OLIN 
 
 E 
 
 99 
 
 .S3 
 
 U58 
 
 1915 
 
Huntington Free Library 
 
 Native American 
 Collection 
 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 LIBRARY 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBHARY 
 
 3 1924 101 546 939 
 
2 SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YOEK- 
 
 ■ A BILL Authorizing tlie allotment in severalty oJ Indian lands in New Yorii State, and for other 
 
 purposes. 
 
 .* Be it enacted by the Senate and Eouse of Representatives of the United, States ofArrwrwa 
 in Congress assembled, That the Attorney General be, and he hereby is, authorized 
 and directed to institute such suit or suiits as may be necessary in, the Federal courts 
 of the United States to test the validity and extent of the claim of the so-called Ogden 
 Land Company in and to the lands embraced within any of the Indian reservations 
 in the State of New York. 
 
 Sec. 2. That the Seneca Nation, being a corporate body under the laws of the 
 State of New York, by appropriate resolution, agreed to by a majority of the mem- 
 bers of the corporate body, on which resolution all the adult members, both niale 
 and female, of the Seneca Nation shall have the right to vote, may consent to a divi- 
 sion of their lands in severalty and may authorize the president of the Seneca Nation 
 to execute tribal or corporate deeds for particular tracts of land to individual mem- 
 bers of the tribe, as hereinafter provided, said deeds to be signed by the president 
 of said Seneca Nation, attested to under the seal of the corporate body by the secre- 
 tary of said nation, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 Sec. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior be, and he hereby is, authorized to 
 appoint a commission consisting of three members, one of whom shall represent the 
 Interior Department, one the Seneca Nation of Indians, and the third to represent 
 the State of New York, to be designated by the governor of said State, subject to 
 approval by the Secretary of the Interior. The commission so appointed shall con- 
 stitute a board for the purpose of appraising,- dividing, and allotting in ^severalty the 
 surface of the lands of the Seneca Indians in New York, which division or allotment 
 shall be based on an average value of the allottable lands, to be ascertained by dividing 
 the total number of members of the tribe entitled to allotment into the total value of 
 the surface of the tribal lands of the Seneca Nation subject to allotment, as herein- 
 after provided. The improvements on any of said allottable lands placed thereon 
 by individual members of said nation entitled to allotment, or otherwise owned by 
 them, shall not be included in any appraisement authorized hereby, nor shall the 
 oil, gas, limestone, or similar deposits of a metalliferous or nonmetalliferous nature 
 be included in said appraisement, such deposits being hereby reseryed for the benefit 
 of the tribe at large and subject to Jease for their benefit, as now provided by law. 
 Any and all lands heretofore occupied by or used in connection with any school, 
 church, missionary, religious, cemetery, administrative , or other tribal or govern- 
 mental purposes shall not be appraised, but all of such lands are hereby specifically 
 reserved from allotment hereunder. Such additional land as in the judgment of the 
 commission may reasonably be needed for future use for school, church, missionary, 
 religious, cemetery, administrative, or other tribal or governmental purposes shall 
 not be included in the appraisement provided for hereinj and the Secretary of the 
 Interior is hereby authorized to withhold such land from allotment or other dispo- 
 sition. The lands included in the villages of Vandalia, CarroUton, Great Valley, 
 Salamanca, West Salamanca, and Red House, the establishment of which was had 
 under the act of February nineteenth, eighteen hundred and seventy-five (Eighteenth 
 Statutes at Large, page three hundred and thirty), or any other legally constituted 
 village or town shall not be included in said appraisement. The members of said 
 commission shall be paid a salary of $10 per day each while actually and necessarily 
 employed, and in addition thereto shall be allowed their actual necessary traveling 
 expenses, including sleeping-car fare, but exclusive of subsistence. Said commis- 
 sion, by and with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and at such compen- 
 sation as may be fixed by him, may employ such clerks, surveyors, timber cruisers, 
 or other assistants as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. , 
 
 Sec 4. That the commission authorized to be created hereby shall prepare, or 
 cause to be prepared, a roll, subject to approval by the Secretary of the Interior, 
 showing the membership of the Seneca Indians in the State of New York entitled 
 to share in the distribution of the tribal or corporate assets, and on completion of the 
 appraisement and ascertainment of the standard value of an allotment or each mem- 
 ber's share thereof, such commission shall proceed to allot ia severalty to the indi- 
 vidual members of such nation such tract or tracts of land within the Allegany and 
 Cattaraugus Reservations in said State as may be cultivated,»impfoved, occupied, 
 or selected by such individual members, in such areas, however, as not to exceed the 
 standard value of an allotment. Selections for minor children shall be made by 
 their parents, and selections for orphans shall be made by the commission to be 
 appointed hereunder. No person who is not in being at the time of allotment by the 
 commission shall be given an assignment of land. 
 
 Sec. 5. That individual members of the Seneca Tribe desiring to acquire more land 
 than represented by the standard value of an allotment as fixed by said commission 
 
SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OP NEW YOEK. 3 
 
 * 
 
 may, with the conBent of the Secretary of the Interior and under such rules and 
 regulations as he may prescribe, purchase "allotment rights" from other members of 
 the band desiring to sell. All moneys received from the sale of such rights shall be 
 deposited in some suitable bank or banks to the credit of the party selling such rights 
 and shall be subject to all the rules and regulations governing the handliug of indi- 
 vidual Indian money. The commission created hereby shall keep a complete record 
 of all such sales and shall procure from the individuals selling such "allotment rights" 
 an acknowledgment in proper forin that the sale thereby made is a full and complete 
 extiaguishnient of the right of the person therein named to share in the lands of the 
 Seneca Nation, except such as may be otherwise reserved under the provisions of 
 this act. 
 
 Sec. 6. That the Secretary of the Interior shall cause to be prepared and furnished 
 for use of the commission a form of tribal or corporate deed which, in addition to 
 reciting the claim or preemption right of the so-called Ogden Land Company (should 
 such claim be recognized by the courts), shall further recite the retention in the tribe 
 at la,rge of the oil, gas, limestone, and other deposits of a similar nature as provided in 
 section three hereof. Such deeds shall also recite that the lands thereby allotted shall 
 not be subject to lease, sale, mortgage, alienation, taxation, or any other encumbrance 
 for a period of twenty-five years from the date thereof without the consent of the 
 Secretary of the Interior, as hereinafter provided. After approval of the tribal or 
 corporate deeds as herein provided the individual allottees of the Seneca Band may 
 lease their allotments made hereunder for a term of not exceeding ten years for agri- 
 cultural or grazing poirposes, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the 
 Interior may prescribe. 
 
