1t, whether he divided it
among the band or what he did with the money?
“A. He says the old folks or old women divided 16 up.
Mee Styres ~ Pish Carrier brought over the money and
handed 1t to the old women end the old women divided
it themselves." (Bp.92)
ANNCK Oe
“AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AMBRIGAN AND CANADIAN CAYUGAS
i FOR MUTUAL 1 NQUISHVENT OF ANNUITY CLAIMS
At the hearing before the New York Senate Legislature Com-
mittee on September 11, 1889, during the course of the examination of
Indian Red Winney, a discussion was had between counsel and the dom~
mittee, in the course of which the following question was put by
Senator Laughlin to which «Jofingson, attorney for the State of New
k, made the following reply:
"Senator Laughlins- No, My,Johnson, what evidence
have you been able to find of the claim which has bee
made by Peter Wilson, that prior to the war of 1812, at a
council held between the representatives of the Cayugas
residing in Ganada, and those residing in New York, the
Canadian Cayugaa surrendered or Linguished their claim to
any further annuities from the te of New York?
"Ne «Johusons- The evidence ls traditional, and tt .,
comes from Governor Blackanake, from Corn-Planter, and also
from one or two of the other chiefs, whose descendants are
upon the Cattaraugua reservation. They ell have traditional
statements of the same nature that Peter Wilson made before
the Legislative committee, that at that time there was a
destre on the part of the Americans of the Six Nations to
preserve neutrality, and that they had a number of counctis
for the purpose of arriving at that result, keeping the Six
Nations in ite entirety neutral and out of any engagement
in the contest if it eame up between the American and English
governments, end that waa bitterly opposed by the Canadians,
and particularly by the Mohawks; that that finally resulted
in an reement that they would each support thelr own side,
and each would look thereafter entirely to their own side
for protection and for their presents and their revenue,
end they should relinquish so mich of the common fund as
they had been in the habit of drawing from the other side."
(Bp.54=55)
A little later in the discussion Mr.Johnson atated that he would
"offer as original evidence the speech of Dr-Peter Wilson, as miade
before the Land Commissioners in 1849," (Bp.55)
Accordingly at the close of the heering, November 26,1889, Mr.
Johnson put in evidence Dp.Peter Wilson's speech (Bp.184), and the
following passagea in that speech are pertinent: i
~Q- Annex Gs
the present
subjecta=
“We have asserted that a division of property and interest,
was made prior to the war of 1812, between the Six Nations
of Indlans residing within the jurisdietion of the United
States and. in the Byltish dominiona. ‘this is denied by the
other party. I have had the fortune of seeing my aged. fore-
fathers, who had the charge of our affaira at the t ime when
the events IT am sbout to relate occurred, and whose names
are identified with the diplomatic history between the Six
Natione and the United States. Young King, a Seneca, was
my grendfather. Often have I listened to hia narration of
thrilling events that ogcurred in his time, md of events
that occurred many winters before.
*prior to the war of 1812 the property and other
interesta belonging to the Six Nationa were omed equally and
alike whether residing in the States oy Canada, ‘That is to say,
when the United States governwent paid the annuities in goods
or in money, the Six Nations of Canada were immediately notified
by our people and they came over and obtained their share of
thea nnuities and presents due the Six Nations, end when the
British Government paid the annuities and presents due the
Six Nations, our people were in turn notified and they immed~
fately repaired to Fort Erie, on the Canadien side. It was
at this place that the British government were wont to pay
the annuities and presents, because it was the most convendent
and accessible te the Six Nations living under the two
governments. On the other hand, the United States government
made such payment at a caenon-da-guet (Canandaigua), being
the locality of the residence of the then agent, and the
terminus of civilized commmication. The lands reserved by
the Six Netlons on this side of thé line were equally the
property of those in Canada, and they had the same rights to
till and an equal volee in selling thelr lands, while the lands
granted to the Six Nations by the British government (a track of
land twenty-four miles wide, and beginning at the source of the
Grand River, thence down to its mouth) ‘were equally the property
of those that vemailned within the jurlsdiotion ef the United
States, In fact all of thelr interests were one and indivisible.
The chief of both sections were wont to meet at the sama council
fire. They knew no party or seotion among them, but 211 endeavor-
ed to advance the best interest of the Iroquois; thus peaye and
harmony dwelt among them till the year 1812." (Bp.184-185)
After noting the hostilities between the United States and Great
Byitain of 1812, and that a digcussion as to the duty of the Troquois
arose, Dy.Wilson continued:
"Tt was not long before they came to the conelusion
that they had nothing to do with the quarrels of the pale
faces, mush leas its origin. At this council it was determined
to send a deputation of chiefs and headmen to thelr brethren in
Canada to confer with them and persuede their brethren there not
abu . Annex Ge
to take up the hatchet, nor go into the warpath. A
delegation was immediately appointed to go the Grand
River. The delegation that went on the mission of peace
were Red Jacket, Parmer's Brother, Young King, DetroyTown,
Capt. Gole, Gols Silversmith, Hard Hyokory and Cap Smith, all
eminent alike for their patriotism, wisdom, love for thelr
people, heroism and love ffor peace,
“Here Mare Gyro interrupted aml said: "Doctor, aid you
mention my Taher?)
*I believe he, too, was present, for T have heard him
tell the occurrence of those days many a time, IT think T
did not mention yous father's name, but I have no doubt he was
one of the number, for he, too, regarded the interests of his
people. Upon the arrival of our delegation at thetr destin-
ation, a councll was Immediately proclaimed," (Bps185-186)
Wilson then traced the course of the council, giving a portion of
the opening oration by the “ohief orator of t he Canadian Iroquois; the
reply of Red Jacke t5 and. the response of the Mohawk Chief declaring for
war, efter which the Mohawk Chief arose and left the counell with all
his fellow Mohawks. Wilson then noted the conduct of the Canadian
Troquois venaining end of their final decision that "when the warwhoop
is raised, we shall know no neutrals, We ahall strike all Bostonians
alike." Wilson then continuedi«
"Our delegates, having received this answer soon replied
that they would be compelled, if necessary to take up arms
in fevor of thelr great father, the President. Whereupon
on agreement was effected thet each party should be at
libertyto take up arma in favor of its own ‘great father',
Tne aub ject of their common property and mutual interest
then came up for discussion, Wach party had equal rights
in all the property owned by the Iroquois, Upon this
subject 1t was mutually agreed that thereafter they should
no longer participate in the annuities or emoluments
flowing from the governments they were to oppose; but
such divison should take the whole from the government to
whieh Lt.is allied, and that the lands should also be the
sole property of the division occupying the same at the
time of the contract. In other words, that all property
and interest on the British side should belong solely to the
British Indians, while ‘the property end interests on the
American side should be the sodle property of the American
Troquola. , + .
‘Thus a mutual division of property was effected and
the parties separated in peace; and fromthat day to this
our people have never crossed the lines to obtain their
annulty from the British Grown, neither have our people
interfered in the sales of their lands, nor at eny time
claimed any portion of their onnulties. The ganadian qroquols
have also faithfully fulfilled the contract." (Bp.187.
a annex ty
Pollowing this, Wilson, after calling attention briefly to the
course of the war, narrates a council that was held at Fort George under
the direotion of the Bpltish Superintendent oalled "Great World", at
which the American Iroquois attended, and at which Great World re-
pudieted the “Bostonians” end the Canadian Iroquois accepted his ,
position. Dr -Wilson notes that:
_ he eounell adjourned, and since that time no
important council of the two divisions of the Troquois
has been convened until the year 1840, nearly thirty
years afterwards; neither have the Six Nations claimed
any of the property or ennulties of any portion of the
gix Nations on the Awerioen side till this yeer." (1849)
Later in his spedch, Wilson said: |
"Ts t9 alleged on the part of the opposition, that we
ean show no written contracts of this agreement, and that
contracts of sueh great importance, made between Indiana,
are always made in writing and witnessed; and that the.
Canadian Gayugas now show the ‘counterpart of the treaty
of 1795', between the Cayuga nation and the State of New York;
‘that said counterpart was deposited with the Gayugas of
daneada as the majority of the nation.
"Tt ia well known that contracts, however important,
when made between Indian tribes or committees, are never
reduced to writing. With the Indian, his word is law, and
hia promises are made but to be fulfilled. Take the case
now before us: Neither of us can show any contract of the
agreement, but, nevertheless the contract has been held
sacred and inviolate for more than thirty winters. Theie
memorial (Ganadian's) representa ‘that sinoe the year 1809,
the Cayugas residing in Canada have not recelved any share
of the annuities due fromthe State of New York to the
Cayuga Nation.' If the Cayugas of Ganadea had a just claim
to these ennuities due us from the State of New York, why
did they remain in silence for more than thirty years?
Why did they not make thelr claimtho first year after it
a@ased to be paid to them? Why did they not cleim these
annuities when they head the ‘counterpart of the original treaty
in thelr possession,' which they now produce to validate thetr
Claim? The plain truth is this: ‘They knew they had no legal
@laim to these annuities; they had the ‘fortune of having
Living witnesses who were ‘present at the two great counctl
fires’, when the sgreement of the divisthon was first made.
They also knew, evenas late as the year 1840 that we also
then had living witnesses of the contract, but Inthe summer
of 1847, a portion of the Cayugas that removed west of the
Mississippi river, returned, and brought the sad tale that
~5= Annex Gs
all the old chiefs of the Cayuga Nation on the America
side had died, as well as the rapid extinetion and decline
of the tribe. Thia mournful information having reached the
cava of the Canadian’ Cayuga chiefs, and the exhibition of
the said ‘counterpart of the original treaty,’ by one of
thé returned emigrants from the western country, with whom
said document was deposited, made these Canadian Cayuga
chiefs, whe had faithfully, for more than thirty years,
kept the contract inviolate, forget that contract, and now,
in the year 1849, come to claim these our annuities."(Bp.189-190)
Obviously the allegations of Wilson made in this speech must al~
ways be, and have always been the subject of vigorous attack by the
British authorities, b ecause’ if such an agreement existed, the Canadian
could segrcely presa) either in law or in morals for the payment of any
part of this annuitye The undoubted fact ig that the behavior of the
Indians serteinly until 1830, and efficlally until 1949, when the first
formal petition was made, was ins trict accordance with such an agree-
ment. It appears moreover that at the beginning of the war of isie,
an agreement was reached between the Canadian and American Cayugas that
they should remain noutrals Testimony to this effect was given by
Indien Henry Phillips, whofas born in 1706, and was, therefore, aixteen
years old at the time of the outbreack of the War of 1812:~
~"Q. Do you vemember of a couneLl being held by the Five
Nations of Canada and the 81x Nations of New York
just prior to the war of 18127
"As Yea, alr, I doe
*Q,. Do you know whether the question ea to whether they
: should remain neutral.or join in the war was dis-
eussed at that counel 1?
"My. Johnsons~ That I object tos let him state what he
Goes lenows
"Q, State what you know; what took placest that council?
"A. The reason why they got together and held these councils
was that they wanted to be all together; they did not
want to separate; they did not want them to go over
there, but if they did, they wanted them to be neutral;
remain neutral and not take part in the war, and they
would do the same over here.
~Gm— Annex G.
And what else:
They wanted those that went over on to the Canada
side to tell the Queen, orthe government, not to have
them help her side, and that they would here - those
that remained here » they would tell the president here
of the United Syates that they did not want to take any
sidea; that was the agreement. After they agreed not
to take sides thoy had been in the war sbout a year when
a report, the news came over that there were some Indians
killed on the other side; thére were four Indians killed
at battle near Lake Ontario, womewhere near there, and
then, of course, our president on this side, the
president of the United S,ates, says that the Queen did
not fulfill her agreement, and se IT want you Indians
on my side to help my side, ‘the four Indians
were killed, but 1 do not (mow?) whether they were Cayugas
oviwhether they were some other tribe « those that were kili-
ed but they hed feathers ony; lying there with feathers
ony four Indiansy I couldn't say whather they were
Cayugas or some other nation.
“General, Strong:- whom did you mean by they were at war
a year and a half?
“Interpreters- The whites.
NO,
Ma,
"Q,
"Ay
Ng,
wa,
"e.
"hs
Well, what else?
The president deslared that the Queen did not fulfill i
her promise, end so we enlisted; our Indians enlisted.
To go into the fight?
Yes, sip; they took us around from one place to ano ther,
and we fought»
When you say Queen, do you mean the head of the British
governnent
T dos
Because Lt was really the King; have you anything further
to say about what took place at the council?
That ia about all I can says" (Bp.5«6)
There was corroborative testimony which does not need to be
here noted.
It appeara that in duly 6-8, 1818, a eouneil was sonvensd at
Buffalo by
Erastus Gpanger, the Indian Agent, at which, upon behalf
a
am Annex Ge
of the President of the United States, he made the following
atatement:
"Your great father, the President of the seventeen
fires, now gives his red children the same advica that was
given you at the beginning of the last war; that is that
you take no part in the quarrels of the white people.
He stands in no need of your assistance. His warriors are
numerous, like the sand on the shores of the Great Lakes, which
cannot be counted. He is able to fight his own battles, and
requests you to stay at home, cultivate your fields and take
gare of your property. If you have any regard for your
women end children, ifyou have any respect for the country
in whose soll repose the bones of your fathers, you will
listen to his advice and keep bright the chain of friend~
ship between use
"You have been invited te join the British in this
war. Reflect for a moment on the consequences of comply-
ing with thelr request. You will lose your property In the
United States. We shall take soon possession of, Cenada.
They will have no land to sit you down’upon. You will
have nothing to expeot from our merey, You will deservedly,
as a people, be eut off from the face of the earth. .
"the late delegation whieh you sent to Canada was told
that they ought not to put any confidence in the United
States, thet 1f frou did we should deceive you, that the
United States kept no promises made to Indians.
oe he eR eee
"Brothers, 1b was our wish that the $4x Nations should
all be agreed as one man, but the Mohawks and some few others
living on the British side, have been so foolish as to
declare tn favour of war, ‘The good advice you lately gave
them has not been attended to. They ere now at Newark in
arms agelnet the United States. I am sorry they have not
ligtensd to good counsel, You, however, have done your duty,
and you are not to blame for their folly. ‘They will soon
find they have done wrong, ant must suffer the consequence,
"Brothers, continue to listen.
"You have been frequently told, that in case we went
to war we did not want your assistance, ‘The same thing
has this day been vepeated. But I find that some your
young men are restless and uneasy. ‘they wish to be with
our young warriors, and I em sensible the chiefs have not the
power to control them. As I observed before, we want not
their ald, but we believe it better for them to be our
friends than our enemies. If they will not be contented
to stay at home, but must see something of a war, perhaps
150 or 200 will be permitted to stand by the side of our
warriors end receive the same: pay and provisions which our
soldiers receive. If they should be permitted to join our
troops, they must conform to our regulations. Your mode of
carrying on e war ils different from ours, We never attack and
make wax upon women end children, nor on these who are peace~
ably inelined and have nothing to Qéfend themselves with.
}
/ of revolting excesses in connection with the slain (Bpel46). There
J
i
y
‘Amerloans and the British, the British used Indians who wére guilty
J engagement were:~ Farmer's Brother, Red Jacket, little Billy, Pollard,
/
/
{
\
a
/\
[October 22, 1815, of the Canadian Iroquois to fight (Bp.S89): cannot be
1
junderstood as an unwillingness to take part in the war, butias rathor
\
0 an Annex Ge
And should you conquer the Canadas, you will claim 1b
upon the same principles, as though you had conquered it
from the British, We, therefore, request permission to’
go withour warriors and’ drive off those bad people and t ake
possession of our lands." (Bp.144)
At a subsequent meeting of the council 4 formal declaration of
war was made, reading as follows:
"we, the chiefs and counselors of the Six Nationa
of Indians residing in the State of New york, do hereby
proclaim to all the war chiefs and warriora of the Stix
Nations, that way is dealared on our part against the.
provinees of Upper and Lower Canada.
command advise all. the war chiefs end warriors of the Six
Nations to call forth immediately the warriors. under them
and put them in motion to protect thely vights and liberties,
which our brethren, the Americans, are now defending.“
(Bp. 144-145.) . :
It appears, however, that notwithstanding this declaration of
war the Indians did not engage tn active hostilities (Bp.345), and
it appears that not until July, 1815, when tn an affair ‘between the
: |
after the American Ipdians were employed on the American side (Bp.146,
et seqe)
}
and Japtain Cold.
At the affair of Fort George, July I, 1813, the principal. chiefs,
according to the statement of General Boyd, who took part in this
iF
| Bleck Smoke, Johnson, S{lver Heels, Captain Halftown, Major Henry O'Bail,
(Bp.150.)
therefore, the unwillingness noted’ by Major General ‘Vineent on
an unwillingness to continue a participation in which they were suffer-
ing very severely.
To the same effeat there is evidence that im April,1814, the
Therefore, we hereby
Bor
Annex Ge
|
Such ponduct we consider as cowardly, and not, becoming
a wayrior." (Bp+l40~141)
On the 28th of July the council réconvened when Red Jacket made a
}
speech, in wh to} after noting thatnone of the Mohawks or Oneldas were
i
were prasent ag the council, and after narrating relations between the
United /states/ bud the Indiahs, stated:~
\ { have taken place among the white people.
/
f
r
j r
We yegrat extremely that any dlaturbandes should
Mischief: hag
commenced. We are now told that war had been dedlared
againet Great Britains ‘The reasons for it are unknown
fhe Stix Natioris are placed in an unpleasant sit-
vation. A part of them ave in Canads, and the remainder
in the United States, Whilst we were endeavoring to per-~
suade those who live In Canada to remaln peaceable and
quiet, the nolse of war suddenly. gounded in ow ears, We
were told that all communication between ua and them would
be prevented, We have since heard that they have taken
up arms. We are very sorry to hear of this, They are our
brothers and relations, and we do not wish that their bloolt
should be split, whent here 1s so little decadion for it.
Wehope that the passage la not se closely stopped but that
a smell door may sti11 be open by which we may agatn have
an opportunity of seeing our brothers, ad of persuading then
to take no part in a war in which they have nothing to gain.
"We know the feelings of the greater portion of them.
We therefore believe, that if we have anothor opportunity,
we can persuade then to have nothing to do with this war.
Our minds aro fully made up on this subject, and, we
repeat, that 1b lu our wish to see them once more, and
. to give them our advice, about the path they ought to
travel." (Bp.142) :
; it appears that pursuant to their request the Six Nations were
permitted to send another peaceable message tot hely brothers, the
Mohawys , put nothing eame of ite (Bp.144) Thereafter, at a sub-
‘aon ‘
[rome council, and because ‘ht appeared that the Brltish had taken
“pos easton of Grand Island which was then owed by the Senecas, Red
Jacket msde the following speech:~
\ :
\
ae
"Brothers- You have told us that we have nothing to
do with the war thet has taken place between you and the
British, Byt we find that the war has come to our doors,
Our property Le taken possession of by the British and
thelr Indian friends. It 1s necessary now For us to
take up the business to defend our property, and drive
the enemy from it. If we sit still upon our seats,
and teke no means of redreas, the British, according to
the customs of you white people, wlll hold it by conquest.
~LO= Annex Gs
American effort was still being made to induce cooperation from the
Aneploan Iroquola (Bp.389), Thus the faats gleaned from other places
pede out the rough outlines of Peter Wilson's Speech, and particularly
that Red Jacket arid his chiefs endesvored to arrange with the Canadian
yotiawks and Oneidas that all the I,dians should remain out of the war.
an
ff
Zé A Join A-Wtnne, a Cayuga from Indian territory, testified as fol-
é lows before the Senate Committee as to the general understanding of
f 3 ’
f/f the \Indians:~
fs "Q,. Is he a cayuga?
| “As He says he is a full-blooded Cayugay he wants to know
| if they would give him a privilege to speak to the
| somuittee; he says he wants the committee ta understand,
| he says, that these Cayugas; our way is, that when a
| women has children all her children are Cayugas; “all
the way down they are Cayugas; he says I stated a while
FN ago that there was about 158 Cayugas left, that they should *
4 always have this annuity, and that there should never
oe anything come in front of 1t; he says, that once upon
a time, that the Ceyugas over in Canada and the Amevican
Indians were all in one mind, but during the war of
: 1821 they severed their-comections and fought against
f each other, and after that he says, our Trodians |
: tried to make this all right, but he says we could nots
i : he said after that, that a Cayuga across the lake said
: : to the Cayuga over here, that we should have no more:
business to do with each other; that your property ta
yours and not mine; he says that is the way our mind is,
he says, we never think about their roperty over there,
A we never point over there and think Lt ts ours,™ (Bp.'268. )
i
S Mt his examination In whieh quetation ie already been made, Henry
\Phtdlips, ® Seneca born 1796 and living at the time of the hearing at
ene Cattaraugus Reservation, stated that ho had not heard anything ne~
| garding any such agreement between the two branches of the Gayuge Nation
f ag ta under digeusston+ (Bp.6, et seq.)
{ / Oscar Stafford, a mixed blood, testifying under date of November 26,
i jAsse, mae the following Statement as to what Phillips head told him
/ Hegarding the matter on a previous occaslon:~
fo
“ff
/
{
i
i
i
“A. The next was a casual affaiv, when I met him on the
rounds, When I was to notify my people that we were to
draw our mnuity the next day and to have them come
to a certein place, for the purpose I came across him
"Q. Well, that was your firat interview then, you may pass on.
lle Annex Ge
Ge Where did you meet him?
"Ae At Newtown! - the council-house.
"Q. On the Cattaraugus Reservation?
"A. Yes, sivy and wo got talking about this matter again
thet I had apoken to him about atthe previous time when
T had met him up to the fairy ground, sa T satd, and I
told him perhaps I would need him shortly, as T under-
ateand there is going to be another hearings that they
wanted to gather this evidence and find these people who
know anything about Lt; IT asked him what he knew about
its well, he says, 'You know how it is wher we are boys,!
he says, ‘we ave all. over'; he says, 'I happened to be
there when that council was held, playing eround with
a bow and arrow, playing balls! bub he saya, ‘ourtosity
struck me that T should go to the council to see what
was taking plaee,' and he cesya ~ this was after the war
some Little time’~ he says, ‘they came to a conelusion
there at thet counell that thely interests should no
longer be one; they divided their interests,! That
is the way he spoke ib, because he spoke {tt in the
Seneca, as he did; 'te separate our interests from
those across the water.' That was the b argein made at
that time in the council.
te. Did he say who. attended that council; what representa-
tives; from what tribes? .
As The representatives from the Six Watlons from both
sides; he did not mention any nemes, for I didn't
ask him thats; it was not only one nation, but the
whole Six Nations that are represented here and also
over there, “
"Q. Did he sey where ‘this council was held?
“Ae In Canada he sald, but did not state what part of
Ganadae"” (Bp.175)
4
Leroy Andrus, @ practicing attorney who hado harge of the interest
ef the Amexdmn Indians, in the examination before Commisstoner Bissell
(Bp.177) gave the following testimony:
"A, About the time of the examination before Mr.Bissell
as commissioner, ln a conversation which I had with
Mr-Phillips at the fair ground in this city, Mr.
Phillips told me that when a boy ~ I give the con~
versation in substance - and he indicated with his
height at that tdmes playing about the counell house
or the council place rather, down on the Niagara river,
where he said a council between the Cayugas of Canada
~1lE~ Annex Ge
and the Cayugss of the United States was had, and at a
time prior to the wor of 1812 and while hostilities were
imminent, 1t was agreed between the Canadian dayugas and
the Cayugas residing in the State of New York, that each
side should adhere to its own. government and receive from
each of them such privileges as the respective governments
accorded the Indians within their dominions; the idea which
he gave by his own description of himself at that time was
that he was then a boy of 14 or 15 years of age; he said
that he was not in the council, but that 1b was a matter
which was generally discussed among #11 the people present
at this time; he told me further, as bearing up on his age,
which I think I enquired more specifically concerning, that
he carried a musket in the year 1814, at the time Buffalo
was burned." (Bp.178.) , 2
In the report dated Mareh 9, 1849, made by the Sonate Committee,
Messrs. Wm. Sam'l,. Johnson and Geo. Geddes, the following paragraph oc-
"Et ds said, however, that this exclusion of the
Gayugeas of Canada fromthe annuities of New York was the
result of the war of L812, and of an agreement between
the Troquots of this State and of Canada, made about the
commencement of the war. Tne counehl at which that
agreement was made, lf any, was graphically deserthed
to a member of this committee during the last sumer,
by Gol.Stlversmith, an Onondaga Chief, reaiding with
the Senecas on the Cattaraugus. The councils were called
by the celebrated Red Jacket, eminent alike for hia |
patriotism, wisdom, love of his people, hecolem and love
of peace, His object was to persuade the redemen not to
engege in wars The first council was held at Grand River,
and the second at one of the forts on the British sida
of the Niagara, His object was defeated by an eloquent:
havangue from an aged Mohawk who closed hla speech by
leading his warriors from the counell. Red Jacket
restrained the representatives of the other five
nations, and 1b is aatd effected the agreement between
them that each party should be at liberty to take up
arms on the said of its own ‘Great Father.’ ‘That 4% in
attle, individuals should recognize each other They should
pare Gach others blood; and after the war should =
be “closed, “the “injuries they should have tntlteted’ on each
ther “should be forgotten, sid that thevdarter thoy should
Ro Tongey participate In te annuities or emoluments Plow:
Ing Fron the governments they were to oppose; but each
diviston should take the whole from the gover
& i amenta
Walon Te~should be alitod.” Wap-BOTe Pe
f e
At the hearing before Commissioner Blasill, My.Sheehan, attorney
General for the State of New York, offered to prove by John Slkyres, a
‘f
witnese for the Ganadian Indians, that there was such an agrebment, but
} : ~13« Annex Cy
objection wag made and sustained, and. the proof was not offered.
The record on the point is as follows:
"9, According to tradition, isn't 16 a fact that the reason
why this government stopped paying any moneynwos, that
they took up arms against the United States?
"vir. Strong! I object to the question as immaterial,
irrelevant, Improper and outside the s cope of the
Inquiry. (Objection sustained.)
“we. Sheehands- I offer to show by this witness that there
wes a council of the chiefa of the different nations,
and at that council an agreement was entered inte,
that the Indians residing on the American side should
take up the csuse if they saw £1t for the Amexican
people, end that the Indians residing in Ganada should
espouse the cause of the British government If they
saw fit, and that if either went to war they should
relinquish all elaim to any annuities which they
might have against the goverment which they were
fighting against.
"up Sevongi= T ae te this. (Gbjection sustained and
exception.)" (Bp.524)
As opposed to the foregoing positive testimony, several of the
Indians testified at these hearings thgt they had not heard of such an
agreement. The testimony of Henry Phillips has been already referred
to, as also the contradiction thereof. It should be observed, how-
ever, that this same Phillips testified as followa before Commissioner
BiseLils-
"9, Was there a council that was held between the Five
Nations of Canada end the Six Nations of New York,
prior to the war of. 1812, at which was discussed and
settled the position which should be taken by the
Ganadian Indians and the Indians of New York?
"General Strongt- IL object to that, on the ground that:
it is immaterial, lrrelevant, and outside the scope
of the enquiry of the witness.
‘Wr Andvusi- It tends to show that there was auch a ¢ounell
held, although I am not. aware there Is any living proof
of it, unless this man knows It. And at that ¢g@unell
it was agreed on the part of the Ganadian Indians that
they should adhere to the English Government, end the
Indians of the Syate of Now York should contimis to
hold their allegiance to the American Governmet, each
side retaining whatever treaty rights they had) given them
by the respective governments. (Objeetions oxprrnled and
exception) « k
jk
tide : Amex @.
Mhe Yos, IT know such a counoil as that,
'"Q. What was done there?
"ath : ;
A» The conclusion of that treat; t
: y was this, that t
met in ¢ounell together, the Canadian indiana ne
New York Indiana, and they came to the a greement that
these Tadims would remain neutral, They won't take no
sede} but after a year, as soon as the war had commenced
they received a sotias fran the President of the United
ring the Indilens that there had been f
oe flve Indians killed on the Niagara * enepe
: I river
and he tells them that the bargain is beckass eee?
said to them you must teké up arms on ou aide,
Rey te" +
G. Were the Cayugas of Canada represented in that douncil?
"Ae The Cayugas were in the Council.
"Qe By that do you mean the Cayugss from Canada?
"A, Yes, air,
a
GQ. Do you know personally of cayug
3 row per ef Cayuga Indians bedtne
service of the English government in that neg in the
"A, Yes, sirs they 4
“ts tne a were nore Gayugas t ioe : tha agra oven tet heats ;
; Thus while ‘aoa Henry did not at this time specifically reapond
f to the s tatement of Mr. Andrus that “each aide reteining whatever treaty
vights they had given them by the respective governments", yet he did
not deny this, end 1t ls a fair inference from’ the testimony of Andrus
and Stefford as quoted above that Phillips had agserted remerbrance of
such an agreement and Phillips was preetieally the only Indian examined
who wasold enough at the time the agreement was sata to have been reach-
ed to have pemembered 1. Others who fatled to remember anything rem
garding this agreement were: Mvs George Monture, whose hmsband's
brother was alleged to have had the custody of the treaty (Bp.67);
Tndlan Abr. 8.Hg1l (Bp.100), and Yarrison Halftown (8p .154-155),
i
in
i
!
a15e Annex Ge
tn conneetion with this general subject, 1b 4a to be noted that
individual Indians moving back and forth acrosa the border appear
to have shared in the gifta that might be distributed among the
Indiens with whom they weve visiting» Without following this in
detail, attention is galled to testimony to that effect of Indian
Betsy Tom (Who was somewhere between seven and seventeon yours
old at the time of the war of 1612, Bp.73), (Bps»79,85,84); Harrison
Halftowm (Bp.1l26, 154, LSEB-EL9) «
j Regarding non=partielpation in ennuities, see the affidavits
\paken im 1913 of various Indians, Cayugas, Oneidas and Onondagas
i(p+828-955)
Theat the American Troquols were never considered es having
j
rights in the Canadian grant ls proved by contemporancous evidence;
le, Joseph Chase writing to Brandt under date of June l,
on the American side can pretend to have the smallest
claim to those lands or to eny edvantage from them."
i ‘ {Ap.990) :
} 7
Peter Russell writing to the Duke of Portland, under date o
\
‘y
i
i
| x "T gannét conceive how any of the Six Nations: settled
|
|
\é
‘Jonmary 28, 1707, salar
} "and altho! this Power of Ajienation has been
on unanimously soliolted by the Five Nations, who are the
i \ only original Grantees who have placed themselves under
i : Wis Majesty's Protection by taking wp their Reeidence
i within this Province; ~ yet a door being still left open
by Sir F.Saldimand's Instrument for the Six Nation
to avail itself of ite shave of these lands, whenever
the Members of it may please to relinguish thelr Pos-
sessions in the United States and olaim it, fT humbly
i presume that a Sele of any Part of these lends (in thelr
H i present undivided State) without the consent of thet
} Nation also, might contrevene the King's Tntentions, and
4 would be a manifest Agt of Injustice to every Individual
\ of ite" (Ap. 1008)
16 . Annex Ge
Another point 1s to be noted. It will be recalled Dr Wilson
affinmed that Red Jacket, Farmer's 3pother, Young King, Deatroy Town,
‘Gabtain Cole, Gol. Siivermelth, Hard Mickory, and Gaptain Smith were
the Indians who participated in the Counell with the Oanadien Indians
just prior to the War of 1612, at whieh time it was agreed thet neither
branch of the Nation should ley claim te eny annuity, ates, elven to
the other branch by its Government. (Bpel85, 186, ps3, supra.)
Tt would seem from the facts as they ere known that the Indlens
who were thus present at this Gounell, at least the most préminent of
them, must bave been elther dead op in great old age at thé “me bhe
first representations were made by Jacoba, The data on. ie point
ia by no means complete or satisfactory, but the follows feote are
to be noted in this connection:
/
Red Jacket: Red Jacket, a Seneca, died Jonvary 20, 1850, which .
- was prior to the first trip of Jacobs (Hand Book of AmerLoan Tndians,
Bulletin 50, Buveaunof American Bbhnology) «
Farmer's Brother: Farmer's Brother, a Seneca chie®, died in
1814, sixteen years before Jacdb', iret trip (op.cltvsub-nomlne 453).
Young King: No specific deta has been found regarding
Young King, but from the very prominent part which he took in the
negotiations between Col.Proctoxy and the Six Nathons in uT91,: he
then taking place alongside such Indians as Red Jacket, Farmer's
Brother, Fish Garrler, and Gorn Planter ~ at one time sooperpting
with Pish Carrley and advising Red Jacket while the latter made
8 spesch to Col.Pesator - and making the farewell speoch to Prector
on behalf of the Six Nations when Proctor left Buffalo Gpdek, May
Ql, L791, (Ap.86-123), indicates that he must have been at Least
a mature, and perhaps a relatively old man in 1791. If Mio, he
must have dled long before any formel representations Wore made by
/
i
|
«Le * Annex Ge
the Genddian Cayugas.
Destroy Town: No data whatever has been found regarding
Destroy Town except that Henry Phillips, a Seneca born about 1796,
atated in hia teatimony before the New York Senate Committee ( September
Ll, 1889), thet he remembered Dastroy Town, as also Red Jacket,
Farmer's Brother, Captain Cole, Silversmith, Nard MNyckory, and
Captain Smith. ,
, Captain Coles Captain Cole signed the Cayuga annuity receipt
for 1824 (Bp.881-822). Moreover he signed the letter to Governor Yan
Buren under date of March 11, 1829, as one of thechiofa "that atayed
at home", when representations were made to the Governor regarding the
manner in which previous annuity payments had been made (Bp.341)
Hard Myokory: Hard Hickory signed the Cayuga reeeiptea for
1825 (Bp.821-322), and the Fish Garrier receipt for Lee (Bp.186)
Gol«Szlversmith: There were evidently several Silversmiths;
for example, there was one Silversmith who signed the van suuben letter
in 1829 (Bp.542), and there were the Silversmiths who apparently be-
longed to the Canadien Cayuges (Seo teatimony of Abram Soy Bp +90)»
and of Jacob Silversmith (Bp.269, et seq.) since the thther of, Jagob
Slliversnith testifying was alleged by Jacob to have vidited the
United Szgtes in connection with the Cayuga clalm (Bp.271). rhe
Silveramith who participated in the couneil must have been thie
same Silveramith who so graphically deacribed the matter te one of
the Committee on Indian affairs, which made its report to ‘tne New
York Senate on March 9, 1849, (Bp.397) _ J! ;
i
Captain Suith: Captain Smith signed the treaty of 1829
between the State of New York and the Cayuga Indians (Bpelle) 3
the treaty of 1831 between the same parties (Bp.545), avid the
t
j
+1 8< Annex Ge
treaty of 1852 between the Senecas ond the State of New York
(Bp. 75S) «
While the evidence that nothing was done until the old
ohiefs had virtually all past away la not as full and direct as
could be wished, the ordinary bumen probabilities leave little
doubt that such was the facte
Annex He
BRITISH NON-INTERPERENCE VOR CAYUGK TNDIARS.
2228 Norton whiting to Goulburn, December Ly 1915, satde
m6 losses suatained by the Voravian end Kunsey
Delawaren after the unfortunate affair of the Moravian
town in Ootober 1615, that a paagonable reparation saat
be mide. Also that the gase of the Cayugas and Onendagas
way be taken into favorable constderation, the payment
of money due to them (for dends) from the U.Statea,
heving been withheld from hem eince two years before the
dommenbement of the Late ware" (Ap. 068)
18B. Goulburn replying to Captain Norton in ea letter dated
Jermuary 2nd, Sayer
"y have leid before Lord Bathuret the several letters
you aid me the honour of addressing to me on the subject
of the present situation of the Five Nations in Genada
and the objects which * hed commisatoned you to represent
to fia Majesty's Government * 5 + Lord Bat! wet, HOWOVEr »
cannot hold cut to them any xpeatation of their receiving
from this Oovernuent the payment of the money due to them
by the United States on aogount of lands formerly seld by
them to the United states, that paling a transsetion with
whieh His Majesty's Government hava no concern.” (Bp.978)
th reapest to eny further vemmeratlon to which you
may consider the aged and warriors entitled Lord Bathuret will
be veady aa far ag lies in his power bo pay 6 very attention
to the suggestions which you may have to make on thets behalf.
Divectiona will also be given to the Governor of Upper
Geneda to consider the losses. sustained in the iste War by
the Worevlans and Muncy Delawares equally with thoge of His
te jesty's Subjects im Upper Cenada who have suffered by the
War, and to meke them such soupensation aa they may Upon
anguiry appeas to merit. Lord Bathurst however cannot hold
out to them any expectation aft hety veoelying from this
Goverment the payment of the Boney due to them by the
United States on agcount of Lands formerly sold by them to
the United States, that being o tronaaytion with whieh His
vajesty’s Government have no concerns” (Aps8'71-972)
Gn January 6th, Nerton replied te Goulburn, covering thla matter
gn Llows:
tat waieh te expressed relative to the losses awhalned
py the Horavieng and Luneeys at the time of Gen Proctor's
petroat ig quite equel to our dusives, I have only to pomark
1819
tb
' !
4
“Qe : i Annex H
on the part concerning the Gayugas end Onondagas, that |
they allege, thet they were conatrained to relinquish their
lend, it having fallen within the United States by the treaty
of peace in 1783, and the money which the sald States agreed
to pay to them in consideretion of the same, I know to/
have been withheld since 1809, and have heard that it hai
given to those of the said tribes, who remain on their. side
of the boundary line, to the detriment of the faithful
warriors, that risked with me." (Ap.973.)
Glaus replying to a speech by Boho delivered on March 27,
1819, make the following statements-
“Your attachment to your Greet Pather the King $f.
England has never been questioned and your adherence ‘to him
during the two late contests with the Americans dertainly
has not been forgotten» ‘The lands you apeak.of as having
lost In consequence heve often beeh mentioned and I. pelieve
as often replied to and you cannot forget the Counc]
held at Fort Erie where the late General Simcoe explained
fully to you that by the treaty of 1783, they wore particu-
larly secured to you and as a proof the American Government
purchased and paid you regularly until 1805, Why you did
not receive the regular instalments must be, best known to
your Nationa (Onondagas and Gayugas) living at Buffalo, who
should suppose have received the payment ond withholds them
from you which must Blso be the case with the Senecas and
TUSCAPALPAS «
*You must be aware that this business was brought
pefore the King s Ministers and en answer given which you
must have received." (Bp,864-865}
rH
ANNEX I
POSITION OF WOMEN AS TO LAND OUNERSHI IN AN COUN
At a meeting held on the 18th of June, 1790, (just following
the ratification by the Cayugas, ineluding bish Carrier, of the "
earlier Treaty of 1789) the Governor of New York made the following
statement t«
“this meeting, Brothers, we told you that your
lands were your own, & notwithstanding any cession
nade to us on the part of Great britain, we invited
you to return to ur Country and posseas your lands
4n peace, and lest dissatis tion might therealter
arise respect transactions which might take place
between you & us, I took particular ns to inform
you of the Nature of our Government & Laws, ag to the
manner of doing business with our Bretheren of the 5
Nations, This I informed you was agreeable to our
ancient custom before the “ar, notwithstanding the change
which had taken place in our Government; and that no
White person had a right to bargain for or purchase your
Jands without the consent of our lez That if at
ime should be disposed to sal. y part of your
lands the e would be ready to purchase if from you.
it 1s true (for I have no desire th any part of the
truth should be concealed) that at that meeting I men~
tioned to you the losses we had sustained duping the
and that a small cession o ur lands to enable us to
reward our young Warriors for their services, would be
very acceptable bo us but finding that the persona eat-
tending from your liation did not conceive themselves
authorized, agreeable to your ancient Customs, to make
sueh cession, I did not persist in urgiog it.
“These are the principal matters which then togk
place, and for the truth of what I have now said Z£. can
with great confidence appeal to all who were pres
; ted with great cordlality and good will towards
each other,.and I had reason to believe thet peace and
friendship were again reatored and perfectly established,”
(Bp. 699)
Five months earlier than this at a meeting held between the
Cayuga Indians and the Governor of the State of Sew York, Key,
a Cayuga Chief, made a speech in which ho saldr«
"Brothers, what we say to you now 1s the voice of
the whole Nati Agree fore w left home, ‘You
see here our a 1. Chief to whom
the lands belong. e therefore wish that the two we
Speak of mey remain. As for the other three, we will
leave it with you and join in anything you do."s te
“Brothers, we wish you bo pay particular attention
to everything I say, I pay particular atvention to what
ANNEX I.
”
on Be
you say. “Our land belongs to our women." You said
that you would do anything In your power to make our pots
boil better. This, we think will do it. This man Paine
lives near'us. ie wish he might live on our lands as long
as he lives.” (Bp. 765) =
Colonel Thomas Proctor in recording his various councils with
the Indians at Buffelo Creek in the spring of 1791, records the
following under date of May l5thi-
“15th,- Kasly this morning the elders of tho Indian
women resorted to my hut, (present m number of chiefs).
Having heard the general conversation that took place
between mo and the Young Kind the evening before, ad
dressed me in the following manners
"'Brothers The Lord has spared us until a new day
to talk together: for, since you came here from Genoral
Washington, you, and our uncles, the sachems, have been
counselling together, Moreover, your sisters, the women,
have taken the same Into great consideration, because that
you ‘and our sachems have said so much upon it. . Now that is
the reason why we have come to say something to you, and
to tell you, that the Great Spirit hath preserved you, and
you ought to hear and listen to what wo women shall speak,
as well as to the sachems; for we are the owners of this
land ~ and it is ours; for lt 1a we that plant {¢, for our
and thelr use. Hear us, therefore, for we speak of things
that concern us and our children, and you must not think
hard of us, while our men shall say more to yous for we
have told them.” The above speech being ended, I acceded
to a request they made, that 1 would attend their sackems
in council this day, and hear what should be said by the
women's speaker, the young prince of the Turtle tribe,
(Red Jacket}. Soon after their departure the alarm gun
was fired, which was their signal to call their head men
into council, They were soon assembled from their adjacent
villages, and sent some of their sachems to usher me and my
colleague into Hehe assembly. Belng arrived, the flrat
matter unusanal/) ented itself, were the elders of the
women seated near their chiefs. When, after a short silence,
the speech of the women was continued by Ked Jacket, agree-
ably to the terms entered into between them, and the whole
of the leading sachems of the Six Nations, as follows:
"'prother from Pennsylvania: You that are sent from
General Washington, and by the Thirteen Fires, you have
been sitting side by side with us every day, and the Lord
haa appointed us another pleasant day to meet again.
“Now, Listen, Brothers You know what we have been
doing so long; and what trouble we have been at; and you
know that it has been the request of our head warrior
(O'Beel) that we are left to anawer for our women, who
are "to conclude what ought to be done by both sachems ~-
and warriors. So hear what is thelr conclusion. Brother,
the business you have come on is very troublesome, and
we have been a long time considering on it, ever since
ANNEX I.
Bu
you came here; and now the elders of our women, considering
the greatness of your business, have said that our sachems
and warriors must help you over your difficulties, for the
good of them and their children. Moreover, you tell us,
since the treaty of Tloge with us, the Awerleans are strong
for peace.
“'Now, all that has been done for you sas been done
by our women, and the pest will be a hard task for ua:
for the people at the setting sun are bad people, and
you have come on us in too much haste for such great
matters of importance. And now, brother, you must look
when it ds light in the morning until the setting sun,
and you must reach your neck over the land, and take
all the light you can, to show the danger. And this is
the words of our women ot you, and the sachemsa and war-
riors who shail go with you.e And now we shall name them,
as they have first presented themselves in this full
council, vizr Our first great bachem Kuyascetta, Red
Jacket, the young prince of the Turtle tribe, Gaptain
John, of the Onandagoes, the Grand Carrier, Awangogathe,
(Lhe foregoing are four chiefs of six, who were appointed
to conduct me into the country of the unfriendly Indians.