 Sec. 7. That during the twenty-five-year trust period the land of any individual 
 allottee, with the consent of such allottee, or his heirs in case of death, may again be 
 appraised and offered for sale under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the 
 Interior may prescribe. If it should be found by the courts that the Ogden Land 
 Company, so called, has a preference right to purchase the lands of the Indians of the 
 Seneca Nation, such individual allotments as may be offered for sale hereunder shall 
 be so offered as to give the said Ogden Land Company, its successors or assigns, a period 
 of ninety days within which to exercise its preference right to first purchase. Shoald 
 such right not be exercised by said company, its successors or assigns, during such 
 ninety-day period the right of such company, its successors or assigns, to first purchase 
 shall thereby and thereupon become forfeited, and the lands so offered tor sale may 
 be sold to the highest and best bidder. 
 
 Sec. 8. That upon. approval by tne Secretary of the Interior of the tribal or cor- 
 porate deeds in severalty as herein provided the pateiitees named therein shall 
 thereby become citizens of the United States and amenable to the laws of the United 
 States and of the State or Territory where such allottees may then reside. 
 
 Sec. 9. That all of the lands in any and all of the Indian reservations in the State 
 of New York are hereby declared to be " Indian country " within the meaning of the 
 act of June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and thirty-four (Fourth Statutes at Large, page 
 seven hundred and twenty-nine), and all the laws of the United States prohibiting 
 the introduction of intoxicants into the Indian country are hereby extended over 
 and shah apply to all Indian lands in the State of New York until otherwise provided 
 by Congress. 
 
 Sec 10. That the provisions of this act, as far as applicable, shall extend to any 
 and all of the other Indians and reservations in the State of New York. 
 
 Sec. 11. That there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury of 
 the United States not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $75,000 to enable the Attorney 
 General and the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the provisions of this act. 
 
 Department of Justice, 
 Washington, D. C, September S8, 1914. 
 Hon. John H. Stephens, 
 
 Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs, 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 
 
 16th instant, inclosing a copy of H. R. 18735, entitled "A bill 
 
 authorizing the allotment in severalty of Indian lands in New York 
 
 State, and for other purposes." I lack the information necessary 
 
4 SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YOEK. 
 t 
 
 to enable me to make any practical suggestions concerning the 
 New York Indians and their affairs and the practical need of such a 
 measure as this for the amelioration of their condition. Suggestions 
 in these regards will come to you, I presume, from the Seci'etary of 
 the Interior. Neither am I apprised of the nature of the claim of the 
 Ogden Land Co., which is mentioned in the first section and elsewhere 
 in the bOl. 
 
 Advising you first that my understanding of the biU and its pur- 
 poses is derived wholly from the bUl itself, I would say that I see no 
 objection to it other than the following: 
 
 1. While the bill does not say so expressly, I assume that the 
 Secretary of the Interior, in carrying it out, would be expected to 
 defer the appointment of the commission mentioned in section 3 
 until after the claim of the Ogden Land Co., whatever it may, had 
 been finally adjudicated. Section 6 provides that the deeds hereafter 
 to be delivered to , the aUotees by the commission shall recite the 
 existence of that claim if "recognized by the courts." It can not 
 well be the intention to appoint the commission possibly years before 
 the final adjudication can be accomplished, and therefore I take it 
 for granted that the appointment should not take place until after 
 the claim of the Ogden Land Co. had been passed upon by the highest 
 appellate court to which it could go (doubtless the Supreme Court of 
 the United States) in the case contemplated by section 1, unless 
 possibly, the Attorney General, upon being defeated by the compairy 
 in a lower court, should conclude to abandon the litigation there. It 
 may be that your committee could inake the biU more definite here. 
 
 2. It has been suggested to me that the provision in section 4 that 
 "no person who is not in being at the time of allotment by the com- 
 mission shall be given an assignment of land" may cause trouble. 
 The process of allotment may continue through a considerable period 
 of time and new members of the tribe may be born during the period. 
 It would be well, I think, to provide affirmatively that when the roll 
 mentioned in section 4 shall nave been prepared by the commissio'n 
 and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, it shall be deemed 
 final and conclusive upon the right to allotment in so far as any 
 children born thereafter may be concerned. 
 
 3. Section 5 allows individual members to buy the allotment rights 
 of other members "with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior 
 and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe." This 
 provision, as far as I laiow, is not found in any allotment act hereto- 
 fore passed. A mere novelty, however, is no objection. The prin- 
 cipal things to be guarded against in all legislation of this sort are 
 improvidence and overreaching. As, in this instance, the transac- 
 tions contemplated are only permissible with the consent of the 
 Secretary of the Interior and under his rules and regulations, I have 
 no criticism to make upon this part of the bill save that it may 
 involve undue complexities of administration. 
 
 4. Section 6 allows conveyance of allotted lands by the allottees 
 after 25 years from the dates of the tribal deeds. Restraints of this 
 sort are attached to allotments upOn the theory that the allottees 
 are incapable of managing their own affairs. While it has been 
 customary to name a definite date after which the allottees may 
 convey, I submit that experience has demonstrated the foUy of 
 assuming in this manner that the average Indian, incompetent 
 
SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, PIVB NATIONS OF NEW YORK. 5 
 
 to-day, win become competent within any; period arbitrarily fixed. 
 On the contrary, it is safe to assume that the average adult who 
 is not competent now will never become competent as long as he 
 lives to safeguard his own interests. Consequently these legislative 
 presumptions of competency not only fly in the face of weU-knOwn 
 facts, but, it seems to me (and I make the suggestion with much 
 deference), are indulged in with too much regard for the idea of 
 getting rid of the Indian and developing his property and too little 
 regard for protecting and developing the Indian himself. I would 
 advise, therefore, that instead of fixing a definite period, as is done 
 in section 6, the section be amended to declare that none of the 
 lands allotted shall be subject to taxation or to any form of eliena- 
 tion, encumbrance, or lease, while in the ownership of the allottees 
 or their heirs, except in respect of such persons as the Secretary of 
 the Interior, upon special inquiry, shall have adjudged to be com- 
 petent to manage their own affairs. 
 