The names of the other two grand chiefs were at the same
time given, but, by some acoldent, not inserted.) And now
we will mame our chief warriors, viz: Sewishau, Cuyanddoas,
Unundastheuous, Thenachqua, Conneague, Tenanquachqua,
Othanjohngottang, Hottendeyoucke, and Attwanikea.
"‘now, brother from Pennsylvania and from General
Washington, I have told you what has been directed, Let
us, therefore, throw all care on the mercy of our Great
Keeper, in hopes that he will assist us. You now know that
Col. Butler, of the British, told us that he must take our
writings down to Col, Gordon, as he 1s a very wise man, end
perhaps he may have something to say to us that is for our
good. And we also want his assistance, as he is the man
that keeps all the vessels that is on the lake.
"Yenerefore, my brother, make your mind easy, for
your request ts granted, and when we hear from our brothers
the British, that we shall know what time we can start.
And you must not be uneasy thab our Brother O'Beel does
not go with you, for he is very tired, and he must rest
awhile, and take charge of our young warriors while they
are playing, (dunting) to keep them in peace, for fear of
danger. And now, while we are speaking, more of our youn,
warrlors have given thelr names to go with you.'" (Ap.104
Golonel Proctor, under dates of May 18th and 19th, made the
following recordt-
"lath and 19th, I was engaged in preparing my dos~
patches for the Secretary of Var, and other letters of
the same import, for Governor St. Clair, and I proposed
to forward them by the way of New Arrow's" town, thence
to Fort Franklin and Pittsburg, end appointed Captain
Stingfish, of New Arrow's town, to be the bearer, whose
wife was the principal governess and leader of the e hlefs
AMGEX I.
dn
among the women, and the principal promoter in gaining the
gachema over to my intereat.. It is well known to every
person entrusted with a public commission among whe
Indians that they are expected to possess a liberal hand.
Red Jacket, whom we have often spoken of, waited on me
this morning, to tell me that nis house wanted a floor;
that, as he was going with me, and desiroua to leave
bis family more comfortable in his absence, he expected
that I would have it done for him. Moreover, he wanted
some rum for his wife and hls mother; and, that he might
drink with them before he eet out on his intended journey,
he wanted a little for himself. the first request, of lay-
ing his'floor, I promised to have done immediately before
or going on board the vessel; and to make him and his wife
cheerful at parting, gave orders to present him with one
allon of rum." (Ap. 109) :
(See relations of the State of New York with the Iroquols,
Ap. 759,.et seq. See also extracts from various works
Bo. 949}
Under date of lay 14, L7BB, a number of chiefs from the
Six Hatlons writing to Governor Clinton, made the following state-
ment regarding Livingston Leasei~
"Ne must therefore beg of you_to prevent any of
your people from settling on our lands, as we Look
upon the lease not to be in the Least binding, since
not one sachem or principal women had given their con-
sent, nor will we receive their money but keep our Lands."
(Ap. 1086)
Following the making of the Treaty at Fort Schueyler (stanwix)
with the Onondagoes on September 12, 1788, a number of Seneca ware
plors with one of their Chief Governess visited the Governor and
the following speech was made:-
‘you our Brother the Chief preside over a great
people and aro coming from a great distance; we also
are come far from the West.
'Brotner the Chief, we desire you to possess your
mind in peace, notwithstanding you do not see the
faces of any of our sachems or chiefs here with us,
the warriors now present. It is true they promised
and it was thelr intention to have come, but they were
hindered. We are under embarassments. The warrlors
whom you see here present, wore so desirous to meet
you at this Council Pire, they determine. to contend
with every diffleulty rather than nob see you.
"Brotuer! the Seneca Warriors here present salute
you, and congratulate you and the ehlefs who accompany
you, "on your safe arrival at thie plage, and wo thank
the Great Spirit that he has preserved you and the chiefs
ANGER. T.
Past
who attend you, from the influence of the Evil Spirit
b bi Bs t on
your journey hither. Here 1s also present the Chief of
the Female Governesses in our Nation, with some of her
sisters, who also pay thelr respects to you and join
with us in our congratulations (here the congratulations
of men were in behalf of the women repeated
speaker.) A string." (Ap. 1121) p by the
At a meeting held at Fort George Council House on Friday,
March 10, 1809, with the chiefs and warriors of the Six Nations
at Grand River, Old Patterson announced the Indlan custon ag
follows: =
"When any business La to be done the ch:
first assemble and consult and if they, ohintae
find it of such a nature that they cannot settle
it, lt 1s referred to the warriors and should they
not agrees, the women take it up. ‘these customs
are well known to you.” (ap. 894)
During the preliminary negotiations that lead to the
Cayuga Treaty of 1789, the Indians replying to an address
from the Governor of New York, stated:
"
our Rego | eaneione Gseeiven Ex calay ven cep
as if our God had forsaken use" (Bp. 618) ,
To this treaty of February, 1789, there came “the chief
warriors of the Cayuga Nation, with the female zovernesses and
other women attendant.” (Ro. 614)
At the meeting of February 10th, Chief Domine Peter of
the Cayugas statedi« .
"It 1a perfectly agreeable to the cond
c nduet of
our ancestors, who Loved pease and loved coeds 7
land; and why, because they loved thelr women
and children ~ women, whose provines it 1s to
cultivate the soil;" (Bp. 617) ,
Having concluded his speech on behalf of the men, Chief
Peter made the following address on behalf of the women:
“You have heard our voles, we now entreat
you to open your ears and hear a s
eech from
our sister, the Governesses. P "
ANNEX I. -
on Go
“Brother:-
Our ancestors considered it & great trans-
gression to reject the council of their women,
particularly the female Governesses. Our ancestors
considered them mistresses of the soll, Our ances-~
tors sald who bring ua forth, who cultivate our
lands, who kindles our fires, and boil our pota,
but the women. Qur women say, they think their
uncles had of late lost the power of thinking and
were about sinking their territory. They take this
opportunity to thanking you for withholding them
from falling down the precipice to which their
uncles had brought them. The women say let not
the tradition of the fathers with reapect to women
be disregardeds let them not be despised, God is
their Maker. Their sisters they left bebind are
waiting with anxlety to hear your voice.
“The female Governeases beg leave to speak
with that freedom allowable to women, and agree-
able to the Spirit of our Ancestors, They exhort
the great chicf to put forth his strength and
preserve their peace, for they are the life of
the Nationg they do not doubt your power, If any
bocy disturbs them they are your subjects, and
you can punish them, They rejolce that while
their counsellors are settling a Peace at Mus~
kingum and you are bere laboring for their good,
peace will spread over their whole country.
(Bp. 618)
To the foregoing address of Peter, the Governor repliedi-+
"S. have now to address myself to my Slaters
the female Governeases and Women here present in
answer ta their speech.
Sieterss-
"We are sensible of your worth, Ye are sorry
therefore to hear that the importance to which you
are entitlec by your ancient traditions and customs
has been in the least diminished, and that your
uncles by declining to listen to your votes, had so
nearly brought ruin upon your country and deprived
you of your land. We are conscious that you are
miatreases of the soil, that 16 Ls your province to
cultivate the earth, to kindle the fire and to boi}
the pot; these arduous duties render you deserving
of particular attention, and ought to secure you
your due weight in your National Council. But sisters
we know your importance fo the human race; without
you we could not have existences you are the mothers
of menkind, and this of itself entitles you to the
greatest respect and you may be assured that we
shal. not fall to use our best endeavors to restore
and continue to our sistors their anclent privilege
without the least diminution. ‘ve are now about
making an agreement with you for your territory, and
ANREX I
we Pm
for securing to you and your posterity a residence
in your mative land, The dish that we will set apart
for you shall be suffielently large, however prolific
our slaters may be, even if they should increase their
nation to its ancient strength and number." (Bp. 621)
AG this mecting on February £3, 1789, Good Peter spoke
as followat~
"Brother Governors ~
"You have just observed to us that you opened
the Counell Fire on our meeting here two evenings
ago, snd that you requested us to make our minds
and let you know on the determinations; we are now
ready to speak. Brother Governor, now open your
ears, We now address you in our own manner and tho
names of our sisters the Governesses. It 41s our
joint speoch, you must compassionate us, we are but
children.
"Brother Governors =
"Se warriors and also the female Governeases
our sisters, now declare we understand your voioe,
and now you understand our condition, that you
mean to extend your care to our lands so that
we shell have a territory to us and our posterity
forever.
"Brother Governor? =
"We warriora with those we represent with
our sisters the Governesses have agreeable prospects
before us fror your proposals respecting the good
of our Nation, let us now deliberate wholly on the
subject & understand what part of the terclitory is
to be ceded to you and what is to be retained for us
& our posterity, wlth the rights of bunting the wild
Gousts of the wood and taking the fish of the waters."
Pe GE
at te 4b Wb Tk te ae we Gh He Rh Gh ae gk Uk Me ome ae Me
"Our sisters the female Governessos came to
this Council Fire to hear with their own ears the
words that came {rox thu Governor's mouth) we are
concerned for them and therefore proceed with
great cautions how happy should we be if the dish
should be so large as fully to gratify their minds.”
(Bp. 627)
On Vehruary 24th, Good Yetor again addressed the Commi ssion=
ers, in the course of whieh he used the following language: ~
"Brother Governor:
"After much conversation with our sisters,
it will be necessary for us to know your mind
as to what would be best for us. You told us
that you knew our situation and clreumstences
ARSE T
oben
and compassionetad usj we have heratefere thanked
you and we now again with 6 loud veiee thank you
for your good will towards us.”
> cy
"Brother «
‘te have repoatedly anid, and we agein say,
thet the warrlora, and our sleters are well pleased
with the proposals mentioned in your speech, end
with the articles whieh you uave stated to us to
be agreed om in the oresent Tresty - we reseive
then.”
*Brotherar=
We warviova with our sleters having expressed
our approbation of the articles of the treaty aa
propoagd by you, would wish to state some mbtlers
to be sbhipulsated by us on our pert.”
eo ba ae eo RH a oe Wo a ee ORD
"Tt de an acknowleaged truth that our ats
are the orineipel inhebltanta of the carth.
earth from whande apring the articles necessary to
uucstain live ia theirs, snd it is thereupon necassary
wo should hearkan to theiy edivisc.
"Brothers «
"Ae your sears are stil? open, you have “eerd
what advances wo have this day sade to Gee
plating the bueiness now before uss we the warriora
and sisters have thus opened our sinds to you." (Bp. 631)
"Bro thert «
"the siaters now speak as thexarrlers hava
éaclered their epprobation of the articles you
have proposed. The sisters mention th there ia
® Selt spring in their country which they wish may
be vaserved, ity is thersfore our mind that this
soring should be tneleded In the Reaerveation. This
18 all we have to say at present until we heave heard
your wind on this proposed Auendment."” (Bp. 682)
At a tweety hold at Fort Schuyler (Stenwix) In June,
1769, Steel Trap apole to the fovernor in the following Langueage:=
“Tret Ln general they disapproved of our
negotiations that all ¢ontracte reapecting Lands
should have the volee of Captain Absel, ag Chief
of tue Five Haslons now go the “estward. Upan thie
I called together the sarrlora and female Governesses
and e)l the women, and luid before thes the message
from Buffalo Creek, end requested their opinions
éfter moh deliberation they unanimously agresd
to eblde by the agreemtry entered into by the Governot
ANNEX Ie
no Daw
of New York and people of Albany, which was made last
winter; it was the voice of one and all, that they
ought to support it at all hazerds, and that we
ought to be thankful for recovering such a part of
their lost territory & particularly the place that
was so dear to their ancestors (I mean Cayuga),
that they mist consider this as effected by the
interposition of the Governor of New York. This
being our unanimous agreement we received your last
message with pleasure, altho we hed many things
which obstructed our meeting with your previous to
that."
a a 2
"Brothert»
"In the agreement made between us and the
great Chiefs of New York, the Governor, as the
voice of the whole, assured us that he was able
to protect us in the enjoyment of our Reserve.
fhe assurance that our mothers the female Govern-
esses had in this protection gave them great joy;
as the proprietors of the soll whose happiness
we sachems and warriors ought always to consult,
and you also exhorted us to the seme, therefore
when any thing threatens thelr peace we share in
the danger."
wee he eh hee Re ee Ree
"Brother Chieft-
“Our female Governesses have exhorted us
warriors to abide by the agreement entered into
by the treaty last winter, for in maintaining
them only they can enjoy peace, and we warriors
have engaged to support them, in confidence that
the great Chief of New York will fulfil his en«
gagements, in testimony of which we present you
with this string.“ (Bp. 646 ~ 647)
In the course of these negotiations during June, Clear
Sky, @ Onondaga Chief, in an address to the Governor and Com=
missioners, aaidt~
"Before we left our Couneil Flree at home,
our female Governesses heard your voice of mea=-
gage, and were glad and rejoleed, so did ouy
Little ones. Our mothers advised us to see you
and congratulate you on their behelf, and to re»
turn to them with message of peace." (Bpe 6954)
Fish Carrier and other Gayugas residing at Buffalo Creek
(Bp. 694) having arrived, Governor Clinton made a speech to
ANNES IT.
=10~
them, in the course of whieh he made the following statementi«
'r atbended at Albany at the time appointed,
and waited there » long time, in expectation of
seeing my Cayuga Brethren; at length a number of
them arrived. We did not however enter upon busi-
ness with them, having some hopes that a greater
number of their Nation would attends but finding
our embarrassments to the westward increasing by
an additional number of people going to settle
there, and despairing that any other of our Breth«
ven of the Cayugas would meet us, we proceeded upon
the business of the council, being previously as~
sured by the Cayugas who attended, that having
taken all otroumstances into consideration they
were sufficlontly suthorized and would stand justi-~
fied to their Nation in entering Imto en agreement
with us.to defeat the evils which threatened our
mutual peace and happiness, Many daya were srent
in our negotiations; our deliberations were con@-
ducted with cordlality and sobriety and at length we
entered into a covenant with each other to our mutual
satisfaction.” (Bp. 701)
To thia speech of the Governor's, Brant, upon behalf of
the Cayugas, replieds
‘we will not go into a particular recapitu-
lation of your speech, we are witnesses to the
truth of all your declarations. We acknowledge
that you have paid a due vegerd to the customs
of our ancestors end that your are not chargeable
with any evils which have taken place among us."
(Bp. 704)
On the 19th of June, 1789, following an address by
Fish Carrier, Governor Clinton saldi=
"T informed you yesterday of the covenant we
had entered into at Albany with our Brethren of
your Nation, and of every circumstance respecting
that transaction. This agreement was made after
such deliberation, and I sincerely believe it is
calculated to promote our mutual happiness. It
therefore cannot be violated in any particular.
“Several, of our Brothers and Sisters of your
Nation with their little ones attended the Council
Fire at Albany.” (Bp. 708)
On June Send, after other deliberations had taken place
in which the treaty of 1769 was produced and explained, lish
Carrier made the following speecht~
ANNEX T.
“Lie
"The Great Spirit has given us this day to
mect again at the Council Mire. After many con-
versations together since our first meeting and
after much deliberation of both parties, you have
found the means of restoring peace and amity be~
tween us. This event, Brothers, we must attribute
to yous Our peace is one of the same thing. ‘The
Great Spirit therefore will have justice dione to
each party} when any misunderstanding or misvepre~
sentation has interrpipted their peace and friend~
ship is egain restored, lt 1s agreeable to his
Pleasure. You have comphied with every desire and
with of ours, particularly in your last promise
that you would make your assembly acquainted with
our wishes, and we have therefore acceded to every
proposal of yours to bring about this accommodation.
"Brotheri-
"Having determined to aceede to all your pro-
posals, and having perfectly understood them, after
conversation among ourselves, we have this day
determined to establish our peace & accordingly
confirm the agreement between us. te now therefore
make this public declaration in the hearing of all
here present, of our acceding to the proposals and
this day confirming the same. “ (Bp. 711)
In view of the foregoing statements, and having
in mind the fact that Fish Carrier, et al, confirmed
the Treaty of 1789 upon the payment to him and the
others of a gratuity, it is not difficult to appratae
the contentions of the Cayugas located at Buffalo
Creek that the Treaty of 1789 between the State of
New York and the Cayuga Indians “had been made by a
parcel of boys and old women, and not by the Chiefs,"
(Bp. 651, 716, 721, and 725)
ANNEX J
“dle
FISH CARKIER ANNUITY.
Article Four of the Cayuga Treaty of 1795, provides for
an annuity to be paid to Fish Carrier. ‘his A ticle readst-
"Fourthly. « the People of the State of
New York reserve to the Cayuga Nation and to
their posterity forever for their own use and
oceupation, but not to be sold,leased, or in
any other manner ealiened or disposed of to others,
unless by the express consent of the Legislature
of the said State, & certain tract of Land, part
of the reservation aforesaid of two miles square,
at such place as the same shal] be run out and
marked by a surveyor appointed by the said Agents
on the part of the People of this State, together
with such of the said Indians, as shall attend for
that purpose, and also one other plece of Land, of
éne mile square, part of the reservation aforesaid,
and the mine within the same, if any there be, under
the same restrictions, and to be run out, and marked
in manner aforesaid, and also one other piece of Land
of one mile square at Cannogai for the use of an
Indian Sachem of the sald Nation called Fish Carrier,
and for the use of his posterity forever, under the
restrictiona aforesaid, whieh said last piece of Land,
shall be leased by the People of the State of New York,
for such term, and on such conditions, ae the Leszis~
lature thereof shall direct, and the money annually
arising therefrom shall be paid unto the said Fish
Carrier or his posterity at Canadaghaque by the said
agent or by such person as the Governor of this State,
shall thereunto appoint and unto suen person as shal]
produce 6 certain writing subseribed by the sald Agents,
and sealed with their Seals, taking and recording the
Receipts therefor in the manner aforesaid." (Bp. 941)
It will be observed from the last clauses of this Article
that apparently a further writing was to be made in addition to
the Treaty of 1795, but the Statutes of April 1, 1795, (Ap.86'7)
and of April 4, 1801, (Ap. 888,889) provide for the payment of
the annuities to Pish Carrier by virtue of the Cayuga Treaty
of 1795, and not by virtue of any special writing such ae is
mentioned in the Article Four as quoted.
fhe first Fisn Carrier recelot, as the recelots appear
in the record, (Rp. 173) reads as followst~
ANNEX J.
w Ba
‘Phat the subseribers the posterity of the
Sachen of the Cayuga Nation called the Fish
Carrier do acknowledge to have received from the
people of the State of New York the sum of fifty
dollars in full for the annuity mentioned in a
certain writing now produced subserlbed by and
sesled with the seals of Philip Schuyler, John
Gantine, David Brooks, and John Hichardson, Agente
on behalf of the people of the State of New York,
ag witness our hands at Canandaghque this twenty~
seventh day of June in the year of our Lord one
thousand seven hundred ninety seven." (Rp. 1'73)
Similar receipts reciting that the writing was produced
were given from the year 1796 down to and Inoluding 1811 (except
the years 1902 and 1906), and was also given in the year 1619
(Rp. 173«102). In the year 1802 the receipt sets out the pay<
ment of "the sum of flfty dollars in full of the annuity stipu~
lated to be paid conformably to a treaty held. at the Cayuga Lake
on the 27th of dply, 1795." (Rp. 175); while the receipt of 1805,
recites the payment of “the sum of fifty dollars in full for an
ennuity mentioned in a certain writing er agreement made at a
Treaty held at Cayuga Perry, In the State of New York, by Philip
Schuyler, John Cantine, David Brooks, and John Richardson, Agents
authorized by and in behalf of the State of New York with the
Cayuga and Onondaga Nation of Indians on the 27th day of July,
1706." (Rp. 176)
It would thus appear that this “certain writing” mey have
been produced in the years mentioned, but none of the other Fish
Carrier receipts put in evidence (1611 to 1818) reeite the pro-
duction of the writing, the other receits merely reoiting that
the money is received "in full fow the annulty mentioned in a cor.
tain writing." (Bp. S8let seq. Rp. 178 et seqe)
When thease Fish Carcler receipts were introduced before
the “ow York Benate Committee at its hearing on January 27, 1890,
ANNEX J,
we
statement was made by General Strong (attorney for the Canadian
Indians) that these payments to Fish Carrier were made in pur-
suance “of the Treaty of 1607, made by the same parties."
(Bp. 336)
But there is nothing in the record to substantiate
this statement.
It appears from a report made. by the Attorney General of
the State of New York under date of May 18, 1911, that the an-
nuitles continued to be paid to Fish Cappler's representatives
until August 2, 1841, at which time the annuity was extinguished
by the payment of "such sum as at the rate of eix per cent will
produce fifty dollars per annum." (Bp. 800, 803. Rp. 190)
It appears that as early as 1796 "the actual heirs of Pish
Carrier” wore at Grand River, Canada, (Rp. 173) where they had
been located by General Chapin, who made the first payment to
thom,
While the Treaty of 1785 recited that he payments should
be made at Canandaghque (Bp, 941) ~ a fact whieh would indicate
that the old Fish Carrier expected at the time to live at Cayuga
Lake, where as a matter of fact he did live and die (See Annex K
Fish Carrier) ~ yet not all receipts were dated at Canandaghque.
Receipts 1796 to 1811 were so dated, except the receipt for 1802,
which was dated at Buffalo Creek, where all receipts subsequent
to 1810 and down to 1827 were dated, (Rp. 173, 185), ‘The rooeipt
for 1628 was dated at Canandaghque, No form of receipt appears
between 1828 and 1835, and from 1645 until 18641 the evidence of
the payment of the annuities as contained in the record waa not
in the form of receipts, but of various entries on te offiotal
records with or without drafts drawn by Fish Carrier. (Rp. 186«
ANNEX Js
oo
192)
The receipts for 1800 and 1803 were signed by (with others)
"Hughagata," (Rp. 174175) who is said to be the same as Peter
Fish Carrier (Reply Index sub-nowlne Peter Fish Carrier). The
receipt for 1811 1s signed merely “Fish Carrier," who is said to
be Peter Fish Carrier. (op.cit.). The receipt for 1817 1s signed
py (with others) “William Fish Carrier," and he also (with
others) signed the receipts for 1818, 1819, 1822, 1825, 1826;
he apparently signed the receipt for 1627 as "BL11 Fish Carrier."
Peter Fish Carrier signed (with others) the receipts for 1818,
1819, 1821, 1622, 1025, 1824, 1825, 1826, and 1828. (Rp, 181
et sed). From 1836 al1 signatures and references are merely
by or to Fish Carrier (Rp. 166192)
The Power of Attorney given by “Fish Carrier" to Orlando
Alien, authorizing Allen to arrange for the payment of a sum to
extinguish the annuity recites:-
"Know all men by these presents that I, Fish
Carvier, a Cayuga Chief, now residing on the Grand
River, in the province of Upper Canada, son and
legal representative of th: Cayuga Chief Fish Car-
vier to whom the people of the State of New York
granted an annuity of fifty dollars in perpetuity,
eee e ea ee ee." (Rp. 190)
The British Case Identifies this Fish Carrier with Peter
Fish Carrier (Reply Index sub nomine Fish Carrier No. 2), and
introduces in the record (Rp. 192) a petition from Peter Fish
Carrier in which a cession of lands on Grand hiver 1s requested
on the ground of his “long and useful services to the Six Nations
in the capacity of Chief and principal spesker," and on the ground
of bis having “devoted much of his time to agricultural pursuits.”
the report on this application recites that the petitioner is an
industrious man, but the petition was denied on the ground of
ANNEX J.
Ba
policy. (Rp. 192-193).
With veference to the identities of these various Fish
Carriers, the British statements are not always in accord.
As pointed out above, "Hughagata" signed the bish Carrier
receipts for 1800 and 1803 (Rp. 174-175). This same man signed
the reselpts on the back of the freaty of 1795 for the years
1800 and 1801. (Bp. 943-944). This man is listed by the British
Case as "“Ojagegti No. 2, or Fish Carrier No. 2 the same."
(British Case Index, p. 86 sgo~noming). In the Index to the
British Reply “Fish Carrier No. &" is said to be the same as “Peter
Fish Carrier" (Reply Index, p. 21, sub-nomineg. In the Index to the
British Case, it 1s stated (p. 72, sub-nomine, Pish Carrier) thats.
"Hish Carrier signed Fah Carrier receipt 1811.
Not Ojageghti No. 2, who could not be the son."
(British Case, Index, p. 72)
Yet 1t will be recalled that in the Reply, the Fish Carrier who ale
leged himself to be the "son and legal representative of the Cayuga
Chief, Fish Carrier, to whom the people of the State of New York
granted an annuity of fifty dollars in perpetuity.” (Rp. 190), and
who was the Peter Fish Carrier who applied for the grant of land
(Rp. 192), was Fish Carrier No. @ (Reply Index, p. 21), whieh Fish
Carrier No. 2 1s stated in the British Case Index (p. 86) to be the
same as Ohageghti No. 2, though under Fish Garrier in the Index to
the British Case, 1t 1s stated that Peter Fish Garrier could not be
Ojageghti No. &.
But however that may be, it ta perfe@tly clear that Ojageghts
No. 2 o» Hughagata (who signed the back of the Treaty for the paye
ments of 1800 and 1801,) (Bp. 943, 944) was intimately associated
with the posterity of Fish Carrier for he Signe. the Fish Carrier
receipts for 1800 and 1805 (Rp. 174175); that the posterLty of Fish
ANNEX Je
Gm
Carrier entitled to be paid the annuity and to whom the annuity was
actually paid evidently resided at Grand Hiver from 1896 on (Rp.173,
et seq); that Hughagata was among the principal Cayuga Chiefs at
Grand River in 1815 (Bp, 841-842); that 1n 1805, the Cayuga Treaty
of 1795 was invoked as the basis for the payment of the Fish Carrier
annuity (Rp. 176); that Ojageghti No. 2 did not die until approximate~
ly 1628 (Bp. 524); that thus the two transactions - the payment of the
annuity to the Cayuga Indians under the Treaty of 1795 and the payment
of the annuity to Fish Carrier under the same Treaty - were inseparab»
ly interwoven legally and in the minds of the leaders of the Grand
River Indians, and in the actual persons who were concerned with the
collection of both annuities; and. it must be, ther: fore, that there
was some reason why, as will be shown, no formal demand was made for
the payment of the annuity to the Canadian and yet that avery year
demand was made for the Flah Carrier annuity which was promptly paid.
The close association and relationship betwoen the American
Cayugas and the Canadian Cayugas in the matter of the Fish Carrier
Annuity, showing that both branches of the tribe or nation must have
been, during all these years when no payment of the annuity to the
Canadian Indians was made, fully conversant with the aituati on and
of what was happening, is further indicated by the fact that im 1829
a Treaty was made between the State of New York and the Sandusky
Ceyugas providing for a different method of payment of the annuities
under the Treaty of 1795, which Treaty of 1829 was signed for the
Indians by George Curly Eye, Captain Good Hunt, Cayuga George, Tall
Chief, Captain Smith, and William King (Bp. 111-112). Ae tp these
various Indians, the following facts are to be notedt-
Rall Chief, slgned the Fish Carrier receipts for 1812, 1813,
1814, 1816, 1820, 1826, 1827, and 1828. (Rp. 179 et seq).
cortyergse gerne,
ANNEX J,
mT
George Curly Eye, signed the Fish Carrier receipt for 1612
(as "Curly")» (Rp. 179)
Widen King, signed the Fish Garriler receipta for 1816 and
1827, (Rp. 180, 185).
Cayuga George, signed the Fish Carrier receipts for 1824, and
1825, (Rp, 164).
Captain Good Hunt, seemingly signed the bish Carrier receipt
for 1628. (Rp. 186).
Captain Smith, signed the Fish Carrier receipts for 1826
(Rp.184) and perhaps of 1820 es "Gol. Smith" (Rp. 182), and if he
be the same as Cayuga smith, he signed the Fish Carrier receipts of
1812 (Rpe179), 1817 (Rp. 199).
The foregoing facts and circumstances glve point to the evidence
collected under Annex G, (Agreement between the Canadian and American
Cayugas for Mutual Kelinquishment of Annuity Claims); that there was
actually an agreement between the two branches of the Nation that
they would not make demand one upon the other with respect to ane
nuities coming from thelr respective Governments, which would ao-
count for the long delay ~ a delay whieh apparently lasted until
the old chiefs were dead ~ in taking any steps whatsoever to collect
the New York annuity.
ANNEX Ky
FISH CARKT BR.
One of the strongest proofs offered to the theory that the
Cayuga Nation was resident in Canada at the time of making the
Treaty of 1795, are the alleged whereabouts of Fish Carrier im-
mediately preceding and following 1795.
In 1888, in a hearing before Commissioner Bissell, one
William Henry (then recently appointed to the office held by
the "original" Fish carrier B.¢, chapter 3, page 585, and direct
(Indian) descendant of the "original" Fish carrier, id. page 482)
testified as follows regarding Fish carrlor's movements, Henry
peing a witness for the Canadian Cayugas.
Q, “By the traditions of your people do you know that
Ojaghetty or Fishoarrier went to Canada with those
who went?"
A. "Yes, sir, he came from Cayuga Lake and live. in Canada
awhile, and from Ganada he went back to Cayuga Lake
again and then he made those agreements or treaties."
Q. “and then didn't he go back to Caneda and die there?”
A, "After the agreement or treaty was made he took 4t over
to Canada and left it with these head chiefs and went
back to Cayuga Lake and lived end died there.” (dd.
483-484)
Q@ "Didn't the old chief Ojaghetty used to reaide sometimes
in Ganada and sometimes here; go back and forth between
the two bands, instead of living all the time with either
of them?"
A, "Yes, sir, because he was a chief and he used to do his
duty for his People in Ganada, and then used to go back
to Cayuga Lake, too, sometimes." (1d. 496)
The testimony for the Canadian Cayugas of Jacob Jamison
(another Cayuga obief of sixty years standing, (1d. p. 497) was
to the sume effect, (id. p. 496-499),
Wilson Fish, another Cayuga chief testified for the Canadian
Cayugas at the hearing,~«
Q. "From the traditions of your people do you know that
the old Ojaghetty, or Fish Carrier went over to Ganada?"
ANHEX K,
naw
A. "Yes, sir, he was over and back again." (id. p. 505)
John Styres, a Cayuga war chief, who testified for the
Canadian Cayugas at this hearing, made the following statements
regarding Fish Carrlert-
Q. “Didhe ever live in Canada?"
Bh. "Ne, air, he never has living over in Canada."
Q. “Where did he liver"
A. “He Lived at Cayuga Lake."
Q. "Did he ever visit in Canada?"
A. "When that paper was completed, then he came over to tell
the chiefs in Canada." (1d. p. 523).
In a letter (dated July 17, 1789, to Governor Clinton, Major
Abraham Hardenberg speaks of "Fish Carrier a Cayuga chief re~
aiding at Buffalo.” (Bp. 721)
ANNEX K, ~
+
on Bn
The British Reply (to Addendum, v. 411 p. 4) asserts that
Fish Carrier had vemoved to Cansde in 1701, The only evidence
cited in sup-ort of this is an account of a meeting held at
Niagara (United States territory) by the British in 1791 (February
1st) at whieh was discussed the allotment of lands on Grand River
' the argument being that because lands could only be allotted to
Indians vesident in Canada and because he was discussing allote
ments, he must therefore have resided in Canada. But teols argue
ment proves too much, for in 1795, he was discussing reservations
and adjuatments of lend in New York and by such reasoning must
therefore have been residing in New York, for the New York
Statutes authorized dealings with those Indians only who were
resident tn New York. Furthermore, the minute relied upon shows
that the only allotments under consideration at the meeting
cited by the British case were allotments to Brant and other
Mohawks. (Bp. 873) A sufficient reason for the presence of Fishe
carrier at this nébting would be that potentially all the Six
Nations were interested in the Haldimand Grant, and Fish Carrier
being the most influential of the Cayuga Chiefs, it was only
natural thet he should be present upon behalf of those of his
nation who might wish to settle in Canada. 4s was said by the
Indian William Henry, "Because he (Fish Carrier) was a chief and
he used to do his duty for his people in Canada, and then used to
go back to Cayuga Lake too sometimes." (supra)
It 1g also to be noted that the only business actually
transacted by this meeting at Niagara in the United States, was
the making of an agreement as to the boundary of the entire grant
allotments were merely discussed.
The other alleged evidence of Fish Carrier residence on
ANNEX Ke
he
Grand Kiver is the holding of the "ceremony of condolence" at the
Cayuga Village on Grand Kiver in 1796. (Bp. 843)
@he evidence does not show the nature of a formal ceremony
of condolence for the death of an Indien "performed agreeable to
their ancient custom." It is evidence, however, that this gather~
ing waa not a mere funeral, It was evidently a General Couneil
of considerable importance attended by Indian Chiefs from Buf}
falo Greek as also from Grand Kiver. Lord Dorchester and
[ieutenant General Simcoe, were also present. The "formal cere-
mony of condolence" was but a part, seemingly the minor part of
the proceedings, which inoluded besides, the appointment of
chiefs and addresses to the British Officers.
Note: It might be that investigation will show that as to the
appointment of chiefs, this was an irregular proceeding, as it is
not indicated that the governesses participated in any way.
That it was not a mere funeral a burial ceremony seems rea~-
sonably certain from the fact that according to all the testimony
offered by the British, Pish Carrier died at Cayuga Lake, > a fact
which would probably preclude his burial in Canada at that time.
Furthermore, the British testimony 1s that Pish Carrier always
Lived on American territory, principally 1t would seem at Cayuga
Lake, and that his presence in Canada was but the result of an
occasional visit, due to the fact, as Indian Henry said, that “he
used to do bis duty to his People in Gansda.” (Bp. 496)
The following evidence establishes the foregolng:-
William Henry, teatifying in 1888, saidt~
"QO, Whore did the original Chief die, old Ojaghetty?
"A, He died over to Cayuga Lake, there were some other
little things to straighten out, and before he
sot through he died there." (Bp. 494)
ANNEX Ke
abe
Under corss-examination by the States, Henry again tostifieds
"9, You testified that the old chief died at Cayuga
Lake? What was his name?
™4, Do you mean the Anglish name?
"Q, Yes, or give the Indian name?
"A, Ojaghetty.
"Q, Wish Carriert
ta, Yea, sim.” (Bp, 497)
Henry was testifying for the Canadian Indians,
Indian Bamison also testifying for the Canadian Indlans
in 1888, gave the following testimony:
*Q, Where did this Gayuga live that lived there 106 years
ago; in what part of Canada did he live in?
“A, They lived at Niagara when they first came there, and
then from there they lived at Grand Kiver,
“@, How many of them were there that lived there at Niagara?
"A, ALL the Cayugas lived over there.
"Q, Who lived at Cayuga Lake at that time, then?
"A, Ojaghetty.
"Q, Did Ojaghetty live there alone; didn't nobody else
live there?
A, That is all I can say.
"@, Do you mean that Ojeghetty lived there solitary and
alone, and nobody else lived there at all?
“a, Yes, sir, that 1s the way I understood, because he
went fron here and lived there at the time of their
pusinesa."” (Bp. 499)
Indlen Styres testifying for the Canadian Indians at this
same hearing stated as follows!-
4Q, Who was the original chief of the nation?
"A. Genendaugua was kind of head chief at that time, too.
"Q, Was Ojaghetty a head chief?
"A, Yes, alr.
ANNEX K.
Ga
"Q. Was his tnglish name lish Carrier?
"A, Yes, sir.
"Q. Was he the head chief of your band, too?
"A, Yes, sir,
"Q,. Did he ever live In Canada?
“A, No, sir, he never was living over in Canada.
'Q. Whewve did be live?
"A, He lived at Cayuga Lake,
"G, Did he visit in Canada?
“A, When that paper was completed, then he came over to
tell the chiefs in Canada.
"Q, Did he leave this paper over in Canada?
My. Sheshant- I object to it as leading.
"Q. What did Ojaghetty do with this paper after he first
got iv?
"hh, Just es LT said before, 1d man Ojaghetty, when he ade
that agreement, he came over to Canada and told the
ehlefs what he did, and then these two chiefs were
sent with him back to the Cayuga Lake. to see this,
and they thanked him very much.
*G, Wheat did he then do with this?
"A. He handed 1t to the oblefs,
“Q. Did the chiefs ever live in Canada?
"A. Yas, sire
"Q. Do the Cayugas in Canada speak the Cayuga language?
"As Yes, sir, they all speak in Cayuga.
*"Q. Do they keep up the old tribal organization?
"A, Yes, sir.
"Q, Have you any relatives among the Cayugas in the State
of Now York?
“A. I have searcely any relations on the other side,
only three." (Bp. 522=623)
Later in his evidence under cross-examination by the State's
attorney he testified as followst=
"A,
Oe
wa,
"ae
wa,
“9,
wp,
4G,
WA,
#Q,
mA,
» The two families never moved away to Canadas they were
ANNEX Be
olf
I used to hear that perhaps three families remained at
Cayuga Lake when the rest came over.
Was Fish Carrier one of those?
I knew the name of the second family that remained there,
Did Fish Carrier ever leave Cayuga Lake; give it up
as his residence?
No, sir.
And he always reaided there until he dled, with some
members of the tribe?
At the time that agreemont was finished these two
families left there too, and then went to Grand River,
so I suppose Ojaghetty was alone then,
«
After this agreement vas signed was Fish Garrier and
his family the only ones that were left at
Cayuga Lake?
Yes, siv, he and his family; and the old people used
to say they gave him land one mile square for
himself and family; that is why he remained there.
And he alwaya continued as great chief until he died?
Yoa, sir. 3
How long did Pish Carrier reside there with his family
before the Cayugas came back and joinea him?
there all the time.
When was it thet part of the tribe that went to Canada
game back and joined them there? -
I don't know that there was any moved from Canada and
went back to Cayuga Lake to live." (Bp. 524, 525)
Ce a
So that at the time of the last war the only Cayugas who
were here at Cayuga Lake were l'ish Carrier and those
two or three families.
The two families left Gayuga Lake and went over to Canada.
Before the last war?
Before the last war, yes, sir.
What became of Ojaghetty?
He remained there at Cayuga Lake,” (Bp. 5286)
Annex TL.
NIN CANADIAN A.
The two governments, the Unitec States and Great Britain,
have from the first followed a consistent policy of not paying
to Indians resident within t jurisdiction of the other any
annuity, bounty, or consideration or perhaps 14 would be better
to say that have followed such policy since the War of 1612.
This policy was adopted by the American Government, however,
prior to the War of 1812, for in the Treaty with the Six Nations
at Konondaigna of November 11, 1790, the following note was ad«
ded to Article VIT of that Treatyi~«
"woth: It 1s arly understood by the parties to
7 stats.46. THis treaty, that the annuity stipulat in the sixth
article, is to be applied to the benefit of such of
the Six Nations and of their Indian friends united
with them as aforesaid, ag ao or shall reside within
the boundaries of the United Statess; For the United
States do not interfere w _ nations, tribes or
families, of Indians ewhere resident."
The Indians themselves appear not genorally to have distri-
buted presents which they received from one governwent with
their fellow tr smen who were resident within the jurisdiction
of the other a » ~ at leagt this was ev nt by the fact
with the Canadian Cayuga.
Betsy Tom testifying before the sew York Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs in 1889, testi d that she did not remember
that "Any of the Canadian Cayugas or Indians went over to New
York when they had nothing to take over there, to give the New
York Indlans theiv share, at any time before the War,” (Bp. 84).
On redirect examination by the attorney for the Canadian
Government, she testified as followas-
"Q, You asked the question if she saw the chiefs divide
the money, and she said yes; I auDp 6 thab means
dividing the money out, among the idian band; ask
her if it was the money paid to the Canadians she saw
divided; that was the only money she saw divided, what
was paid to the Canadiana’?
tA,
"Qe
one
"Qa
"A.
8a,
mA,
ira)
™),
"Q.
"A,
"Q,
SA,
"@,
Ae
"Q,
"A,
Annex Le
wQex
Yes, air.
That is when she says she sew the money divided, sho
means among the Canadian Indianst
Yes sirj; she seen it, that they used to divide it in
long-house, where they used to go there together.
Divide it among the Canadian Indians?
Yes, sir.
Ask her how many of the presents of clothing or goods -
were given to the American Indians, was it simply sone
of the relatives coming over and getting them, or was
it given to the whole band; was 16 not simply to some
of the relatives?
Juat only those who were here at the time when they were
dividing the goods.
Just only those whom were here?
Yes, air.
Did they only give them enough for them, or did they
give them enough to carry over to the other Indians?
She says not.
They were only given to those came here?
Yes sir.
bid those Indians come here especially to get these
presents, or did they just happen to be here when the
presents wore divided?
Just happened to be here when they were dividing the
goods, and they gave them to them.
They Just happened to be here?
Yes, sir.
They did not come over especially?
No, sir.
And how many would there be to whom thess presents were
given at any one a me?
Sometimes about four,
Sometimes about four, that was all?
Xoa.
",
Ry
¥Q,
"A,
"a.
vA,
Wo,
"As
"Q.
"Re
"OQ,
TA,
Annex Te
oa Ban
Were they simply visiting here, these four?
Yes, they were just visiting their relations.
Just visiting their relations?
Yes, sir.
Then who would e¢ive the presents, woulu 1t be the
relagives that gave tae presents, or the band as
a whole?
It was just in the dividing of the goods, when they
were there they would get them too,
If they happened to be there?
Yes sir3 they would get them too,
And how much would be given to each one, how many
presents would be given to each one?
Just merely legzings.
Just merely leggings?
Just merely levgins or something like thate” (Bp. 84-85)
Betay Tom testified that she was ninety~four years of age
at the time of the hearing (1889) which places the date of her
birth at 1795, the date the Treaty was made. Betsy Tom was a
witness for the Canadian Cayugas.
Abram 5. Will, another witness for the Canadian Cayugas,
teatifledi«
"Oe
"A,
"Q,
"he
"Qe
"he
weeagk him if he remembers whether or not the American
Indians, and the Indians living on the other side used
to get a part of thelr clothes and their money that they
veceived bere from the British Government.
When they used to come over they used to get the money
and goods from the British government; but he saya
they never @ave these American Indiana any of the
money from the British Government.
They never gave them any of the money; did they give
them any of the clothes or presents?
They gave them thelr overcoats and coats, he says:
They gave then?
Yes, sir.
Annex L,
wwiha
“a, Whey divided them with the Americans?
"A, Yes, sir.
"Q. Ask him If that ia the way he understood 1t3 that they
used to divid. the overcoats and clothings with the
Americans?