 In line with this suggestion it seems to me that the 10-year period 
 of lease authorized in the last sentence of section 6 is probably too 
 
 5. The use of the expression "trust period" in section 7 may be 
 objectionable from a technical standpoint. If the tribe owns the fee 
 there is, properly speaking, no trust affecting the allottees' title 
 under the tribal deeds other than the general power of guardianship 
 residing in the Government. I assume that the tribe does own the 
 fee; but if the fee be in the United States, then I would suggest the 
 propriety of some provision whereby that title may be conveyed when 
 the time comes for the removal of all restrictions. 
 
 6. Section 8 provides that upon approval of the tribal deeds the 
 patentees named therein shall become citizens of the United States 
 and amendable to the laws of the United States and of the State or 
 Territory where they may then reside. Provisions like this, par- 
 ticularly the declaration subjecting the individual to the laws of the 
 State, are constantly being revoked in the courts as an obstacle to 
 the power of the Government to protect the incompetent Indian by 
 legislation or by Htigation instituted in his behalf. Out of abundant 
 caution, therefore, I would suggest the insertion at the end of section 
 8 of the following proviso: "Provided, That the protective powers of 
 the Government of the United States in respect of the said Indians 
 and their property shall not be affected thereby." 
 
 A declaration of this sort, though not, in my opinion, necessary, 
 may serve to forestall much useless litigation and controversy. 
 For the Attorney General. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 Ernest Knaebel, 
 Assistant Attorney General. 
 
 Mr. Clancy, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the following report 
 (to accompany H. E. 18735): ' 
 
 "The Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 18735) 
 authorizing the allotment in severalty of Indian lands in New York State, and, for 
 other purposes, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation 
 that the bill be amended as proposed by the Department of Justice and the Depart- 
 ment of the Interior and be given further consideration by the whole committee. 
 
6 SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OP NEW TOBK. 
 
 "The legislation proposed in tliis bill is of such vast importance to the Indians of 
 New York State, which has an Indian population greater than any other State east 
 of the Mississippi River, that it should receive the very careful attention, not only 
 of the entire committee but of Congress, and in order that this subject may be thor- 
 oughly understood by those interested attention is called to the very complete report 
 of the Office of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, as to the whole New York 
 State Indian situation, which follows: 
 
 "J. R. Clancy. 
 
 "Denver S. Chuboh. 
 
 "0. M. Hamilton." 
 
 The Lake Mohonk conference on the Indian and other dependent peoples have 
 had for some years a committee on New York State Indians, which at their conference 
 on October 14, 15, 16, 1914, reported as follows; 
 
 "Your committee rejoices that in the further advancement of this work a bill was 
 introduced into the House of Representatives on September 10, by Mr. Clancy, of 
 New York, known as bill No. 18735, granting authority to the Attorney General of 
 the United States to institute the necessary suit or suits in the case, providing for 
 the appointment of a commission to appraise the Indian lands and to divide and allot 
 them in severalty, and making the Indians thereafter citizens of the United States 
 and subject to the laws of the State of New York. Your committee recommends that 
 the conference express its approval of the action of the board of Indian commission- 
 ers and of the general plan of the House of Representatives bill referred to and that 
 the committee of the conference on the New York Indians be discharged. 
 "For the committee. 
 
 "James Wood, Chairman. 
 "John J. Fitzgerald. 
 "Charles E. Lpttlefield. 
 "Regis H. Post. 
 "Daniel Smiley." 
 
 The report presented by Mr. Wood was accepted by the conference, and the com- 
 mittee on New York Indians discharged with thanks for its services. 
 
 Department of the Interior, 
 
 Washington, January 22, 1915. 
 Hon. John H- Stephens, , 
 
 Ghairman Committee on Indian Affairs, 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 My Dear Mr. Stephens : Reference is again made to your letter of 
 September 16, 1914, transmitting a copy of H. R. 18735, providing 
 for an allotment in severalty of the Indian lands in the State of New 
 York. 
 
 Section 1 is designed to confer authority on the Attorney General 
 to institute proceedings to test the vahdity and extent of the claim of 
 the so-caUed Ogden Land Co. in and to the lands embraced within 
 any of the Indian reservations in the State of New York, while the 
 remainder of the bill contemplates an allotment in severalty of these 
 lands as they now stand by making the tracts of individual allottees 
 still subject to the claim of the company, if any such exists. 
 
 It is not deemed necessary here to go into an extensive resum6 of 
 the history of the claim of the so-called Ogden Land Co., as this matter 
 has previously been before the Congress in various forms. (See 
 Senate Executive Document No. 52, Fifty-third Congress, third ses- 
 sion, and Senate Executive Document No. 154, Fifty-fourth Congress, 
 second session; also hearings on House bill 1270, Fifty-seventh Con- 
 gress, and House bill 7262, Fifty-eighth Congress.) 
 
SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, EIVE NATIONS OF NEW YOBK, 7 
 
 For the information of your committee, however, it may be briefly 
 stated that the Indian reservations in New York consist of the 
 following : 
 
 The Allegany Reservation, lying in Cattaraugus County, embracing 30,469 acres, 
 ■with, an Indian population of about 923. 
 
 The Cattaraugus Reservation, lying mainly in Erie County with a small part falling 
 also in the counties of Chautauqua and Cattaraugus, embracing an area of 21,680 acres, 
 with an Indian population of 1,291. 
 
 The Oil Spring Reservation, containing 640 acres, lying partly within Allegany and 
 partly in Cattaraugus Counties. 
 
 The three reservations above mentioned all belong to the Seneca Indians. 
 
 The Tuscarora Reservation, embracing 6,249 acres, lies within Niagara County and 
 has an Indian population of 460. 
 
 The Tonawanda Reservation, containing 7,549 acres, with an Indian population of 
 489 members, lies partly in Erie, Genesee, and Niagara Counties. 
 
 The Onondaga Reservation, embracing 6,100 acres, with an Indian population of 
 541, lies in Onondaga County, about 5 miles south of the city of Sjrracuse. 
 
 The St. Regis Reservation, embracing 14,640 acres, lies in St. Lawrence and Frank- 
 lin Counties, and has an Indian population on the American side of some 1,400 mem- 
 bers. The Canadian Government has also provided a reservation for the St. Regis 
 Indians, embracing some 12,000 acres, which adjoins the reservation in New York 
 along the international boundary. The tribe is about evenly divided in population 
 on the American and Canadian sides. 
 
 The Shinnecock Reservaticn on Long Island embraces but 450 acres, with an 
 Indian population of about 400. 
 
 The claim of the so-called Ogden Land Co. covers only the Alle- 
 gany and Cattaraugus Reservations and 1,920 acres of the Tuscarora 
 Reserve, and its origia antedates the Federal Constitution. Shortly 
 after the close of the Revolutionary War a dispute arose between the 
 colonies of Massachusetts and New York over certain territory now 
 embraced in the western part of the latter State, under conflictiag 
 grants or charters from the British Crown. The dispute was first 
 submitted to the Continental Congress and a court was appointed 
 to try and determine the cause, ft was settled amicably, however, 
 between the two States by convention December 16, 1786. A com- 
 pact was drawn under which New York retained the right of govern- 
 ment, sovereignty, and jurisdiction, but ceded to MassaAusetts the 
 right of preemption from the native Indians and such other right 
 as the State of New York had. By a separate article in the compact 
 Massachusetts was empowered to seU, assign, or otherwise convey 
 such title as she derived. This the State of Massachusetts promptly 
 
 Proceeded to do, and the territory in which the Allegany, Cattaraugus, 
 'uscarora, and Tonawanda Reservations is located was sold by Massa- 
 chusetts to Robert Morris in 1791. Several mesne conveyances 
 transpired until we find the present claimant to be the Ogden Land 
 Co., so called, which, however, is not incorporated. 
 
 Whatever claim the company had in and to the lands embraced 
 within the Tonawanda Reservation was effectually extinguished by 
 payment of the sum of $100,000 in accordance with the appropriation 
 made and authority conferred by article 3 of the treaty with the 
 Tonawanda Indians dated November 5, 1857 (11 Stats., 735). The 
 Tuscarora Indians, who at one time lived in North Carolina, sold their 
 lands in. that State about the year 1800, realizing therefrom approxi- 
 mately $15,000. This money was deposited with the United States 
 in trust, and in 1804 Congress authorized the Secretary of War to 
 purchase additional land for these Indians. With this money, 4,329 
 acres lying to the south and east of 1,920 acres which had previously 
 
8 SBBTECAS AND OTHER INDIANS^ FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YOBK. 
 
 been given to them by the Seneca Indians and the Holland Land Co. 
 were purchased from the latter company, which effectually extin- 
 guished the preemptive right against these 4,329 acres within the 
 reservation. The Holland Land Co. was the predecessor of the 
 present claimant, the Ogden Land Co. 
 
 Much doubt seems to exist even among the courts, if conclusion 
 can be reached from the decisions handed down, as to the exact 
 nature of the claim of the Ogden Land Co. ; many decisions holding 
 in effect that the title acquired by the oompany through purchase 
 from the State of Massachusetts is an "ultimate fee," an "absolute 
 fee," a "naked fee," a "qualified fee," etc. Other decisions tend to 
 hold that the only right acquired by purchase from Massachusetts 
 was simply the right of preemption, or a first right to purchase when 
 the Indians agreed to sell. Persons whose opinions are not without 
 weight have even suggested that the company has no valid claim 
 against these lands, basiag their opinion on the ground that New 
 York had no power to sell to Massachusetts nor Massachusetts to 
 convey to its assignees. Be this as it may, we find that the claim has 
 stood and been recognized repeatedly by the courts, both of the 
 State and of the Nation, and it is not seen how the validity of the 
 claim, whatever may be its nature, can well be denied at this late 
 date. The courts of both the Nation and the State have also re- 
 peatedly denied the right or power of the claimant company in any 
 way to interfere with the right of possession by the Indians, and for 
 practical piu-poses the claim of the company is valueless in so far as 
 the production of annual revenue is concerned. 
 
 When last approached on the question of disposing of their claim 
 representatives of the company placed what was regarded as a ficti- 
 tious value thereon. (H. Doc. 309, 54th Cong., 2d sess., and hear- 
 ings on H. E. 12270, 57th Cong., and H. R. 7262, 58th Cong.) Some 
 effective method of disposing of the claim, however, is desirable, in 
 order that the objects designed to be accomplished by sections 2 to 
 11 of H. R. 18735 may be worked out. 
 
 The department is not prepared to state whether the plan sug- 
 gested in sections 2 to 11 of the bill is feasible, but in connection there- 
 with invites attention to a decision by the Supreme Court of the State 
 of New York in the case of the Seneca Nation of Indians against 
 Charles E. Appleby, surviving trustee of the Ogden Land Co., which 
 decision will be found reported in 127 appellate division (New York 
 reports), page 770. In its decision in that case the court, through 
 Judge Spring, used the following language : 
 
 _ The affirmance of the judgment (of the lower court) does not establish the propo- 
 sition that if the plaintiff becomes disintegrated that the defendant's title -will vest 
 in possession at once. Allotment among the individual Indians by the plaintiff has 
 been permitted for a considerable period by the National Government. Inheritance 
 is allowed in accordance with the statutes of the State of New York, and conveyances 
 amongst the Indians are also allowed. It may well be held that even though the 
 nation in its tribal capacity should be dissolved, if the individual Indian holds his 
 land by virtue of this recognized method of allotment, that the occupancy will con- 
 tinue to his remote descendant. 
 
 The case was appealed by the Indians and the appellate court in 
 its decision dismissed the entire proceedings on the ground that the 
 Indians were without power to sue and that the courts of the State 
 had not been authorized to hear and determine the case. (196 New 
 York Supreme Court Reports, 318.) 
 
SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YORK, 9 
 
 (Should the courts find room to hold that the lands within these 
 reservations covered by the claim of the Ogden Land Co. can be al- 
 lotted in severalty without a vesting of the right of that company to 
 immediate possession it would appear the most feasible solution of 
 the difficulty, in so far as the adjustment of the claims of that com- 
 pany is concerned, but since the introduction of the bill (H. R. 18735) 
 a representative of the Indian Office has visited the reservations in 
 that State with a view of ascertaining present conditions there. It 
 is found that as a matter of fact practically all of the lands within 
 the various Indian reservations in that State have already been al- 
 lotted in severalty or divided among the tribal members many years 
 ago under State laws by the tribal organizations, and that there is 
 practically no surplus tribal or communal land available for further 
 allotment at this time or for distribution to those younger members 
 of the tribe who are now without land. The tribal division so made 
 has been recognized by the tribal organizations, by the membership 
 at large, and^by the courts of the State, until any disturbance of the 
 present claimant would result in great dissatisfaction and no doubt 
 m many cases gross injustice. 
 
 Some of the shrewd, far-sighted members of the tribes, by inherit- 
 ance, by purchase from other members or otherwise, have acquired 
 holdings largely in excess of a pro rata division of these lands among 
 the present tribal membership. These holdings in a large number of 
 cases have been improved with modern homes, excellent barns, and 
 equipped with up-to-date farming implements. Where the title thus 
 acquired has been by inheritance or by purchase it would hardly be 
 just to deprive the present holders of any part of their lands without 
 just compensation therefor. It should be understood, of course, that 
 these people are without power to ahenate their lands to persons other 
 than members of the tribe, but sales have taken place between mem- 
 bers of the same tribe, in many cases evidenced bj' deeds placed 
 of record in the proper coimty, and these transfers and sales have 
 been taking place practically for the last 25 years. 
 
 On the other hand, there is a great need for some feasible solution 
 of the problem. Congress by treaty with these Indians has guaran- 
 teed them peaceful possession of the soil (treaty of Nov. 11, 1794, 
 7 Stats., 44), and the Supreme Court of the United States has denied 
 the State the right to tax their lands. (The New York Indians, 5 
 Wall., 761). The State, therefore, is powerless to compel an ad- 
 justment of the situation, has been denied the right to tax, and 
 can take no steps to make these lands subject to taxation without 
 the assent of the Federal Government, yet the State has been under 
 the burden of providing these people with adequate school facilities, 
 maintaining highways over their reservations, and such police super- 
 vision as has been exercised over these people which has oeen greatly 
 deficient. The "Indian population" m New York, recognized as 
 members of the various tribes there, exceeds 5,000, but it has been 
 found on investigation that the number of full bloods among these 
 people is very limited, with possibly even less than 500 half bloods 
 in tne entire State, and so many so-caUed "Indians" with such a 
 large percentage of white blood that only the closest scrutiny would 
 disclose any Indian characteristics. 
 
 These people are fully equipped from an educational, civilization, 
 or financial standpoint to stand upon their own feet. They should 
 
10 SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YORK. 
 
 have been made citizens by allotment in severalty and the dissolution 
 of tribal organizations years ago. There is great need, therefore, 
 of some workable plan by which this end can be reached, but the 
 limited information as to present conditions on these reservations 
 acquired by the brief examination heretofore made does not place 
 the department in a position to suggest the most feasible course to 
 pursue. -A detailed survey of each reservation would be necessary 
 in order to ascertain the present claimant or holder of each acre 
 therein, the manner in which title was acquired, the number of 
 Indians without land and their right to membership in the tribes, 
 etc., before any just solution could be offered. Doubtless the con- 
 ditions on the different reservations would be found so far at vari- 
 ance that one bill designed to fit conditions on all reservations could 
 not well be formulated. Each reservation should be made the sub- 
 ject of a separate investigation and special study with a view of sug- 
 gesting some feasible course to pursue with reference to the conditions 
 on that particular reserve. 
 
 Again, an extinguishment of the claim of the Ogden Land Co. or 
 a final decision by the courts on the exact extent and nature of that 
 claim appears necessary before further procedure can well be had. 
 With this idea in view it may prove advisable to eliminate sections 
 2 to 11, inclusive, of the biQ, which would enable the Department of 
 Justice to bring about an authoritative determination of the matter. 
 By letter dated September 28, 1914, the Department of Justice sub- 
 mitted to you a report on the bill, but did not raise any specific objec- 
 tion to section 1 . It is presumed, therefore, that that department has 
 no objection to offer to the procedure outlined in this section of the 
 
 As it is understood that the Indians are uniformly opposed to the 
 disturbance of present conditions and that the provisions of H. R. 
 18735, found in sections 2 to 11, inclusive, do not accord with concii- 
 tions on the various reservations in the State of New York, it is 
 respectfully recommended that these sections be eliminated from the 
 biU and section 1 be amended by striking out the period after the 
 word "York," in line 8, and adding thereto the following: 
 
 twLth the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States by either party 
 ^o the proceedinga, and jurisdiction is hereby conferred on such courts to hear and 
 etermine the cause. 
 
 There should also be a provision appropriating sufficient money to 
 enable the Department of Justice to carry out the provisions of the 
 law, but I am not sufficiently advised in the premises to offer a sug- 
 gestion as to the specific amount. 
 
 For the further information bf your committee I am inclosing a 
 copy of a report by the representative of the Indian Office detailed 
 to investigate cond.itions on the Indian reservations in the State of 
 New York; also copy of a petition signed by a number of Tuscarora 
 Indians, protesting against the passage of the bill, which petition was 
 received by the Indian Office on January 12, 1915. 
 Cordially, 
 
 Franklin K. Lane. 
 
SENEGAS AND 0T;HEE. INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OP NEW YOEK. 11 
 
 WAsmNGTON, D. C, December ^6, 1914. 
 The honorable the Commissioner op Indian Affairs. 
 
 .Sir: Assistant Commissioner Meritt, being firmly impressed with the necessity of 
 taking some definite action looking to an effective solution of the New York Indian 
 problem, instructed me orally in the early fall of 1913 "to get to the bottom of it," if 
 possible. Later you authorized me in writing to visit the several reservations in that 
 State so as to present existing conditions there. The question has proven of great 
 interest and increasing importance as the investigation progressed. Mr. Meritt' s con- 
 viction "that something should be done" is undoubtedly correct, as the facts herein- 
 after presented will show. Present conditions on these reservations are so directly 
 traceable to the time when this country was first occupied by the Europeans that a 
 brief recourse to colonial histoiy is essential. 
 