"A. Yes, sir} they divided." (Bp. 99)
In 1845 the British Superintendent of Indian Affairs wrote
the following letter: =
"Sirr~ With reference to the enquiry addressed to me
in your letter of the Sth. instant, I have the honor to
state for the Information of the Governor General, that
the rule referred to in my letter of the 26th. ulto., of
striking’ off from the returns of the Indian Department,
Indians who may have remained absent more than two yearsy
was established in the year 1867, by a verbal order from
Major General Darling, then Leputy Superintendent General
of Indian Affairs, with the view of checking the migratory
habits of the Young Warriorsat~ it was, at the same time,
provided by the order In question that upon the return of
those Indians to their Villages, and upon their rendoring
a satisfactory explanation of the cause of their absence,
they might be re-admitted to a participation in Her
Majesty's Annual, Bounty." (Bp. 909)
It will thus be observed that certainly from 1827 to 1843
the British Government did not distribute any of its bounty
except to the Indians actually resident within the Canadian
villages,
Duncen Scott, Chief Accountant of the Department of Indian
Affairs of the Dominion of Canada and Superintendent of Indian
Education, deposed under date of August 12, 1918, as followa:~
"As Accountant as aforesaid the records of the said
Indian Department of the Vominion of Canada, tn so far as
same deal with the finanolal affalrs of the Six Nations
Indians, are in my custody, and I have the control of the
same and I an familiar therewith. From the aaid records
I am able to state, and do state, that the Department of
Indian Affairs having the control of the Six Nations of
Indians, (otherwise known as the Iroquois, Nation of Indians),
upon the Indian Reservation at Grand Kiver, in Canada, was
until the year 1860 condicted and superintended by the British
Crown, that from the year 1860 to the year LB6% said aftairs
were administered by the Grown Lands Department of the Province
of Canada, and from 1867 until the present time by the
Annex Le
aBn
Governiticnt of the Dominion of Canada.
"@, I have in my possession and under my control as
Accountant as aforesaid, certain offielal returns annually
made to the Department of Indian Affairs since the year 1849
showing various sums of money paid ag interest to individual
Indians of the Six Nations Confederacy, which interest had
arisen {and interest yet continues to arise) out of the
investment of proceeds of sales of lands reserved to said
Six Nations Indlans at Grand Kiver aforesaid, portions
of the original ‘Haldimand Grant' of the year 1784, fron
tine to time made on behalf of the sald Six Nationa Indians,
at thdiv request, to various individuals with the consent
of the Grown, by means of surrender to the Crown and iasue
of Crown grants to the designated purchasers,
Mo i HH He hoy HO te te te
"The said Department has not to my knowledge any
records of enumeration of Sim Nations Indians which show any
separate enumeration of Cayuga Nations of earlier date than
1849 and to whom such interest was paid, but has ineomplete
or occasional records of enumerations which formerly were
annually made for the purpose of estimating the number of
Indians to whom the British Grown wags accustomed to make
presents, and in addition several accounts of former private
trustees of the funds of the Six Nations Indians, showing
the number of Cayuge Indians to whom they, the said trustees,
had paid interest, and a few copies of censuses of Indians
occasionally made.
ce
"From the records of seid Department I am able to state,
and do state, that presents were not customarily issued to
all Six Nations Indians, being withheld from those who did
not attend to receive them and also occasionally as a penalty
for misconduct. With respect to interest the same was and
is paid only to those Indians who had attended and who attend
to receive it, or their proper agents or representatives, but
during my inecumbeney of office the Department has paid arrears
when properly demanded.
"4, Said interest is, and it would appear from the sald
records, always has been paid semi-annually. It has generally
amounted to about six dollars per individual per annum, The
component nations of the Six Nations Confederacy are not
recognized and have not been recognized by the aaid
Department for the purpose of distribution of interest, the
sald Department dealing only with the individual Indians living
on the Six Nations Reservation on the Grand River at the time
of the distribution. ‘he Cayuga Nation as such, is not con»
sidered in the distribution of interest but there has been
a separate olassifisation of the returna of Indians to whom
interest has been paid and from such returns I have been
able to compile the said last "A",
ae a wR ae he a bh om
Annex Ly
Gm
"g, From said before referred to records under my care,
as aforesaid, I am enabled to further state, and do state,
that from a very early poriod of British relations with the
Six Nations Indians it was the custom of the British Crown
to supply periodically to said Indians, presents of guns,
ammunition, clothing and other useful articles, and thet
these presents continued to be alven down to the year 1845
in which year guns and ammunition were first withheld, and
thereafter the issue of other presents was gradually dimin~
4shed, No Indlan born after the year 1846 was allowud. to
share in presents of any kind, In 1652 the issue of presents
in Upper Canada ceased entirely, and was commuted to money
payments beginning with three quarters of the value of the
several usual equipments and diminished one quarter until
final extinction.” (Bp. 974-9765)
As showing that no annuities were ever received from the
Canadian Cayugas by the New York Cayugas, reference is wade to
the affidavit of Alexander John (Ap. 925) of William C. Hoag
(Ap. 927); of William H. Rockwell (Ap. 929); of Lena Shanks
(Ape 930); and of Baptist Thomas (Ap. 93%).
There is, however, abundant evidence to show that prior to
the War of 1812 the British Government, as a part of its plan
to attach the Indiana to the British cause in the event of
another wer betweon the United States and Great Britain, ~ a
war which they always felt was impending to which the officers
were not averse and to the fomenting of which they seemed to
have been willing to lend thelr support - gave more or less
elaborate presents to American Indian tribes. The following
excerpts end references will show how general was thig practices |
1985. As indicating the attitude and the purpose which
ley behind the presents made by the British to the Indiens, the
following letter from John Dease to Lleutenant-Governor
Hamilton dated at Niagara, September 16, 1785, is signifieant:=
"sini I was yesterday honored by the vecet. of your
letter of the 17th & 20th of August and am exooedingly
happy that my answers to the Indian speeches meet with your
approbation. They were received by the different nations
then present with the most serious attention & In conse
Annex L.
Yom
guence of my advice they have sent a message to Congresa
to requést that Mjor Schuyler & Gol. Monro may be sent to
Buffalo Creek {a place nearly oppoaite to Fort lirig) to
confer with them on the subject of their different com-
plaints.
®r am thoroughly sensible how aritical my present
altuation here ig and also of the very guarded part I have --
to act & can assure you Sir that no caution of mine shall
be wanting to promote fila Majesty's service in the department
of which I have the direction, TI have the satisfaction
to receive constant assurances of the attachment of the
Indians to the King’s interest.” (Ap, 421)
L786, An "estimate of Indian property loss" signed by
John Butler and Daniel Claus in London, Mereh 17, 1786 (the
letter to which this estimate was an enclosure being endorsed
as follows: "Sir Guy Carleton 1s of the opinion that the com
pensation proposed in the inclosed letter ought to be doubled")
reads as follows:«
“an Eetimate of the Suma that we conceive will be suf-
ficient to satisfy the six Nations of Indians for the
losses of Personal Property which they sustained in con-
sequence of their taking up Arms in favour of Great Britain
against the revolted Colonies.
"We recommend that these Sums should be distributed
chiefly to those Indiana, who showed an early Attachment and
a forward Zeal for the Interest of this County, but not under
the Idea of recompense for their Losses, but as a reward for
their Zeal and Services, or in other words as a present from
his Majesty. We prefer this mode of giving them ‘Satisraction
to that of making them recompense for thelr Losses for these
peasonsi«
"ist. That it will be impossible to ascertain the
Losses they may have individually sustained by any kind
of Enquiry that can possibly be instituted, therefore if
a Distribution should be attempted under the Idea of a
Recampense, great dissatisfaction would naturally be the
Consequences
Send. ‘That from the Promises which have been made to the
Indians by Colol. Butler, at the time he engaged them in the
Service & from Conversation he has had with them since
the peace, they have it not in Contemplation that they are to
be fully recompensed for thelr Losses - The Promises he made
them on the part of Government they expect he will most
punctually perform, these Promises in general extended no
farther than that they should be handsomely rewarded for
their Services - That Provision should be made for the
Widows, and Children of such men as fell in the Course of
the War, and that they should hereafter be protected as
Allies to the King.
Annex L.
“fe
“We would recomcend that as many of the Indians have
during the var lost thely Cattle which they are very desirous
of replacing, That certain portion of the Bounty which is
to be diatributed, should be sent out in Cash, as Gooda will
not enable them to make those purchases of Cattle, and as the
same Amount in Goods, will not give them half the aatisfaction
that Cash will.
"we conesive that six thousand pounds York Currency dollars
at e/ in Cash, and the amount of six thousand pounds like
Money in goods, properly distributed among the Indians will
pe sufficient to give them the desired satisfaction,
"And We further recommend that among other Articles
to be sent out, there should be included a Number of rifle
parrel'd Guns & handsome Fusees, & also some good battle
Power for the Rifles which will be more acceptable than any
other Articles whatever,
we do not mean to inelude the Mohawks in the number of
the above Indians, Who We understand are already provided for,
neither have We Included the Shawanese ov Delawares, Who
live in the Shawanese County, We are unacquainted with theix
losses, and therefore must refer to Capts. Joseph Brandt, for
the necessary Information, but we do recommend that Whatever
Sum shall be Allotted for them, should be put into the hands
of Alexander Magee, the Deputy Superintendent of Indian
Affairs at Detroit, who is well acquainted with those Indiana,
and will be best able to make a proper distribution of it
among them, ‘ .
JOHN BUTLER
DAND. CLAUS
London 17th ilarch 1786.
imdorse.: In Colonel Bubler's of the L7th March 1786."
(Ap, 426, 427, 428)
1786. In this connection a letter written to Brant by
Lord Sydney under date of April 6, 1786, 1s most remarkable for
what it doos not say, in view of the questions submitted by
Brant. The letter readst}
“sim; The King has had under fis Royal Consideration
the two Letters which you delivered to me on the 4th of
Jany. last, in the presence of Colonel Johnson, and other
officers of the Indian bepartment; the first of them repre~«
senting the Claims of the Mohawks for Losses sustained by
them and other Tribes of Indians for the Lepredations
committed on their lands by the Americans during the late
Wars and the second expressing the desire of the Indian
Confederacy to be informed what Assistance they might
expect from this Country in case they should be engaged
in Disputes with the Americans relative to their Lands
situated within the erritory to which His Majesty haa
relinguished His Sovereignty.
Were the right of Individuals to Gompensation for
losses sustained by the Depredations of an Enemy to be
Annex L,
Bex
admitted, no country however opulent it might be, could
support itself under such a Burthen, especially when the
Contest happens to have taken an unfavorable turn; His
Majesty upon thia ground conceives that consistently with
every principle of Justice. He might withhold His Royal Cons’
eurrence to the Liquidation of those Demands, Bub lis Majesty
in consideration of the zealous and hearty exertions of
His Indian Allies, in the support of His Cause, and as a
Proof of His most friendly Disposition towards then, has been
graciously pleased to consent that the Lossea already cer-
tified by His Superintendent General shall be made good, that
a favorable Attention shall also be shown to the Claims of
others who have pursued the same System of conduct and that
Sr. Guy Carleton, His Governor General of His American
Dominions, shall take Measures for carrying His Royal
Comands into execution immediately after his Arrival at
CQuebEd.s
"@hie Liberal conduct on the part of His Majesty, He
trusts will not leave a doubt upon the Minds of His Indlan
Allies that He shall at all times be ready to attend to their
future Welfare, and that He shall be anxioua upon every
occasion, whereln their Interests and Happiness may be con-
cerned, to give them sueh further Testimonies of His Royal
favor and countenance, as can, consistently with a due regard
to the National Paith, and the honor and dignity of His
Grown, be afforded to them. :
His Majesty recommends to His Indian Allies to eontinue
United in their Councils, and that their Measures may be
conducted with temper and moderation from whieh added to a
peaceable demeanor on thelr part, they must experience many
essential Benefits and be most likely to secure to themselves
the possession of those Rights and Privilegea which their
Ancestors have’ eretofore enjoyed." (Ap. 4280429)
L791, Golonel Thomas Proctor in bis narrative of events at
Buffalo Creek, states under date of April 27, 1791:-
_ “On my entering the town, there were numbers of
Indiams collected at the hut where we alishted from our
horaes, and on taking a general view of them, I found that
they were far better clothed then those Indians were in the
towns at a greater distance, owing entirely to the immediate
intercourse they have with the British, being but about
thirty-five miles distance fron Niagara, and but aix miles
frox Fort Erie, situate on the north side of the lake; from
which places they are supplied yearly with almost every
necessary they require, so much so as to make them in»
different in their huntings. And the chiefs, whe are poor
in general, have to look up toe them for almost thelr daily
subsistence, not onky of provisions, but for apparel: for
the Farmer's Brother, the Young King, was fully regimented
as a colonel, ved faced with blue, as belonging to some
royal regiment, and equipped with a pair ef the best
opquietts. So that, from his after conduct, it may not
appear extraordinary, where the king has thrown in his
annex bL.
LO
opposition to my errand, he peing paid so well for his
influence over the Indian nations as to carry his favorite
point in question." (Ap. 87)
1794. ‘the following extract from the Albany Gazette, November
17, 1794, indicates the attitude of the British at that datei~
"Vang Satan come also among them'.
"\ Gentleman directly from Canandargua informs that
1600 Indians had come in to the Treaty on Monday se'enight,
and also that Wm. Johnson a British Indian Agent and a
Mr. Street, the Indian Interpreter from Niagara, was also
there, and had found means to collect &6 Chiefs in a Bye Place,
and were harangueing them in the most eloquent and flattering
manner when discovered by the Inhabitants; they were using the
ost persuasive Arte, together with Offers of large Prosents
a induce the Indians to turn their Arms against the United
States. The Meeting broke up in a disorderly Mennor. The
Inhabitants were greatly exasperated at this insolent Conduct
of British Agents, and it is seid they gave out that if Col.
Pickering did not cause their Arrest they would inflict upon
them the Yenkee Punishment of Tar and Feathers." (Ap, 840)
1807, A letter from Detroit dated July &7, 1807, stateai~
*torge bodies of Indians from the westward and southward
continue to visit the British post at Amherstburgh, and are
supplied with provisions, arms, amunition, &¢. Mush more
attention 13 paid to them than usual." (Ap. 307)
1810. A letter to the War Department dated July 25, 1610,
stateds«
‘there can be no doubt of the designs of the Prophet
and the British agent of Indien affairs, to do us injury.
This agent 1s a refugee from the neighborhood of ’
and his implacable hatred to his native. country prompted
him to take part with the Indlans, In the battle between
them and General Wayne's ary. He has, ever since his
appointment to the principal agency, used his utmost ene
deavora to excite hostilities, and the levish manner in
which he is allowed to scatter presenta amongst them,
show that bis Government participates in his enmity and
authoriges his measures.” (Ap. 507
1810. Writing from Fort wayne under dete of August 7, 1810,
the War correspondent seldr-
"Since writing pou on the 25th ultimo, about one
hundred Shawkeys have returned from the British agent,
who supplied them liberally with Svery* thing they stood
in want of. ‘fhe party received forty-seven rifles and a
number of fusils, with plenty of powder and lead, This
Annex le
oLl«
is sending firebrands into the Mississippi country, inas-
mach ag 16 will draw numbers of our Indians to the British
Fides ae pope of being treated with the same liberality."
Ap. 308
1810. Me. BLiLott, Superintendent of the Indian Agenoy at
Amherstburg, writing under date of November 16, 1810, to
Claus, saidi~
“tn answer to their demand for a supply of their
wants I can only tell them that T shall lose no time
in laying their Speech before thelr Great Father for
his directions on the Subject, and I request that as
goon as conveniently oan be done, you will send mo ample
and explicit instructions relating to my future conduct
towards the Prophet and his Adherents. I am well aware
that I cannot, and ought not, during the prosent circum
stanee of affairs do anything overtly but whether it
would not be proper to keep up among them the present
Spirit of resistence I wish to be informed.
"T heave already served six thousand Indiona with
their annual Presents, and the Expenditure of Provisions
from 24th Dec, last (the period from which 1t appears
the annual Expenditure is ealeulated) to 24th ulto, has
peen 70770 Ratiomsa and two Months of the Year yet to run,
The excess 1s accounted for by a greater number of Indians
than-usual visiting the Post, and by the supply to the
Six Nations and Mohawka before and during Red Jacket's
Council, and also to thoae who left the Grand River in
the Spring and passed by this place.
‘Phere being a great demand for flags, I beg that
some may be sent up next year as there ave no jeans of
getting the bunting in store made up." (Bp. 856)
1811. The War Department correspondent, writing from Vincennes
under date of September 17, 1811, stated thati-
aera Ll the Indians of the Wabash have becn, or now
are, on a visit to the British agent at Malden; he haa
never known wore than one-fourth as many goods given
to the Indiana as they are now distributing. He examined
the share of one man, (not a chief) and found that he had
received an elegant rifle, twenty-five pounda of powder,
fifty pounds of lead, three blankets, three strouds of cloth,
ten shirts, and several other articles, He seys every Indien
ia furnished with a gun, (either rifle or fusil) and aa abun~
dence of ammunition. & trader of this country was lately in
the King's store at Malden, and was told that the quantity of
goods for the Indien department, which had been sent out this
year, exceeded that of common years by 20,000 pounds sterling.
Tt 18 Lmpossible to aseribe this profusion to any other motive
than that of instigating the Indlans to take up the tom
ahawk; 1t cannot be to secure their trade, for all the
Annex Ly
mL Qo
peltries collected on the waters of the Wabash, in one
year, if sold in the London market, would not pay the
freight of the goods which have been given the Indians."
1sig. On June 13, 1ele, Mr. MeKee reported to the House of
Representatives regarding certain documents laid before the
House by the President as follows:<
“phoge documents afford evidence ss conclusive as the
nature of the case can well be supposed to admit of, that
the supply of Indian goods furnished at Fort Malden, and
distributed during the last year by the British agents,
in Upper Canada, to the Indian tribes, were more abundant
than usualy and it ts difficult to account for this extras
ordinary ilberality on any other ground than that of an
4ntention to atbach the Indians to the British cause, in
the event of a war with the United stetes." (Ap. 500)
1812. VAilliem Wells, writing from Fort Wayne under date of
Mareh 1, 1812, saids~
“Ohe Prophet's orator, who is considered the third
man in this hostile hand, passed within twelve miles of
this place, on the 24d ultimo, with eight Shawenese,
eight Winnebegoes, and seven Kickapoos, in all twenty-four,
on their way as they sxy to Sandusky; where they expected
to receive @ quantity of powder and lead, from tnoelr
father the British.” (sp. 317)
isle. Whistler, writing from Detroit on April @, 18le,
reporbeds~
"Tieutenent llastman arrived here on the evening of
the 29th ultimo, from Cincinnati, and about six milea
on ‘this side of the foot of the Miami repids, he met
twenty«four Indians (who were in the action against
Governor Harrison.) They were on their return from
Malden, and had been there for a length of time this
winter, and hed, when Sir, Lastman met them, each a new
atand of arms; some of them were rifles, others smooth
bore; also a quantity of anmunition. One of those Indians
has shown in this town several wounds he had received in the
action.” (Ap. $18).
i8l2, Governor ¥. a, Harrison, writing from Vincennes under
date of June 3, 1612, asidse-
Annex LL.
=13=
tne information received, within a few days from
Governor lidwards, (and he has better means of acquiring
4t than I-have, from the Intercourse thet is kept up
between the Tippecanoe and Illinois river) confirma that
whieh I had previously received from a principal Patta=
watamy chief, viz: that the major part of the Winnebago
tribe are at Tippecanoe, with the Prophet and Jecumsehy
gmail bands from the Illinois river and the east of Lake
Michigan, making a force at leaat equal to that which they
commanded last summer, and that their intentions were
entirely hostile. The Gorernor also says, they are y at
this time, nearly eight hundred warriors embodied at
Peoria; that the British agents were endeavoring to
effect a peace between the Sioux and Chippewas, for the
purpose of uniting beth these tribes in war against us, and
they were making large deposits of Indian goods at their
establishments on Lake Michigan, and on the communication
petween that and Lake Superior.” (Ap. 320).
Annex My
References - Chronologleally arpanged
References ave to pages of record as follows:
British Case, ~ Bps
AmePican Answer, - AP.
British Reply, = Rp.
NBs References to British Gas¢@ and Reply are usually stated in
the tovms by Which tho mattér is désoribéd In the Case and
Reply; they therefors represent what the Brittsh otto the
material for, and not what the material actually proves or the
Anortean view of Tt.
L785
Mar 85 « N.Y.legislature.~ Acts relative to comiulssioners, Bp.568
Mar 25 ~ N.Y.statutes. Ap. 878
May & ~ Letter ~ Mathews to Butler (Br.) Ap 417
July 23 = Counell of Six Nations. Bp 826
July - Proceedings ~ Johnson with Indians. Bp 626~828
Nove 2% ~ Letter Haldimand to North Ap. 418.
Cayugas situation of, Apsl028
Oneldas - Loyalty to U.S. Ap 878
Effect of Treaty on Indians. Ap 417
fuscaroras - loyalty of to U.S. Ap 878
Brent, leads Mohawks to Ganada, Rp S17
Indian confederacy established. Rp 95
Result U.S-Indlan policy. Rp 96
N.Y.Laws contemplated expulsion and confilacation. Rp 26
Washington opposes confiscation of Indian Lands. Rp 25.
yea
Apr 6 ~ N.Y.Statutes. Ap. 879
Apr 6 ~ Clinton calle Six Nations to Treaty. Bp. 568
Apr 6 = Henry Glen intermediary bet. Gov. Glinton and Indians,
569°
De
Ape 12- Ryckman ~ messenger to Cayuges. Bp 569, 570
Jyne 6- Letter ~ Brant to Clinton ~ Bp 570-1
June 28- * ~ Cuyler and Glen to Glinton. Bp. S72
duly 8- Letter Clinton to Commissioners, Bp 573
July @l- Letter Brant to Glen Bp.575-4
Aug 10- Letter Lee and Butler to Clinton » Bp 573
sag ll- Letter Brant to Glen - Bp 579
Aug 13« Letter Clinton to Lee and Butler Bp 575
Aug 14" Letter Clinton to Brant Bp 576
Aug 14 Letter Clinton to Deane Bp 578
Aug 18- Letter Lee and Butler to Oneidas and Tuascaroras Bp 501
Aug 19 Letter Lee ond Butler to Clinton Bp 580
Aug @0= Letter Deane to Colbreth Bp 678
Aug 23 Letter Ryckman to Glen Bp 583
1784 cont'd Annex M.