 Early cgjonists in what is now western New York found the country more or less 
 densely populated by aborigines of various tribes, principally the Senecas, Cayugas, 
 Onondagas, Oneidas, and Mohawks. These five tribes or nations were united in a 
 common league, known among themselves as Ho-de-no-sau-nee, but generally desig- 
 nated by the whites as "Iroquois," and were much feared during the early days. In 
 the Iroquois council the Onondagas, as the founders of the league, kept the central 
 fire; the Mohawks guarded the eastern portal, and the Senecas the western. The 
 Oneidas were stationed between the central fire and the east, while the Cayugas occu- 
 pied a similar position in the west. One can but pause to wonder if exploration into 
 ancient traditions of these people would not disclose an organization bordering strongly 
 on free masonr^. 
 
 About 1710 the Tuscaroras, then hving in North Carolina, became involved in 
 quarrels with white settlers and adjoining Indian tribes there. Having been severely 
 defeated in battle they migrated to New York and were formally united with the 
 five tribes just mentioned, thus making the Six Nations of New York, by which name 
 these Indians are now most commonly known. At the period of its greatest strength — 
 the latter part of the seventeenth century — the Iroquois league numbered 15,000 
 souls, and even to this day the union still continues to some extent, although its com- 
 ponent membership as to tribes has materially changed. ' 
 
 With the exception of the Oneidas and a part of the Tuscaroras, these Indians 
 sided with the mother country in the Revolution and were left unmentioned and 
 unprovided for in the treaty of peace between Great Britain and the confederated 
 Colonies. Naturally considerable unrest existed among them at the close of the 
 Revolution, due to the fact that in the main they had sided with the losing, party 
 in that great struggle. The Mohawks moved to Canada and settled on lands pro- 
 vided for them by the British Government, where a remnant of this tribe still lives. 
 By treaty the Mohawks ceded to the State whatever title they had to any land in 
 New York, and subsequently the St. Regis Indians were formally adopted by the 
 Six Nations in place of the Mohawks. 
 
 The Cayugas also sold their land to the State and gradually migrated westward, 
 locating first in the Ohio Valley, but finally removing to the Indian Territory and 
 becoming affiliated with other tribes there. A few Cayugas, still remain in New 
 York, residing principally with the Senecas and Tonawandas — the latter an offspring 
 of the Seneca Tribe — being frequently designated "The Tonawanda Band of Seneca 
 Indians." The State paid the Cajugas at the rate of 4 sMllings per acre and there- 
 after sold the land for 16 shillings per acre. About 1853 representatives of the tribe 
 began to petition the State for the difference in price between the one paid to them 
 and that received by the State. Finally, in 1909, the legislative assembly author- 
 ized the land commissioner to adjust and settle the claim of the Cayuga Indians 
 against the State for a sum not exceeding $297,131.20, with an additional allowance 
 of $27,131.20 for legal expenses incurred. 
 
 The Oneidas also, by various treaties, sold all of their land, except about 350 acres, 
 to the State, and removed to the reservation in Wisconsin procured from the Menom- 
 iaees by treaty with the Federal Government. The 350 acres in New York belonging 
 to the Oneidas have long since been divided in severalty under State laws, and as a 
 tribe these Indians are Imown no more in that State. Six tribes still remain in New 
 York, to be regarded as of any importance at this time, viz, the Senecas, Tonowandas, 
 Tuscaroras, Onondagas, St. Regis, and Shinnecocks, the latte;', however, never having 
 formed a unit in the Six Nations, although at one time they did pay tribute to the 
 Mohawks. A brief statement as to the status of the lands in each reservation is here 
 presented in order that a clearer understanding of the matter may be reached. 
 
 The Allegany Reservation, claimed by the Senecas, contains 30,469 acres, and is 
 located on both sides of the Allegany River in Cattaraugus County, N. Y. It is 
 
12 SEN^ECAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YOBK. 
 
 about 40 miles long and averages from 1 to 3 miles in width. It is a part of the 
 area specifically reserved to the Seneca Indians in the treaty with Robert Morris at 
 "Big Tree" September 17, 1797. This entire reservation is subject to the "preemp- 
 tion right" or "claim" of the Ogden Land Co., to which reference is hereinafter more 
 fully made. 
 
 The Cattaraugus Reservation contains 21,680 acres, located principally in Erie 
 County, a small part lying in each of the counties of Cattaraugus and Chautauqua. 
 This reservation was conveyed to the Seneca Indians by Wilhelm Willnick, et al., 
 predecessors of the Ogden Land Co., by agreement dated June 30, 1802 (7 Stats., 70), 
 in return for which the Seneca Indians surrendered to the company certain other lands 
 which had been reserved to them by the treaty at Big Tree. This reservation is also 
 subject to the preemption right of the Ogden Land Co., such right being specifically 
 retained in the agreement referred to. 
 
 The Oil Spring Reservation, located partly in Allegany and partly in Cattaraugus 
 Counties, contains only 640 acres. Its name is derived from a muddy pool, about 20 
 feet in diameter, located near the ,center of the tract, from which the Indiana formerly 
 gathered a sort of crude petroleum locally known as "Seneca oil," and which, was 
 used quite extensively by them in early days for medicinal purposes. The Senecas 
 fully understood that this tract was reserved to them in the sale to Robert Morris at 
 Big Tree, but this fact does not appear from an examination of the treaty itself. At 
 any rate, this reserve was included in a sale by Robert Morris to the Holland Land 
 Co., so-called, and several mesne conveyances transpired until by deed dated Febru- 
 ary 28, 1855, one Philoneus Pattison became the ostensible owner of a part thereof. 
 On taking possession, the Seneca Indians promptly began an action in ejectment 
 against Pattison. A verdict in favor of the Indians was rendered by the lower court; 
 the case was appealed to the supreme court of the State and finally to the court of 
 appeals, both of which affirmed the decision of the trial court, and the Indians have 
 since remained in undisturbed possession. A written opinion of the case does not ap- 
 pear to have been handed down, but the pleadings, transcript of evidence, judgment, 
 and decree of the court are still on file in Little Valley, the county seat of Cattaraugus 
 County. J 
 
 The Onondaga Reservation contains 6,100 acres and is located in Onondaga County 
 about 5 miles south of the city of Syracuse. Prior to 1793 this reservation embraced 
 semething over 65,000 acres. March 11 of that year, however, the Indians sold over 
 three-fourths of their reservation to the State, and by, subsequent treaties in 1795, 1817, 
 and 1822 the reservation was reduced to its present area. Under Statfe laws these 
 Indians are authorized to lease land owned or possessed by individuals and small 
 areas within the reservation are so leased. The lands within this reservation are not 
 covered by the claim of the Ogden Land Co. 
 
 The Tonawanda Reservation now comprises but 7,549 acres lying partly in Erie, 
 Genesee, and Niagara Counties. Originally it comprised upward of 45,000 acres, 
 being a part of the lands reserved to the Seneca Indians in the sale to Robert Morris 
 at Big Tree. This reservation was conveyed to Thomas Ludlow Ogden and Joseph 
 Fellows by agreement with the Six Nations, dated January 15, 1888 (7 Stats., 550), 
 and the subsequent treaty with the Senecas of May 20, 1842 (7 Stats. , 586) . The lands 
 embraced within the present reserve were repurchased from Ogden and Fellows for 
 the sum of $100,000, in accordance with article 3 of the treaty with the Tonawanda 
 Indians, dated November 5, 1857 (11 Stats., 735). Title was first taken in the Secre- 
 tary of the Interior, who held the lands until February 14, 1862, on which date, by 
 deed, they were conveyed to the comptroller of the State of New York "in trust and 
 in fee for the Tonawanda Indians." This settlement effectually extinguished what- 
 ever preemption right the Ogden Land Co. ever had in and to the lands within this 
 reservation. 
 
 The Tuscarora Reservation lies in Niagara County about 9 miles northeast of Niagara 
 Falls, and contains 6,249 acres. The Tuscarora Indians having been adopted by the 
 Iroquois League as one of the Six Nations, by deed dated March 30, 1808, the Seneca 
 Nation granted 1 square mile (640 acres) to the Tuscarora Indians. (Liber 1, folio 
 56, Land Records of Niagara County.) It is reported that subsequently the Holland 
 Land Co., assignee of Robert Morris, "ratified" this grant, and gave to the Tuscaroras 
 1,280 acres more, but no record of any paper title to this effect can be found. At any 
 rate, the Tuscaroras occupy and claim these lands as a part of their present reserve, 
 which are subject to the preemption right of the Ogden Land Go. (7 Stats,, 560), 
 although the Indians deny this, basing their claim on a decree of the State court in 
 Buffalo, handed down in 1-850. Thiw suit resulted from an agreement with the Federal 
 Government, January 15, 1838, under which the Six Nations were to" remove west of 
 the Mississippi River, and in anticipation of their removal the chiefs of the Tuscarora 
 Tribe executed a deed to Thomas Ludlow Ogden and Joseph Fellows, predecessors 
 
SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YORK. 13 
 
 of the Ogden Land Co., conveying to said Ogden and Fellows, as' owners of the pre 
 emptive right, the 1,920 acres last referred to. The deed was placed in the hands of 
 Merman B. Potter, in escrow, pending the performance of certain conditions precedent 
 to delivery. The expected removal failed to materialize and in 1849 Wm. B. Chew 
 et al., chiefs of the tribe, instituted suit against Herman B. Potter and Joseph Fellows 
 (Thomas L. Ogden then being deceased), looking to a surrender and cancellation of the 
 deed. A verdict in favor of the Indians was rendered and the deed canceled by 
 decree of the court, which resulted only in placing the matter in statu quo, as far as 
 the preemptive right of Ogden and Fellows was concerned. The execution of the 
 deed was an admission of the existence of the preemptive right,' and the contention of 
 the Indians that the decree of the court canceling the deed also effectually extin- 
 guished the right of preemption in the' Ogden people does not appear well founded. 
 The records in the case are still on file in the county clerk's office at Buffalo. 
 
 About the year 1800 a delegation of Tuscarora Indians visited the governor of 
 North Carolina and negotiated a sale of their lands in that State for. approximately 
 $15,000, which money was deposited with the United States in trust. In 1804 Con- 
 gress authorized the Secretary of War to purchase with this money additional laind for 
 these Indians. With these funds 4,329 acres, lying to the south and east of the 1,920 
 acres already occupied by them, were purchased for the Tuscarora Indians. Title 
 to these lands was taken by the Secretary of War in trust for the Indians, but subse- 
 quently (January 2, 1809) the lands were conveyed directly to the Tuscarora Tribe, 
 who now own the fee. (Book "A," p. 5, Niagara County clerk's office.) 
 
 The St. Regis Reservation contains 38,890 acres, of which 24,250 acres fall within 
 the Dominion of Canada. The remaining 14,640 acres on the American side lie in 
 Franklin County, N. Y., and were secured to these Indians by treaty with the State, 
 in consideration for which they surrendered certain other lands claimed by them. 
 The Ogden Land Co. 's claim never comprised any part of the lands within this reserve. 
 The Shinnecock Reservation, containing some 450 acres, is located on a neck of 
 land running into Shirmecock Bay, Long Island. Southampton was ap early colonial 
 town, estabushed in the seventeenth century, and the town trustees negotiated with 
 "Shinnecock," chief of the tribe, for a sale of the lands. Tribal tradition has it that 
 the chief sold out to the whites and skipped with the money. While this does not 
 comport with accepted ideas of the honesty and integrity of aboriginal chiefs, yet it 
 is a matter of record that the town trustees of Southampton in the early days gave a 
 lease for a thousand years to the Shinnecock Indians covering some 3,600 acres, 
 known as the Shinnecock Hills and Shinnecock Neck. Matters stood thus until 
 about the middle of the nineteenth century, when the town had developed to such 
 an extent that a more satisfactory arrangement was desired. Accordingly, in 1859 
 the State authorized the town trustees to negotiate with the Indians for a cession of 
 their leasehold estate. An agreement was reached, under which the Indians sur- 
 rendered the hiUs, in exchange for which they received in fee Shinnecock Neck. 
 The agreement is recorded in volume 3 of the town records of Southampton, at page — . 
 The above covers all of the reservations in New York to be regarded as of any import- 
 ance at this time, but in passing mention may be made of the Poosepatucks, of mixed 
 Indian and negro descent, who did occupy a small reservation of about 50 acres also 
 on Long Island, near the mouth of the Mastic River, being a part of the tract of 175 
 acres conveyed to the tribe by Col. William Smith, governor of the Territory, July 2, 
 1700, ' ' to the intent sayd Indians, their children and posterry te may not want sufficient 
 land to plant on forever." Also the Montauk Tribe who occupied Montauk Point, the 
 northeastern extremity of Long Island, livhich was included in a patent issied in 1686 
 by Governor Dongan to "the freeholders and inhabitants of the .town of East Hamp- 
 ton." This grant was made subject to the Indian right of occijpancy, but also carried 
 "the perpeti al and exclusive right to purchase same from the Indians." Within 
 comparatively reeent years the remnant of this tribe sold their title to this land to one 
 Benson, and these Indians, as a tribe, no longer exist as such, having individually 
 become absorbed in the body politic. Pharoh v. Benson (69 Miscl., N. Y., 241). 
 These Indians also intermarried so largely in the early days with negroes that their 
 nationality as "Indians" became extinct long ago. 
 