Aug 25 ~ Letter Cyinton to Glen Bp. 680
Aug 25 = Letter Clinton to Brant Bp 682
Aug 25 - Letter Clinton to Deane Bp 581
Aug 25 ~ Letter Clinton to Glen Bp 582
Aug 26 ~ Letter Glen to Clinton Bp 582
Aug 30 ~ Clinton ta Deane Bp 583
Aug 51 = Letter Fonda to Clinton Bp 584
Sept 5 ~ Commissioners meet Indians Bp 591
Sept 6 ~ Glinton meets Cayugas and others Bp 598
Sept 7% - Meéting of Commissioners (Gov.Indisposed) Bp 594
Sept 10 (Gylnton aska for War Compensation Bp 698, 601
Indians refuse cession of lend ha
TIndions to Commissioners Bp 602
Sept l4~ Meeting of Commissioners (Gov. present) Bp 603
Oct 22 ~ Conolusion of Stanwix Treaty ~ Ap 804, 48
Oct 25 ~ Haldimant Grant - Bp 258
Brant 's account of Stanwin Treaty Rp 104
Cornplantor favors Py. Stanwix Treaty «= Rp 24
Grand Hiver Lends settled Rp 31, 203~206
U.S. admits Mohawk Intereat in lands. Rp 195
Mohawks join in Stenwix account of Rp 24-25
1785
Jane2l Wyandots, Treaty with Ap 48
Jan 21 = Treaty with Chippewas, Ft. Mol, tosh Ap 48
Jan 21 = Treaty with Ottewas ~ Ap 48
Jen 21 = Treaty with Delawares Ap 48
Mar 25 - Letter Brant to Schuyler ~ Ap 1055
May 13 - Speech Yates (Peter W) Ap 108s
May 15 ~ N.¥.Indian Commissioners Ap. 1053-1075
Mey 14 - Letter Guyler to Glinten Ap 1052
May 14 ~ Treaty at German Flatts Ap 1054
May 27 - Letter NvY.,dian Gommilasioners to Clinton Ap 1056
June 21 =~ Letter Haldimand to Sydney Ap 97'7
dyne 25, 26, 28 « Speech Clinton to Oneldas and Tusocaroras
Ap 1057, 1066 O75
June 23 Ap 1087 af , a TS
25 = 1060
,
)
}
26 ~ 1065 ) Clinton present with Indians
a7 - 1O%2 )
28 - 1075 }
June 25 )
26 )
Ke ) \N.Y.Indian Gommissloners Meetings - Ap 1083"1075
28
Apnex M.
2785 con't
= Ap 1059)
une a 2° 1073) Speeches of Grasshopper
)
28 ~ L076
me 28 Ape 1067)
mas eb ~ 1064) ‘Tusceroras present at meeting of com~
ev ~ 10%2) missloners.
28 ~ 1075)
25 Ape 1061-1070 }
al 26 * ) Speech Potrus the Minister.
Sune 27 - Speech Petrus the winister Ap 10%8
July 83 ~ Speech Peter Ap 1059
~ Speech Debarges Ap Loz
~ Letter, Dease to Hamilton Ap 421
« Letter Brant to Sydney ap 422, 424, 428
» Sreaty with Shawanese reported ‘to Pres. Ap 48
Mar 17 = Letter aul et eee pad te fadiwnn
Yo B rLause distributing :
Mar 17 + Butler and ae we
Opinion of Carleton on Indian losses Ap 426, 428
Letter sydney to Brant Ap 428
Specch - United Indian Nations Ap 50
2
S
<
we
a
eee PE
7 28 and ) Wabash Confeds present at Counchl Ap 50
oe 18 ) Present - Shawaneses at Indien Council Ap 50
Ottawas present at Gouncil United Indian Ap 50
L738?
Mer 26 » Meeting N.y. Commissioners Ap 1077
Mar 26 “ Speech of Ohief Warrior of Senecas ~ Ap 1077
Oct 26 » Instructions to Gov. of N.W.Territory regarding
* “Inds. Ap 68, 54
1788
b f 5 19,610
Jen 13 ~ Ryckman ordered to bring Gayugas to Albany Bp 609,
Feb 19 = Petition of Beasley and Livingston Ay 870
Mer 7 ~ N.Y.Statutes Ap 875 - 1078
Mar 3
12 ) Meetings N.Y.Indian Commission Ap (1078-1154)
Mar 3» Gyinton present with Indians Ap 1078
Mer 10 - Letter Clinton to Taylor Ap 1079
Mar 10 =~ Oneidas to N,y.teg. Ap 1081
Mer 12 » Cyinton present with Indians Ap 1080
Mar 17 + Losses - Indian by Butler and Glaus Ap 428
1786 con't
i » N.¥.Statute Ap 320
i ae ” Nh sins NY tnd anCommtssion Ap (1078~1154)
Apr 18 = Clinton peswent ge SESS Ap L081
NY. Statute Ap ; .
— =Tetter Lyvingston to Cyinton Ap a0 Ra 25, 88
ay 2 = Letter Gove of Western territory to) ee De
May 2 - Shawanese lend oleared by cee oP ee
fas Y.¥.Indian Comms.» Ap “
May 3 ~ Meetings N.Y. (ian | tenpones Ap Ev
& ~ Wyandots and Six Nationa jealousy Ax
wee 3 ~ clinton present with Indlans Ap 1082 ee
Mey SoU Mee tasiox Weta te a0ek alan (no date, 1087-88)
J 8 ~ Letter Taylor to Gl Ap
Le 16 = ‘Message Buinton to Six Nations Ap ee
june 16 ~ Meeting (N.Y.Ind-Gommisa. Ap (1078-11
June 27 ~ Cyinton at Pte Stanwix Ap 1087
= % to Glinton Ap
a te renty Bee Schuyler N.Y. Six Betioue 1p 1079
July 12 - Meeting N.Y.Ind.Commiss+ Ap. LOTS«113
am : | Meeting N.Y.Inds Gommiss Ap LO78-1154
4 3 O90
~ Mh e Clinton to Six Nations Ap l
ise 24 speoch «Bisa BE na eT cond Petere Ap 10901098
~ & h. Glinton to Black 5
rae - repens N.Y. Indians Commission Ap (107801154
Sept 3 - Message from Ongegat - ig ped
Sept 4 - Black Gap Spgesp < ee —
v7 i a t ames
poles t - picdon te Black Gap end Good eed gp
~ & » Clinton to Black Gap end Good Peter A
foe 5 - Pade bap 1 Onondaga Cylef negotiates for treaty
Ap 1105, 1106
Speech Cyinton to Black Cap- .
Sept. 10 f Tad Lan Speeches at Buffalo Greek Ap 1107
aoe? ae 3 saeek inten = Aeon Ap 1112
~ Speech Clinton 5 2
aot 12 - Quonda gos ~ Payment of goods to by Commis. pe us
Bart 16 ~ (Clinton at Fort Stanwix Treaty Ap 1115, 1115,
See eee hes Tree wewea Ap 1119
6 ~ NeY Legislature Resolut \. g
oat is - speech = Oneyanha ~ Oneida Chief ~ Rp 11387
Sept 16 « Speech Senecas Ap L115 20
Sept 17 ~ (Speech Clinton to Oneidas Ap 11 .
(chinton at Pre Stanwix Treaty Ap 1120
Sept » Meeting N.¥.Ind Commis Ap 10%5=1 54,
Sent ta - pointes at Pt. Stanwix Treaty & rere
Sept 19 ~ Nooting N.Y«Ind. Commis Ap. 1076-1184
Sept 19 « Oneidas Conference with N.Y. Commis « i)
Sept 20 » (Speech Clinton to Oneldas Ap 1125 25
: (Clinton at Pp-Syenwix Treaty Ap 112
Sept 20 ~ Speeches Good Peter Ap liel, 1128
Sopt 21 Invitation to Senecas Ap 1142
Sept 20 = Oneidas Conference with Nȴ.Commis Ap 11288
Sept 23 . Meeting N.Y¥.Indian Commis Ap 1076-1154
June 2 ~ Petition of Six Nations t
July 18 = Gov instructs sonference be arranged
July 50 = Brant replies to Glinton Bp 687
July .30 Fish Carrier protests 1780 Treaty Bp 651,659,736.
L788 con't Annex M.
Septs 22 ~ Onelda deed Ap 1187
Sept 22 ~ Speech Good Peter Ap 1134, 1136
Sept 22 « Oneldas Conference with N.¥.Commis Ap 1134
Sept 50 ~ Speech of Louis Ap 1180
Sept -~- Cayuga Chief 111 Ap 1101
Sept --~ Togacayoa = Cayuga Chief dissuades Inds from at-
tending at Stanwix Ap 1095
Oot 7 = Ryekman te Clinton Bp 604
Nov 21 = Message from Gove Clinton Ap 1142
Deo 15 » Kirkland to Buffalo Greek Indians Bp 606
Brant papty to Phelps end Gorham deed Rp 28, 63
Fishesrrier joins in Phelps and Gorham deed Rp 64,66 ,67
Mohawks party joins in Phelps end Gordnam deed Rp 63
Stary of Purchase by Phelps and Gordhem deed Rp 26, 29
duly 8 = Phelps and Gordon Chant Rp 62
Memorlal Indiens to N.Y, Legis. Ap 835? year "1'773"~1888F °
L789
Jan 9 ~ Fort Harmer Tpeaty Bp 736
Jen ~~ Pringiples underlying Fort Harmer Treaty Ap 178
Feb 12 ~ Negotiated (treaty) by twelve me:
nand boys and |
elghteen women end children Bp 609, 610, 767, 910,
Feb 12 » Who retaig all money Bp W083, 707, 6Bl, 655
Feb 12 ~ N.Y¥sStatutes Ap 879
Feb 19 - Cayuga chiefs at Musling gun
Feb 25 ~ (Gpant of lends to N.Y. Bp 10:
Feb 25 ~ (Clinton negotiations treaty
Ped £5 » Negotiations with Speel Trap Bp 636639
May 25 = Report - Knox to Pres, Apa 47
Jyne 2 ~ Brant protests agatnat 1788 and 1789 Treaties
when treaty signed Bp 615
3
Bp 651, 652,
© Fres. Washington
Buffalo Greek Rp 197
dune 5 ~ Cayugas dissatisfied with Treaty Bp 646
June S = Qneldas discussion with Gov.
June 14 ~ Onondagas attend treaty Bp 688
Jyne 16 = # vw tt
dune 18 » Brant offers 5
duly 5 = Steel Trap supports treaty Bp 716
Buly 11 - ce resist surveys Bp 715
duly 14 ~ 61
July i4 ~ Troops levied to protect surveyors Bp 718, 721
Tuly 17 - Fish Carrier proteats 1789 treaty Bp 721
July 17 +
Clinton Bp 721
Tyly 18 « a " " "
Clinton Bp 642, 645
Bp 692,695
ale of Mohawk lands Bp 650
nton answers protests of Cayugas Bp 654, 656
Ceyugas resist surveys - letter Hardenburg to
Glinton to De Witt
Bp 725
1789 con't Annex Ky
dug 26 ~ Oneidas discussions with Gove Clinton Bp 660, 674
Sept 3 = Cayugas resist surveys, Letter Hardenburg to
Gyinten, Bp Ted-4-5
Sept 17 - Message Washington to Senate Rp 109
Sept 19 ~ Cayugas resist surveys, letter Clinton to Harden~
* . burg Bp 726
Oot 4 ~ 8 ® & tetter Clinton to Harden-
burg Bp Te?
Resolution on Treaty with Ottawa and Six Nations Ap 60
Payment act under Fhelps, Gordon deed Rp 66
protests of Six Nations to Syeel. Trap against treaty
. 1789 Rp 198
? Senecas confirm treaty of 1784 Ap 77 yoar 1789 or 17012
2790
Jean 28 ~ N.Y.statutes Ap 886 :
Apr 2 = Glinton invites Brand to attend troaty Bp 675, 678, 685
Apr 15 - Letter M111 to Johnson Ap 979
Apr 15 ~ Sqx Nations request deed for Grend River lands Ap 979
May 26 ~ Brant states will attend treaty Bp 686
June 7 - Fish Garrier attendance at treaty Bp 684 ;
June 7 = Cayugas and Onondagas.at first vefuse to attend treaty
Bp 682, 684, 685
dyne 16 But later they will
= Glinton addresses Cayugas Bp 694
Jyne 16 = Fish Carriers attendance at Treaty Bp 682, 684, 694
» Bp 697
22 = Bp 712-715
June 17) = Clinton addresses Cayugas Bp TOL 708
18
dyne te « Cyinton shows how Buffalo tndtans did not get money
Bp a
June 19 ~ Pyrchase of land. Fish Carrier his ideas Bp 7O7
June 19 « Buffalo Oreck Gayugas receive no part of 1789
Treaty cash Bp 707
June Bl « Instructions for Hardenberah Bp 729
June 22 - Cayugas consent to Treaty Bp 7le
Jyne 22 - Treaty executed Bp 105
June 1-28 - Discussions leading to treaty Bp 680-712
July 23 ~ Proceedings ~ Gouncll of Senecas Rp 200
July 31 - Farmers Brother at Council Niagara Ap 200
Novs 8 ~ Letter Brant ta Johnson Ap 540
Dee 1 = Conference Senecas and Pres. Ap 62
Dec 29 » Address ~ Pres. to Seneca Ghief Ap 70
Dee 29 =~ Six Nations urged to be U.S.friends Ap %3
Majority remove to Gonadea. Bp 17, 547, 540, 649, 735
(Mearings Sept 4, 1889) (See next year -Mar 4)
Simon Gerty fumishes supplies to Indians Ap 103
OOOoRW MBHbewnwosrk
Annex Ms
Harmah's forces defeated Bp 55
U.S. Trade Intercourses. Act of 1790. Rp 119-121.
2793
For 1791 material see Ap 74-145
23 = Letter Gyinton to Cayuga Chiefs Ap 864
24 - Letter Cyinton to Dezing Ap 8435
Bl = Council of Govt of Canada Bp 869-8'75
~-~ Message Sjinton to Legislature Ap 935
l= Fish Carrier asserted to live in Canada Bp 873
Y = Conference Senecas and Press Ap 62, 79
26 ~ Message Clinton from Indiana Ap 967
26 ~ Fishoaurier signed location Grand River laid Bp 873
4 = Gayugess held douncil to petition Legis. in regard to
land Bp 735 (Brant helping)
7 = Message Sec War to Seneca chiefs Ap. 144
10 « Ppoctor sent to O'beel
Ll - Instructions to Proctor Ap 80 and 81
11 - Peoctor's miasion to Miamles Ap 80
a e «Wabash
¢ 24 ~ Letter from Brandt Ap 980
1» Speech Little Beard ap 113
9 » Speech Capt. O'Beel Ap 114
12g = Pres wishes to avold war Ay 129
412 ~ Letter See. of War ta dlinton Ap 129
17 we w wv ce w t au R 6 8
20 - Butler (Br) opposed to Proetors miasion Sp 18
£5 = Speech Thyogasa Ap 115
27 = Brandts comments on Proctors Mission Ap 88
87 » Latter Cyinton to Sec. of War Ap SL
2? «» Speech Red Jacket to Prottor Ap 116
2% = Letter Clinton to Seo. of War Rp: 70
e8 - Letter Secs of War to Clinton Ap 161
28 ~ President deed restoring land Ap 89
28 ~ Letter Sea. of War to Glinton Rp. 70
29 ~ Speech Red Jacket to Procter Ap 91, 9%
29 - Butler (Br) requested to attend Council Ap 93
29 « Six Nations Chiefs under British influence Ap 93
50 = Specoh Pickering to Indians Ap 150
- “84x Nations Rp 76
»-- Byendt prepares to go among hostile Indiens Ap 110
Oo
~ Pickering appointed to negotiate with Indians
om instructions to Ap 128
~ Six Nations situation relative to U.5« Ap 123
~ Speech Red Jacket to Proctor Ap 95
~ Snake Capt, arrives at Proctor’s Gounell Ap 95
- Butler (Br) advises Proctor Ap 97
~ Letters Prostor ~ Gordon Ap 84
«~ Letters Proctor urges O'Beel attend Council at
Nicaragua Ap 96
~ Message Hondon and Proctor to 81x Nations Ap 84
~ O'Beel and Red Jacket visit Prostor Ap 98
~ Speech of Beard O11 Ap 119
- Speech Fishoarrier to Proctor Ap 117
8 » Speech Gonyerdoeta to Gounell of Six Nations Ap 119
L791 con't ANNO Me
Mey 9 ~ Letter Mets to Johnson Ap 9681
May 9 ~ Speoch Proctor to Pish Carrier
May JL - hotter See. War to GLinton Ap 133
May 11 ~ Rp 72 : SN
May Ll - " * # " Kivklend Rp 74 By S
May 12 + Smith give information relative to Indian supplies
s Ap 102 \
May 14 ~ Speech Farmers Brother Ap 119
Mey 14 - Speech Thanks to Washington from Six Nations Ap lel
May 15 - Letter Prostor ~ Gordon Ap 85, 106
May 15 - Speech Young King to Proctor Ap 104
May 15 ~ Red Jacket to Proctor Ap 105
May 16 = Fresqu! Isle-Proctor Gordon to recommend past at Ap 108
May 18 ~ Letters Proctor Gordon to Ap 86 (107,110)
Mey 18 - Tusearoras report to Col, Millen regarding Ap 126
May 20 ~ Letter Butler to Johnson Ap 432 ;
May 20 = Speech Proctor explains Gordons letter Ap 110
May 21 ~ Indian answers Sp Glalr Ap 121
May 21 ~ Proctor names offer to .0'Beel Ap 112
May @L = Speech by Young King Ap lel
May 21 Proctor to Sec. War Ap 1285
May 21 ~ Speech Fish Carrier and Young King to Proetor Ap 111
May --~ Gonstruction of fortifications at Niagara Ap 55
May ~-~ Indian Agent NeGee prepares to go emong hostile
; Indians Ap 96
May »-= O©'Beel c&l1 meeting of chief's Ap 96, 99
May and April Proctor narrative of Ap 86
June 8 - Letter Proctor to Sec. War Ap 118
June 15 « Letter Sec. War to Pickering Ap 127
dyne 13 = Speech Farmer's Brother Ap 127
June ~~« Mohawks not at Painted Post Ap 141
June -=~ Gounedl Five at Painted Post Ap 121, 63, 194, 141
Jyly 716 ~ Statement of Chiefs to Pickering regarding Phelps-
Gordon paymtie Rp. 67, 68°
Aug 4 =~ Question, etc, Hendricks Ap 50
dug 4 - Letter Seo. War to St»Glair Ap 140
Ayg 16 = Letter Plekering to Clinton Ap 136
Aug IY = Report Plekering to Clinton Ap 156
Aug 17 ~ Letter Sec. War to Clinton Rp 75
aug lz~ © " 1, * a Ap 195
Aug «=~ Johnson to assemble Five Nations at Buffale Creek Ap 140
Sept 27 =~ Letter Chapin to Clinton Ap 866
Dec 20 ~ Latter Secs War to Kirkland Ap 141
Dec 20 - Kirkland to meet Indians at Genesco Ap 141,
Flesh Carvier asserted to ITvé6 in Genada Bp 875
‘Little Cayuga Chief made Chief Bp 275, 873
Council Fare at Ap 115
Dorchester to T dian Deputies |
Fish Carrier atlends Council at Ft. Stenwix Ap 86)
Council Fyre at Stanwix Ap 861 ‘
Miami 's hotile to U.S ap 78 i
Powell visits Proctor Ap 89
Letter Proctor to Sec. War Ap 123 }
Pproctor-Young fing furnishes information to ap 108
Seneeas conforin treaty of 1784 Ap 77 }
Brandt-Glintons impressions. on Rp 71
9.
LV9@L con't - Annex M.
Brendt enemy of Cornplanter Rp 69
Brandt, american effort to curry favor with Rp 69,70,75,74
Byandt invited to vieit Lovage Rp 74
Brandt, U.8» attitude toward his suggested bound arises Rp 74
Clinton disapproves U.S.polley toward I,dians Rp
Cornplanter tries to secure peace Rp 69, 75
Sy. Clair defeated Ry 34, 57
Wigatern tribes combine against U.8. Rp 68
Plekering's inatructions as to Six Nations Rp 69
U.S. admits pre-emptive rights of N.Y. Rp 75
Washington opposed to Indian Wars.
L792
For 1792 material see Ap 145-177
Jen. 1 + Letter Schyler to Se. War Ap 146
Jan 7 ~ Sede War to Cornplanter Ap 144, 142
Jan 7 ~ Letter Sec. War to Seneca Ghief Ap 142
yan g~ * e "8 Kirkland Ap 143
Jan ~-~ GouneLl Fire at Buffalo Greek Ap M6
Feb 10 ~ Letter Sec War to Big Log Seneca Shief Ap 144
Feb 10 - Letter See War to Cornplanter Ap 144, 142
Heb 10 ~- " a « " Newgrrow Seneca Ghief ap 144
Feb 10 ~ * " “ “Seneca Chief Ap 144
Feb 25 =" " v " Xtvkland Ap 147
Peb 25 » * " " “ Brandt Ap 145
War Po " £ vu" kaxkland Ap 147
Mar 13 * Pive Nations at Phileas Ap 149-152
Mar 26 ~ 8 f s " Ap 149-152
Mar 23 —~ Address Preaident to Fave Nations Ap 148
Apr 17 = Gayugas petition to Gov. Ap 841
Apr 23 - Letter See War to Brandt Ap 150
apr @3 « Oneidas included among Five Nations Ap 155
it “Onondagas " ‘ u s Ap 155
a Tuscaroras " a # a Ap 155
8 Sinecas " " “ " Ap 155
® Stockbridge Indlans Included among Five Nations Apl55
Ape 23 Yand purchased from Six Nations Ap 758
Apr 25 Letter Sec. War to DteAllen Ap 151, 164
Ape 25 - Message Pres. to Five Nations Ap 162
Apr 28 - Instructions to Chapin Ap 153
0
June 6 = Chapin agent (U.8.) to Five Nations Ap 185
June 27 ~ Letter Seo. War to Clinton Rp 81
Jyne 27 ~ Letter Secs War to Bpandt Ap 157
Jyne 27 « Letter Simeoe to McKee Rp 82.
June -~ Cornplanter goes to Buffalo Gouncil Ap 252
July VY ~ Speech Brandt on behalf of Western Indian Ap 190
July 8 ~ Speech Commissioners to Brandt Ap 191
July 17 = Reconciliation of Cayugas with Onondages Ap 161
Joly 28 =~ Farmers Brother gives information Ap 164
LO.
Annex Me
L792 con't
ly 88 + Letter Chapin to Bpandt Ap 166
wy, fugust, September ~ Chapin ta See. War Ap 161,163 ,164
Auge 50 = Simcoe to MeGee Ep Bl, 84
Ost 9 ~ Speech Symeoe to Indiana at su Glaize Rp 84, 86
Nove 13 « Gouncil by Six Nations BREEDS eee Pea ny Bp
» 83)
Nove 16 » Speech Pishearrier Ap 174
Nov 16 ~ Speech of Shawanese Ap 170-171 ,
Nov 22 « Specdh of hostile Indians to Jlmeoe Ap 173, 174
Nov -~- British Reps. attend Gouncil fire at eae Creel:
Ap
Deo 6» Lotter Seo. War to Pres, Ap 167
Deo 8 + Speech Newarrow to Wayne Ap 175
Dee 8 + ‘Shawaneses's Peace Teras Ap 177
Deo 12 ~ Aqdress Knox to Western Indians Rp 86
Cormplanter (O'Beel) Myssion to Indians Ap 180, 134
Canadian Indians arrive at Detroit ap 164
Washington gives medal to, Red Jacket Ap 1198
Benocas warned not. to join hoatile Indians Ap 162
Sqmeoe desires peace Ap 168
Upper Canada promises Indians assistance Ap 164
fndiens meet Au Glalse Rp 34
Brandts position among Indians Rp 34, 38
Brandts visit to Washe Rp 34
Brandts relation to meeting Au Glaize Rp 34
Brandts relation to Simcoe Rp 96
Sed. of War end Mohawk interest in landa Rp 81, 85
Simcoe contemplates buffer state Rp 82, 84
Oayugas discontented with U.Ss Rp 81
Conference Gaughnowagas with Glinton Rp 294
U.S. admits Mohawks rights in lenl Rp 85
Onlo Raver boundary demanded, never ‘granted Rp 54, 36, 49 |
\ 1795
Por material covering 1793 (U,8.Commis. at Sandusky) see
Ap 177, 220, 882, 229
Fab 25
~ Letter Brandt to Meee Rp 87
Feb 28 - Address Knox to Western Indians Rp 69
Mar LL - R.Y.atatutes Bp 606, 807
Mar ll =~ N.¥. statutes bp 820 .
Mar «= Chapin sent as messenger to Cayugas Bp 564,365, ?
% ’ 2
- Ape 26 ~ Instructions to Commis at Sandusky Ap 177
Apr 30 ~ Journe] of Commie. at Sandusky Ap 182
Mey 21 <- Letter of Commis at Sandusky to Seo. War Ap» 184
: May om= Letter Symcoe to Commis. Apel86,187
Tyne 7 ~ Letter Simcoe to Comels. Ap 186, 187
\ fune 7 ~ Sqmcoe's advice to Indlens Ap 185
. \dune 20 ~ Letter Commis at Sandusky to Sec. war Ap 188
June 22 = Letter Simcoe to Bytler and MeKee Rp 89
July 7 = Speech Brant in behalf of Western Indians Ap 190
_duly 7 = Speech Simcoe to Brandt Ap 196
Jan,
Jen
Jean,
Jen.
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
Jan
12.
1794 Annex M
for 1794 material see Ap 241 ~ 288
2 See War to President Ap 220
2 ~ Message Pres. in relation to Six Nations Ap 277
lil-v Tiawangas, Seneca Cnief states approached by British Ap 246
24 ~ Communication From Gove Glinton Bp 364 z
27 = Letter Dorchester to Symeoe Ap 985
28 - Legislature notified of arrival (in Albany) Bp 818, 564
28 ~ N.Y¥.Leg Resolution By 818
2B- 8 NH directs’ conference relative to land sale Bp 818
29 ~ Speech Clinton to Gayugas Ap 847
Jan-March = Conferences Ap 845-860
Mar
Mar
Max
Mar
Mar
Mar
Mar
Mar
Mar
Max
Mar J
Apr
1 = Glinton declines purchase Bp 763-766
1 + Speech Clinton to Indian Ap 849
1 - Speech Sawag. Cayuga Chief Ap 848
Y= Gouncll at Buffalo Creek Ap 229
7 = Speech Chapin to Six Nations Ap #31
Y= Speech Major Libtlehalls Ap est
Y= Bypeech Red Jacket Ap 251, 252
9 « Speech Chapin to Six Nations Bp 233, 239
10 - Chapins council with Cayugas Bp 367
10 = Pish Carrier notifies Chapin he will ge to Albany Bp 366
13 = Communigation from Gov. Clinton Bp 767-769
14 = Aenean g ean to Clinton Ap 852 ,
int - Speech Clinton to Key ete. Ap 855
i :
we~ Letters Chapin to Sec. War Ap 229
4 - Gounoll with Chapin Bp 367
4 - Fish Carrier non attendance at Treaty Bp 367
4- Little Cayuge Onlef speaker protests against dealing
with reservation Cayugas Bp 567, 568
9 ~ Ghapin goes to ALbany with CGayugas Bp 818
10 = Message Clinten to Leg. Bp 818
15 ~- Little Cayuga Chief speaker Bp 364
15 ~ Speech Little Cayuga Chief Ap 858
13 6 Little Cayuga Chief suggests cee ea CouneL1
Bp 76
Onondagas = gonference with Ap 858 4
Oayugas ask for meeting at Buffalo Creek Ap 889
Speech Little Cayuga Chief Bp 859, 863
. OB
pay
oF
aeited
p
Commis requested to meet at Buffalo Greek Ap 865.
1% « Speech Clinton to Key ete. Ap 666
a7 - N.Y. Spatute Ap 88%
~~ Message N.Y.Gove to Legislature Rp 218, 219
21 - Speech of Brandt Ap 256
21 - Six Nations anxious for peace Ap 237
Apr --- Letters Chapin to Sec. of War Ap 234
April «-=-« Symeoe visits Detroit Ap 254-235
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
May
10 ~ Letter Sec, War to Dallas Ap 261
21 = Megsage Pres. to Congress with nelomures Ap £21,240
~ * * ® regarding Six Nations Ap 281
25 ~ Letter Wilkins to mafflin Ap 244
24 ~ Presqu' Isle Estab. of town at Suspended Ap 262
24 = Letter Sec War to Mafflin Ap 261
kU ~ Letter See War to Mifflin Ap 262
~ee Letters Chapin to Sec. War Ap 863
294 con't Annex I,
Sune 8 - Letter Denny to Gibson Ap 247, 248
Syne 8 « Hllieott and Denny to Gibson Ap. R47
Jyne 10+ Neville to Myfflin Ap. 248
dune Ll = Gibson to Mifflin Ap. 245
June 14 ~ Letter from Denny Ap» 252 ;
June 18 ~ Council at Byffelo Creek Ap. 265
Jone 18 ~ Council Fire at Buffelo Creek Ap. 265
June 18 - Council at Buffalo Greek Ap« 266
June 18 «= Speech Chapin to Six Nations Ap. 259
June 18 - Speech O'Beel to Six Natlons Ape. 266~267
June 19 ~ Letter Mifflin to Pres. Ap» 244
June 80 - Gibson to Mifflin Ap.« 251
Sone 20 Six Nations end Weatern Indians, Glbson says may be
obliged to join Ap. 251, 256
June 20 - Letter Gibson to Mifflin Ap. 261
June 24 ~ Letter Sac. War to Mafflin Ap. 265
June 24 ~ Letter Mifflin to Sec. War Ap. B49 ;
Tyne 24 ~ Letter Chapin to Commanding officer LeBoeuf Ap. 254
Sune 3%n- Denny to Gibson Ape 254 .
June 29 - Letter Ellicott to Mifflin Ap. 255
Jyne 29 - Letter Denmy to Mifflin Ap+ 87
Tyne --» «Six Nations hostile to U.S. ips 247
June -~ - Speech Chapin to O'Reel Ap. 268, 270
June ~- ~ Letters Opapin tp Py. Le Boeuf Ap. 254
June =~ = Letters Gyapin to Sec. War Ap. 264
June «- ~ Byltish invite Indians to Counell at Buffalo Creek Ap.246
July 4 - Qouncil at Buffalo Creek Ap» 269
July 7 = hotter Gibson to Mifflin Ap. 255
July 9 - Speech O'Bee@l Ap» 269
July ll ~ Ransom deposition of Aps 246
Syly 15 - Letter Sec. War to Miftlin Ape 264
July -» ~ Speech Ghepin to O'Beol Ap. 368-270
Auge 28 ~ Letter Wayne to Sec. War Ap. 471
‘ug. 28 = Examination of Lassell Aps 240
Aug» 28 « MoKee Influence with Indians ips RAL, 242, 272, 275
Aug. -- ~ Letter Campbell to Wayne Ap. 475, 476, 478
AUGe =o
Letter Wayne to Campbell Ap» 475, ATT
Sept. -- = Letter Chapin in behalf oF Cayugas Ap» 866
Sept. -~ - Lettex Chapin to Glinton Ap. 866
Oot. 10 = Council at Big Rock Ape 285
Oct. 10 = Simeoe Speech of Ap+ 286
Oot. 10-= Wyandota Speech Ap. 285
Ogt. 1Y = Latter Wayne to Sec. of War Ape 271
Oote 21 ~ Jgmes Neale Ap» 242
Cote -- ~ Semeoe influence hostile chiefs Ap. 272
Nov. 5» Letter Pasteur to Wayne Ap. 288
Nove 11 + Konondagua Treaty Ap. 277
Nove 11 ~ Packoring with six Rations Ape 877
Nove 18 = Letter Wayne to Sec, of War Ap.2v4
Nove 16 = Speech Weatern Indians Aps 169
Nov. 20 + Pickering to Brandt Bp. 34-845 = algo Rp. 1OL
Nove «= « Letter Simcoe to Hammond Rp» 100
Dec, 2 ~ Oneldas treaty with Ap. 281
Dec. 2 Treaty Flekering with $1x Nations part Ap» 281
1794 sont Annex Me
Doce 17 ~ Message Gece War to Congross, Ap. 271 |
Dec, 23 ~ Letter Wayne to Sec, War, Ape 282
Dec. 23 - Wyandots want peace with Ube Apa 283
Dec. 5O ~ Letter Brandt to Pickering Rp. 103
Little Gayuge Chief lived in Canada Bp 275, $64
Conference in Albany Bp 566, 367
Journey to atoompanied by Bpitish officers Bp 364,567-8
Treaty at Konondigua Bp 758
Byue Jacket, Shawanese chief aye hens to go with Simcoe
Ape 87%
Gounell at Buffalo Greek for deposing Brandt Ap. 1041
Indian unvest ceused by Dorchester's speech Ap. 239
Great Britain fortifying within U.3. Ap. 477
Shawanese, number of Ap» 240
Brandt, message to Canandaigua Treaty Rp 49
Byandt ~ nephew of at Canandaigua Treaty Rp 1lO2-105
Buffer State - Idea supported by Simcoe and Dorchester
53
. Rp
Gen andaigua Treaty U.S. Six Nationa Np 46, 52, 100-108
Gonference - Clinton with Caughnewaga Indians Rp. 219
Chapin ~ attends Gangndaigua Treaty Rp 47
Message ~ Clinton to Lege Rp. 218, 221
Speech ~ Dorchester maker inflammatory to Indians Rp 39
Fish Carrier at Qanandaigua Treaty Ry 48
Wayne defeats Western Indians Rp 41
Six Nations threaten U.S. with war over Presqu! Isle
46 °
Simeoe evicts garrison on U.asterrltory at Miami Repids
Hp 40,41
UeS. Acts Six Nations consist of Am. and Canadian Indians
Ap 101-108
Washington influence averts war with Six Nations Rp 46
1796
Jane 1 = Message ~ Chapin to Sanduaky's Ap. 290
Jany 1 ~ Wayne to Ghiefs Ap. 0
Jeane 2 ~ Message Presa, to Bena te vegarding Tuscaroras Ap. 277
Jane ee » Letter Wayne to Plekering Ap. 280 %
dane 24 = Letter Weyne to 890. of War Ap. 289
Apr. 9 ~ N.Y.Spatutes, Bp.807~-810 ('7'70~'771)
Apr. 9 =~ N.Y.Assembly Journals Bp 812-813 (revision N.¥.Lawsa)
June 16 « Speech of Delaware Ghief Ap 349
June 17 = Speech, New Gorn Pottawattamioe Ap. 349
June 21 ~ Speech Delaware Chief Ap 350
1795 con't \
—_ i
ry
2 ie
June @l « Speech Pottawatt Chief Ap. 350° 14
June 25 ~ Speech of Bad Bird Ghippewa. Ap $52 ‘ i
Jyne 30 ~ Speech of Little Turtle Apes 855
Jyne 30 = Speech a Har Gorn » Fe eee th macnn
Q M ~ Minutes of Treat
aynes lala ies om: wee My Pottawatta |}
" " ci w u " Spawanese \ A hp 348
w CT n n w a Wyendots i \
July 3 = Speech of Deewares Chief Ap 666 H tok
July 3 = Speech of Bad Bird Chippewa Ap S55 | ;
galy 4 = Speech of Agooshaway Ottawa Ghief - Treaty of Greenville
: Ap. $56, 357 i \
July 8 - Speech Harrison Ap. 527 i :
july g- Speesh of Agoowhawny Ottawa Ghlef Ap. 358 :
duly 9 = Speech of Little Turtle Ap. 358 :
July 9 ~ Speech Wayne to Ottawas Ap. 367 i /
July 10~ Letter Ghew to Chew Bp 645 2 ay
daly ll« Speech Harrison Ap $34
July 18~ Blue Jacket Shawanese Opief arrives’ at Greenville Ap 663.
July 18- © i " " Speech Ap 3647 '
July 18+ Speech of lyttle Turtle ~ Miami Ap S61 i
July 18 » Speech of Bad Bird Chippewa Ap 562 fi
July 18 ~ Speech of Pottawatt Chief Ap 661 |
July 19 - Oonference with Wayne Ap. 564 |
July 20 = Speech of little Turtle, Miami Ap 567 | %
July 20 ~ Speech of Bad Bird Chippewa Ap 568 F
July 20 - Speech Delaware Chief Ap 568 . i
duly 21 ~ Gpeech of Tittle Tue tLe » Wiaml Ap B72
July 21 - Speech of Masass, Chippewa Ap 368
July 21 ~ Speech of iPad Bird Chippewa Ap 371 .
July 21 - Speech of Tarkee, The Crane, Syandot Ap 362
July 22 - Speech of Little Turtle Ap 386
July 82 ~ Speech The dpane, Wyandot Ap 370
July 23 « Speech of Ottawas Ap S76
July 23 = Speech of Agooshaway Ottawa Chief «Treaty Greenville Ap 376
July 83 ~ Speech of Blue Jacket Sspawanesa Chief Ap 876, 880
July 83 = Speech of Masass~ Gnippewa Opief Ap 372
July 23 « Speech New Corn, Pottawattamle Ap 79
duly 23 ~ the Crane, Wyandot Ap 373
July 27 = Treaty of 1785 Bp 107
duly27 ~ Speech of little furtle, Miami Ap 383
July 27 - Speech of Tarkee (Gpane) Ap 584
July 28 - Speech of Little Turtle, Miaml Ap 391
Jyly 28 « Treaty with Onondagas Ap 1147
july 28 = Speech of Pottwatta Ohief Ap 567
dIuly 29 - Speech of Little Turtle, Minami Ap $95 :
July 29 » Speech Wyandots at Sandusky Ap 389
July 29 - Speech of Pottawatt Chief Ap» 394
July 29 ~ Speech of Indians to U.S. Ap 589
July 29 - Speech of Trakee, The Crane Ap 389
July 29 ~ Speech Walliems Agent to Fifteen Fires Ap 389
July $0 « Speech Keeahah Ap 394
July 30 ~ Speech of Tattle Beaver Ap 596
July 50 ~ Speech of little Turtle, Miamt Ap 596
16.
1795 son't Annex My
July 50 - Speech of Masass, Chippewa Ap 596
July 50 ~- Speech of Bad Bird Ghippewa Ap 395
July 31 + Tey~yagh~ah arrives at Greenville Ap 402
Auge 2 =~ Speech of Blue Jacket Shawanese Chief Ap 403
Auge & ~ Speech of Red Pale Shawanese Ap 402
Augs & ~ Speech of Bad Bird Chippewa Ap 404
Aug» 3 = Speech of Wayne to Cherokees Ap 415
Auge tT - Speeeh of Trakee, The Grane Ap 406
Auge 8 ~ Speech of Delaware Chief Ap ait
Auge 8 ~ Speech of Bad Brrd Chippewa Ape 409
Auge 8 = Speech of Ghil Pottawattamle Ap 410
Auge 8 = Medais prosented to Indians Ap 411
Aug. 8 - Speech New Corn Pottawattamle kp 409
Auge 9 - Letter Wayne to Pickering Ap 348
SugelO = Speech of Easass, Ghippewe Ap 414
Auge 10 ~ " Speech of Bad Bird, Chippewa Ap 414
Augs 10 ~ Speech of Red Pale, Shawanese Ap 410
Nov, 15 - Byltish presenta to Six Nations Bp. 836
Dect. 9 = Message Pres. to Senate Ap. 340
Pate 22 - Simeoe to Dorchester Ap. 984, 985
Cy ot om
Brandt and McKee Ap 985
Services of Parrish Bp 819 ‘
? Signatures to Treaty of Bp 926~9507 (signed Feb.3, 1860)
Cayuges from Buffelo Cresk and Grand River on way to
Cayuga Bp 845
Aprive at Cayuga Berry Bp 819
Treaty executed Bp 25, 93, 10%, 275, 332
Gayugas dealt with as 1f Independent Bp 25
Duplicate of Treaty By 939-945
Morgan's remarks eoneérning tresty Bp 950
Directions to Chapin in regard to payment of annulty Bp 407
Parrish escorts Cayugas to Albany Bp 819
Tyeaty conformed Bp 772, 774, B11, 815
Byandt visite U.BS+ Indian Agent Ap 986
Treaty of Greenville Ap 341-416
Six Nations at Greenville Ap 408
Preliminary articles of peace Yayne Ap 289
Speechos, Wayne at Greenville, Ap 348-412
Greenville Treaty, concludes post-Revolution Indian Wars Rp 61
Mohawke negotiate with N.Y.anthorities Rp 22021
Lews State of N.Y. Rp Chap 70, p.le6
Laws State of N.Y. Rp Ghap. 17, pee26
L796
Feb. 15 « Letter Chew to Dorchester Ap 987
Feb, 19 = Letter Dorchester to Chew Ap 987
Bebe 22 = Message N.YsGovs. to N.YeLegs Rp» 219-220
176
L796 con't Annex M
Webs 2Y ~ Letter Simooe to Portland Ap 987
Peb. 27 - Deed for Grand River lands Ap 988
Bebe wm « NeVo Loge confirma treaty Bp 7/2
Wer. 29 - Message N.v.Gove to N.¥.Leg. Rp 219-220, -
Apre 16 = N.Y.States Bp 811-812 .
May 2 ~ Message Wash. to Senate ro Seven Nations Rp 158
May 26 ~ Condolence Fish Garrier s death Bp 845844
Mey 26 ~ Letter Dorchester to Simcoe Ap 989
May 31 = Treaty N.Y. and Seven Nations Rp 151, 221, 222
May -- « Treaty held with Seven Nations fp 138
June i ~ Council Cayuge village at Gpand River Bp 845
June 1 ~ Farmers Brother asks appt. Briti#h Indlens Supt. Bp 846
June l= Letter Brandt to Chas Ap 990
dune -» ~ Port Nyagara given up by British 669 (note) 968
Sept.21 - Letter Skenandoah's regarding Lroquole Ap 796
Septe21 - Letter Chapin to Schuyler Ap 1S
Sept.22 ~ Letter Russell to Simcoe Ap 991
Sept.26 ~ Sovereignty by Troquois to King not admitted Ap 994
gefit.26 - Letter White to sqministrator Ap 994 :
Sept.28 - Letter Russell to Portland Ap 995
Oct. 23 ~ Lotter Russell to Brandt Ap 996
Nove @ = Bower of atty ~ Five ations to Brandt Ap 1Ole
Nove 2 ~ Message N.Y. Gov. to NeY.lege Rp 219-220 fi
Novel4 = Letter Russell to Fortiand Ap 1000
Nov.24 - Glaus answers Bpandt's Speech Ap 1022
Deo.24 = Letter Prescott to Portland Ap 1001 “N
Foxtion of Oneidas in Canada 10 B 4
* Brandt's power of att's to surrender lends and appt itpus tess
2438 Ay
Gpand River Indians propose sharing anmities Ap 99¥ 3998, 100€
Proposed to sell Grand River lend and Beasley Ap 99% \
Ame Indians no claim to Grand River Lands Ap 990 vA
Fysh Garrier helws reside at Grand River Bp 173
4
British posts 1n US territory evacuated Rp 43 29-33 96 ,BISm. ;
340
Mohawks negotiate with N.Y.authorities Rp 220-821 i
N.eY,Assombly and Senate Journals Rp 154
N.Y. Lawa Rp Ghap. SO pek26 ,
Lye? A ° \
For material’ 1797 gee Ap 1005-1025
JaneS « Letter Fowell to Russell Ap Loge
Jen»28= Letter Ryssell to Portland Ap 1002
Marsl0 ~ Letter Portland to Russell Ap 1610
Mar. 20 - Sale Mohawk lends Bp. 650
Mar. 29 - Treaty with Mohawks Rp 168
Apr, 1 ~ N.Y. Statute relative to annuities Ap 887
Apre 4 - Reservation Cayugas.mimber Bp 569
July 21 ~ Discussions with Byandt regarding Grand Ryver lands
Ap 433-439
duly 21 /- Letter Russell to Portland Ap 435
July Sl - Letter Boston to Prescott Ap 440
18.
LOT con't Annex Mi
July 31 + Letter Russell to Prescott Ap 440
Oot SL
~ Letter Chapin to Jey Bp. 669
First sale of portion of Haldimand Grand Bp. 886
Speech«Ruasell to Brandt , Ap+lO0S (see 438)
NeYe purchases Caughnawaga lands Hp» 151
N.Y. assembly and Senate Journals Rp. 156
NWeY. purchases Mohawk lands, Rp» 168-170
W.Y. Acquisition of Mohawk land Rp» 168
1798
feb. 6 = Letter Jarvis from Russell Ap. 1027
Beb.20 » Letter Rugsell to Fortiand Ap. 1019
Mars
APY «
APY
Jane
Ap?
Grand River lend sold to Beasley Ap» 1015, 1027
1799 : ‘
8 = We¥.Syatutes Ap 888
ll = Letter Sec. State to McHenry Ap»b01, 603
17 = Letter Melemry to Sec. State Ap. 479
cement teniniasemtcictc test
: 1.800
14 + Deed, Indians to Brandt Bp 884-886
4803.
4 - NeY Statutes Ap 888
1802 4
aY » Message N.Y. Gove to Leg Rp. B22
19 « N.Y.Statutes confirmation of Indian Agreement Ap 889
20 - U.S-treaty with Senecas Ap. 1161
20 = Troaties with NvY.leg. Senecas Ap. 1151
eY « Letter Bustt to Seo. of War Rpe LVL
28 - Message Jefferson to Senate Rpwl70
N.Y. Laws « Rp Chap. 1, Ghap. 33 ~ Roe 235
19
1806 Amex Me
Comments on Haldimand Grant, Bp. 845, 848 |
2804
Sept. 18 ~ Letter from Norton to Camden Ap 1055
Apre &
May 2
Jyne 7
July 4
» Eoune4l of S1x Nations Rp 203
Memorial ~ Indlang on Grand River Ap 1028
1805
Dearborn to Jouett Ape 290
Receipt of Grand River Indian Payment » Chapin Bp 820
Letter of Jouett to Dearborn Ape £95
Brandt « effort to depdse Rp. 17, 18
Brandt pestored to Chieftainship Rp.18,205,206.«
Council Six Nations - Buffalo Greek - illegal Rp»1’.
3.806
July 10= Address, Brandt to Brit. euthorities Rp.206
Mare 6
Mar. 4
Mey 16
May 15
May 2&4
July 2%
Auge SO
Octse 4
Nove L4&
Novs24
Novar~
Nove~>
Nove-=
Deo. 6
Dec. &
DeETEtD EE
notcsneetnracynepennr eet
Minutes Council Six Nations Grand River, Bp .885-889
council Pave removed to Canada about Bapee beoeoeee
7889»
gov
Ne¥«beg. authorizes treaty By. 774, B14
Speech Indian Chiefs: Ap. $05 .
Pish Carrier Noe? signs treaty Bp.110
Res. sold by Gayugas, Sachems Bp.110
Tetters War Dept. regarding Indien hostilities at
: Motil imackinas Ap» 602
War te Gorvespe Ape 50
totes Wor Depts regarding Indian hostilities at
Michilimackinuc Ap 803
Letter Gore to Watson Ap. 441
Letter Hall to Dearborn Ap. 298
Brandt dios Bp.570
Letter Hull to Bearborn Ap, 294
Gyiefs returm from Holden fps298
Speeches Pooquiboad ~ Ghippewar Ap» 297
spltish Indian Dept. and Shawanese Prophet Ap. 450
Shawanese Prophert, Craig enquires about Ap. 450
Dec. 30> Message President to Congress Ap.294
206
ASO” con's
dreig'ts Indiens Polley ape 448) 443 :
Indians iavited to Malden Apa 287
Kekeo prevents Indians from coming to Dotwoit Apeed?
Speech Na Pe ttimie, ap 296
Attitude of Ottawas Ap 298
Vyandota attitude of ip 298
famex
1908
den 5 » Letter Gere to Crealg Ap 451
Peb ll~ Lette Claus te Mekee Bp 890
Letter Gorn to Cleus Bp 351
Letter to War Dept. Ap 303
letter Guais to Erskine ap 44)
i
Feb ae
& te
my 1S<
dug LO-
Noy 1B-
Cayuge Jn:
Les Bp 849-850 (Letter Horton to Gratg)
Coungll Six Nations, Hamilton Bp 800-808
GouneL] Gere at auheratburg Ap 461
Shawanese prophet sende mossenger Ay 452
Tpetestions to Oralg on Indien policy Ap 443
Shawanese prophet settles on Wabseh A
p GOs
& prophet ep of known to British of fleora
Ap 48f
1909
Mar Ll Gounetl Six Nations, Grand River Bp 892, 995
Mer 1 +. Signed Deed in Canada Bp 895
Maz 10 «Council S4x Nations Fort George Bp 894,896
Ape S + War Dept, correspondence relative to Indian
hostilities Ap 304
Apr G = Hsldimand Grant, Bo, G81, B52
Ape SO Wer Dept. correspondence relative to Indien
Hostiiities Ay Od
June TY» Lettex War Department relative to Indien
hastiitties Aap Sob
Tune 1b- Wer Dept. correspondence Ap» S05
Last payment annuity, shared by Conedien Cayugea Bp. D7S-
1088
1810
Jon 1? = Letter Gore to Claus Ap 7621
Feb 1 ~ Speech Six Nations to Granger Ap 315
Feb 13 = Speco Red Jacket Ap 318
doly 0 = Letter Bylleott to Claus Rye 362
duly 2O~
Cots 7
Ooteld
Noval
Howe 16
Novels
oe.
#¢42
War hele correspondence Ap 307
Ceunet
Indien Unrest Bow 853
Tecumseh speech Boy 867, 856
lagter ELiicott to Claus Bp. 856
Letter Ellicott to Claus Ap» 483
Thdiens Big hook 8.654855
1810 con't | Annex M
Nove 16 ~ Speech of Tecumseh to Claus Ay 458
Nov. 18 ~ Tecumseh's conference with Ellicott Ap 454
Nove -~ ~ British advised of Tecumseh war Bp.85'
Nove «~ ~ British policy - War Teewnseh Bp 856-857
Red Jacket mission on to Canadian Indians Bp 853
Speech Ellicott to .Mgaml Chief Ap 480
18il
Feb. & - Cpalg to Gore Bp 859-860, 968
Feb. & = Letter Graig to Gore Ap» 454
Letter in relative to Indisn hostilities Ap. 308
Letter relative to Indien hostilities Ap» 509
Memorial to President from inhabitants of Indian
Territory Ap«s S12
~ Govunell of Six Nations Bp. S55
Sept. 9 ~ Letter War Dept. Ap 310
~ Speech Secretary of Nar to Ottewas Ap 316
~ Speech Ottawas to Sec, War Ap 816
April = - Gounctl Six Nations Fort George Rp 353
Nov 25)~ Letter relative to Inalen hostilities Ap $11
Dee 19 = Ietter Sec, War to MeKee Ap S01
Annuities for 1811-1812 Ap 759
First of Pottawatt chief Marpeck Ap 316
British presents to Indians unusuelly heavy Ap 481
Tecumseh visite Pincennes Ap 309
Leie
Jen 17 - Letter Sec. War to MoKee sp 314
Jan 16 ~ Letter Quebeo Mereury to Rditor of Ap 457
Jan 22 “ Prevost to Liverpool Ap 456
Mar 14 ~ Letter Rhea Ay 418 .
Apr 2 ~ Letter Whistler to Sece War sp 318° +
April « Mey - Six Nations, deputation goes to Grand River Ap 320
May ~ Indians instigated by Bketoon Ap 521
dJyne 5 = Letter from Harrison relative to Indian hostilities Ap 320
Syne 22 Letter Seo, War to President Ap 316
June SO ~ Senecas censua of ab Cattaraugus and Allegheny Ap 1144
syne ~ Winnebagoes greater part at Tippecanoe Ap $20
July 8 + Gouncil 84x Nations Buffalo -Bp 168
July & ~ Speech Red Jacket at Buffalo Bp 1de, 144
July 15 - Letter Prevost to Liverpool Ap 460
ug 16 ~ Letter Brock to Prevost Ap 464
ug 16 » British capture Detroit Ap 464
Oot 5 ~ Letter Prevost to Warren Ap 488
Oct 8 ~ Letter Prevost to Bathurst Ap 489
Des 10 - Canadien Indians to Farmers Brother Bp 387
Deo 10 = Flsh Carrier No.2 aligned letter to Granger and
Farmers Brother Bp 387
Annex M
1812 con't
Dec 10 Letters from Fort Erie Bp 387
Dec 10 Lyttle Cayuga Ohlef fought for British Bp 387
Deg -- GounoLl Six Nations at Fort George Rp 36)
Oote
Nove
Dee
Canadian Indiena fought for British Bp 21
Payment refused of annuities Bp 25, 98, 394, 511, 516
-. $88, 863, B65
List of Sachems and Chiefs at Grand River Bp 971, 972
Tndien Neutrality - War 1812 Bp 5, 9, 16, 548, 135, 186,
vl 157, 158, 554, 960, 280
Proclamation of War By 137
Genadian Indians desire meeting with Bp 387, 899
Gounctl at Nyagara Bp 5, 9, 16, 156, 157, 158, 548,
554, 969 .
Indian hostilities Long preceded war Bp 853, 854, 970
Granger reports payment of ennuities Ap 319
Detroit Indian headquarters during war Ap 754 et seq.
Pive Nationa defense of Canada by Ap 970
Kickapooa friendly to Shawnee Frophert Ap 318
Merpeck suspected of forming ees Pottawatts
Ap $1
Michigan Indians during war Ap 755
Onondagas receive annuity Ap 519
Senecas said to be coming from upper Canada to join Sacs
or Shawnees Prophet Ap 519
Tecumseh arrives on Wabash Ap 317, 487, S22
Upper Canada movement of Senecas to Ap 319
a Indians from Six Nations to persuade Indians
to remain neutral Ap 320 7
Indians render assistance
Preparation for war 1812 in Ganadea Ap 460
British attitude toward war of Ap 564, 576
Winnebagoes friendly to Shawnee prophet Ap 318 :
" py Sketoon reported to ask peace with
Harrison Ap S22
byarlate Cayuge Chief kilied in, way Bp 208
Coughnawagas fought with British Rp 257
Cayentaterhou, Can, Gayuga killed Ry. 208
Enoldents of war of 1812 Rp 529-378
i w
1818 -
Beoumseh - cooperation with British Ap 466, 498
Letter Prevost to Bathurst Ap 465
Speech of President U.S. to Six Natlons By. 588
Letter Wyeaton to Sec. of State Ap 498
Letter to Tompkins Bp 388
Letter Granger to Allegheny Chiefs Ap 1146
Message Buffalo Greek Indiana to Grand River Indians Rp 562
Specch of Major Gens Vincent Bp 389
Letter Prostor to Rottenburg Ap 467
No Genadilan Seneca on Indian rilla ap 928
letter Harrison to Sec, of State Ap 482
ebetebPprgagnre
3
Jan
Jyne
duly
duly
July
doly
duly
July
July
July
July
duly
duly
July
July
duly
AU s
Sept
» 9 =~ British not to interfere with Ty
1815 con't Annex Ms
Canadian Indians unwlliing to fight Bp. 389
N.Y.Legialature confirms all agreemmts and treath s Bp 817
Norton cooperates with Tecumseh Ap 466
Retreat of Proctor Ap 467
Shawnee Prophet attached to Bpltish forces Ap 498
Roundhead cooperates with Tecumseh Ap 466
1014
i - Letter Gon. Proetor captured Ap 500
1l~ Instructions See. War to U.S.Coumissloner Tndian Ap 25
8- Aqdresa Harrison Ap. 327 (to Kickapoos) to Seneca Ap 327
8~ Mdress Harrison to Ottewas Ap 327
oO Wyandots Ap 327
&~ Journal of Proceedings of U.8.Commissioners Ap 526
9~ Address “Harrison Ap 331,
10- Address Cass to Kickapoos Ap 333
li- Aadvess Harrison Ap $36 to Kickapoos, to Senecas
Li~ Speeoh Pioon Miami Chief Ap 336
ll- Speech Tarhel Ap 335
il- Speceh Harrison to Wyandots Ap 324
16= Speech Wea, Mileml Chief Ay 337
22= Treaty with Wyandots Ap 586
22~ Treaty with Pottawatts Ap 615
22~ Treaty with Shawnee Ap 615
v~ « Speech Little Otter-Kickapoo Ohief Ap 339
12 = Answer Commissioner to See. of State Ap 502, 503, 506,
Sill, 514, 539, 542, 551
dtans within American
territory Ap 534
Oot. 10 ~ Letter Goulburn to Bathurst Ap 1190
Octe 10 = Prestdent to Jefferson Ap 553
Nove 12 ~ Letter President to Thompkina Ap 615 9 «
Nove 18 » Message President to Senate Ap 325
Dec. 1% ~ Letter President to Adams bp 570
Dec. 18 - Letter President to Karly Ap 616
Letter to Thompkinge Bp 390
Only American Indiens organiging Bp $90
British inatructions relative to boundary Ap 1177 ,1184
New York Legisleture = Res. in velation to British peare
terms - 1814 « Ap 615
Shawnee Prophet. Indiens agitated by Ap 328
Dyke of Wellington and ¢omuand of British forces in
America Ap 560-563
1828
Jan 16 + Lotter Goulburn to Norton Bp 978
Feb #2 = Letter Claus to Martin By 841
gen 7 ~ pees Lay to Mass. Legs Ap 616
» - iter President to Repub, members of Mass. Leg. Ape 6
ie bee ~ Negotiations of Clark ete. with Indians Ap balesio’? one
far -
Letter Prevost to Bathurst Ap ‘749
1815 con't
Annex Me
Mer 87 - Letter Sec. War to Gen, Mason Ap 623
Apr 84 »
Peace gouncil at Burlington Ap 365-374
Jyrmw le = Letter Worthington to Casa Ap 695
dune 14
dune 14-
June 14=
Jdyne 14~
duly li-
duly lee
duly 18
Aug 25
Aug B86
Aug 25
i
ae
S
2
ca
*
rj we ;
$26 2 ba bE te eg RE ata
Sept 9
Letter Sec. War to Gove of Misse Ap, 627
" H # Tenn »Ap 627
Letter of Sec. War to Supt. Ind. Arfetra Ap 627
" " ‘ Gov. Kye Ap» 627
Gouncstl Six Nations Mohawk village Ap 374-375
Letter Graham to Harrison Ap 69
Treaty with Plankeshaws Ap 64'7
Council Pire ot Spring Wella Ap 703 et seq
Speeoh Tarkee Ap 704
Speech Wyandets Ap 704
Letters to end from James Ap 695
Letter Maj. Barrack to Gens Harrison Ap 696
Letter to and from James Ap 697
Letter to and from James Ay 698
Indien ounell at Miegara Bp 860-863
Speech Harrison to Spawnee Prophet Ap 708
Speech Tarkee Ap '706
Sept. ~ Letters and addresses of Marrison Ap 689-725
Tndian Council at Niagara Bp 860-863
Red Jacket speech at Niagara Joint Council Bp 862
Treaty with Kyekapoo Ap 631, 656
Speech Pottawatt Prophet Ap 718
Speech Shawnee Prophot Ap 716.
Shawnee Prophet absents himself from coungil Ap 722
Speech Tarbue Ap 720
Speech Palen Ay TR4
Treaty with Mich. Indians Ap. 725
Spocch Pottewatt Ghief Ap 724
Shawnee Prophet goes to British territory Ap 7OL
letter Graham to Seo. War Ap. 700
Treaty with Senecas reported Ap "700
Bepts @ - Treaty with Wyandots Ap 700
Sept.12=
Septeli~
Sept. 13~
Sept.18-
Sept. 1a-
Nove 18
Dec. I~
Dece l-
Deo. le
Boece lH
Dec. Se
Dee. G~
Dec. 6+
Dec. le-
Dees 2l-
Treaty with Little Osages Ap.6G1, 657
N.Y.Troaty with Senecas Ap 1154
Treaty with Senckeys Ap 660
treaty with Osages Ap 651
Treaty with Sacs Ap 631
Morton to Goulburn Ap 964
Request British Govte to assume payment Bp 978
fetter Norton to Goulburn Bp 978
Letter Norton to Goulburn Ap 968
Norton proposes to place Indiana under protection of
Bra Ap 965
Message of Press dpe 729
Letter Norton to Goulburn Ap 968, 1058, 970
Norton asks for asylum for Senecas Ap 969
Letter Norton to Goulburn Ap»1038
Letter Norton to Yorreus Ap 1146
Bfforts to collect annuity Bp 19, 59, 60, 62, 70,
W1, 76, 90, 201, 207, R12, 254, L275, 282,
284, 286, 297, 209, 394
1815 con't ANNEX Me
Liat of Sachems and chiefs at Gpand River Bp. O42
Fish Oarrler Now2 living In Canada Bye 842
Letter Norton-Briteain's faithful Allies Ap 967
Letter Goulburn to Bathurst Ap 970
Norton proposes putting Chippewas under protection
Great Britain Ap 9665
Horton proposes putting Wyandots under protection
Great Britain Ap 965, 969
War Dept. Gorresp. <- Ap 621, 648
Norton on presents to Indians Ap 965, 967
Gacs-Hostile disposition of Ap. 628-656
1816
Jon 2 = Letter Goulburn to Norton Non payment no concern
of Br. Bp 278
Jan @- Letter Goulburn to Norton Ap 72, 970
Jan 6 ~ Letter Norton te Goulburn Ap 975, 970
Jan 6 Norton asks special confirmation Grand R» Grant Ap 973
Jan 12 ~ Letter Gore to Bathurst Ap 1045
Jen it~. * a Gleus Ap 751
Mar 15 ~ Letter Gore to DeWatteville Ap 755
Mar 15 + Treaty N.Y. and St-Ragis Ay 154
Merch~April ~ Message N.¥.Leg'ture action Ap Res
Mey 13 ~ Sacs treaty with Ap 668
May 13 « Senckeys treaty wit! Ap 668
July 19- Treaty with Sioux Ap. 650, 651
Sept.20 « Latter Sherbrooke to Bathurst Ap 754
pec. 87 « Gore to Bathurst Ap 1045
eenaiennnrtontanmscntenet
Fish Carrier No.@ wisited N.Y. Bpeld
Chippewas and Grand River lands Ap» 974
Goulburn states Canadian Inds.» fighting U.8. will
not have Bp. protection Ap 972
Goulburn presents to Canadian Indiana only Ap.» 754
1817
Jan $1 ~ Message N.Y.Govs to Log. Ap 225
Mar 31 ~ Letter Clark eto. to See. War Ap 642
Mareh, July, Ap 640-645
June 9 » Letter sm» Sec. Wer to Clarke Ap 643
dune 25= Treaty with Poneas Ap 661
Suly 1+ Letter Clark to Sets War Ap» 640
duly 1- Treaty with Poncarars Ap 641
1g1s
gen 23 ~ petition of Onondagas Ap 955
Peb.s-- = Petition of St.Regile to Gov. Ape 225, 224
Syne 20 ~ Treaty with Pawnees Ap 686, 687
1818 con't j Annex M
June 22 « Treaty with Pawmeos Ap 686, 687
July 9@ ~ Treaty with Pewnees Ap 686, 687
July 9 - Negotiations Clark etc. with Indians Ap 643
Auge 19 ~ Letter In removal of Sx Nations Ap 732
191.9.
Feb, 10 - Letter to dunt Bp 391
Pebs 15 = Letter MqKay to Bathurst Ap 755
Mareh ~ Indians propose to consult atty's
Couneil Six Nations, Gyand River Bp 863
BeP. says no help on annuities. Bp 864865
1820,
Council, Six Nations Bp.865 Ancaster
Mer. 6 ‘Treaty N,Y,Senecaa Ap.1155
yeea
Feb. 82 ~ Letter Maitland to Bathurat Bp 866-868
Bebe =~ ~ Grand River lands Bp. 866, 869
apes : ” ed Brandt to Bathurst Ap 1046
opt. ~ Kerr's statement regarding Fave Nations Ap 10:
Sept.» 6 - Letter Kerr to Brandt Ip eLOas p 1049
ne powor of Att'y from Pive Nations to Kerr» Ap 1046
ADE « ”
1822
Apes 8 » Letter Lee to Sec. War Ap» 745
duly 26 » Letter Parrish from Savage Bp 590
1328
May 16 -
dyne 12~
July Sl~
De@s 14~
BY»
© uge4- | ; Annex M
Treaty N.¥.St»Regis Rps 153
Treaty N.Y. SpsRegis Rp. 159
Letter-Martin to Cyaus- Bp 875
Treaty N.Y. + SteRegis Rp. 161
1825
Jeane 25 ~ Gove Clinton to Glaus Bp 876
Jane ~- ~ Oneida Indians make claim By 876
Apr. 20 = Letter Maitland to Glaus Bp 876-877
dine 4 Parrish to Comptroller of §.Ye Bp 825
Sept.25 ~ Treaty N.Y. St.Regis Rp. 163
Auge 3 =
Marelli +
Lend claimed by Gayuga's Ap 748
Fort George Council Ry 210
Young Clear Sky takes Wampam from Can. Rp.213-215
1827
1828
geo
Letter of Cole to Van Buren Bp 342
Cayugas to Gov. of N.¥.Bp 3421
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0