 The Complanter Reservation in Pennsylvania lies just below the line between 
 New York and the former ^State. The reservation originally comprised 1^500 acres 
 "granted in fee" by Pennsylvania March 16, 1796 to Cornplanter and his heirs. Sub- 
 sequently, in 1871, the State authorized the appointment of commissioners to divide 
 these lands in severalty among "Complanter's descendants and other Seneca Indians." 
 This was done and the land was divided and allotted to 93 Indians, without power, 
 however, to sell to persons other than descendants of Cornplanter, or other Seneca 
 Indians. 
 
14 SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YOBK. 
 
 These small reservations, used in common, afforded only a haven of refuge to pos- 
 sibly otherwise homeless persons and for all practical purposes may be eliminated 
 from further consideration. The same might also be said of the Oil Spring Eeserva- 
 tion, containing as it does, but 640 acres, retained by the Indians in the early days 
 largely from sentimental reasons. 
 
 Conditions on the remaining reservations show a crying need for reform. Naturally 
 one casts about for the reasons why these conditions should have so long been permitted 
 to continue. First among these we find the question of jurisdiction over these 
 Indians, State and Federal. Much needless confusion exists, a pretty general impres- 
 sion prevailing that the State has exclusive jurisdiction. This seems to have arisen 
 from two causes, first, because New York was one of the Thirteen Original Colonies 
 and the "title" to the lands involved never was in the Federal Government, and 
 secondly, because the State has exercised jurisdiction, while the Federal Government, 
 to a large extent, has not. A brief examination of the fundamental principles involved 
 should remove any doubt on this point. 
 
 A common cause united the colonists in a supreme effort for independence, and 
 the successful termination of the Revolution, together with the attendant treaty 
 of peace, vested full powers of jurisdiction, sovereignty, and government in the 13 
 original colonies. Dissension immediately arose to such an extent that 13 inde- 
 pendent nations seemed imminent rather than one. The interlacing web repre- 
 sented by the Articles of Confederation was not sufficiently strong to weave the dis- 
 senting colonies into a satisfactory whole. The independent colonies had too much 
 power and the central government too little. This is a matter of history, well estab- 
 lished. By the adoption of the Federal Constitution the colonies ceded to the General 
 Government certain well-defined powers, functions, and duties, among which we 
 find the regulation of commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and 
 with the Indian tribes. (Constitution, Art. I, sec. 8.) 
 
 After the adoption of the federal Constitution in 1787 several of the colonies ceded 
 to the Federal Government certain parts of the territory covered by their respective 
 charters from the British Crown. This territory formed the first land the actual 
 title to which was recognized as being in the Federal Government. This area Vas 
 greatly increased from time to time, as by the Louisiana purchase in 1803, the Flori- 
 das in 1819, the Gadsden purchase in 1853, the Alaska purchase in 1867, and others. 
 This vast territory comprises what has since been known as "the public-land States," 
 the title to which was recognized as being in the United States. 
 
 New York not having ceded to the Federal Government the lands within her 
 present borders, the actual title is not in the Federal Government, and as to land not 
 otherwise disposed of by the State the title still remains there. Were it not for the_ 
 fact that we are here dealing with "an Indian problem" the Federal Government 
 would have practically nothing to do with the so-called "reservations" in that State. 
 Having joined with her sister States, however, in the adoption of the Constitution, 
 New York is bound to recognize the powers formally ceded to the nation. One of 
 these is the regulation of commerce with Indian tribes, which surely is Isroad enough 
 to cover traffic in lands occupied or claimed by them. Again, the admission of power 
 in Indian tribes to barter, without the consent of the Federal Government, such 
 title as they may have to any lands within the geographical limits of the United States, 
 is repugnant to the fundamental principles of sovereignty so essential to the preser- 
 vation of a nation. This is true, even though the actual title is not in the Federal 
 Government. (Johnson v. Mcintosh, 8 Wheat., 543; Wooster v. Georgia, 6 Pet., 515: 
 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet., 1.) Congress at an early date fully. recognized 
 the necessity for this. (Act Mar. 30, 1802; 2 Stats., 143, sec. 12,) Could we afford to 
 admit the right of an Indian tribe to sell their land within our borders to a foreign 
 country? 
 
 By acts of Congress and judicial construction the power of the Federal Government 
 over questions dealing with Indians has grown infinitely stronger. Apparently this 
 has been a product of necessity rather than any express delegation of authority to be 
 found in the Federal Constitution. From time "to time New York has enacted sundry 
 laws pertaining to the Indians within her borders, has provided schools for their 
 youth, appointed attorneys to protect their interests, and has delegated jurisdiction 
 in some instances to her courts to entertain their complaints. No case has been found 
 denying the right of the State so to do, or that the laws so enacted are unconstitutional. 
 On the other hand, numerous cases could be cited, if necessary, upholding the validity 
 of such Jaws, where they do not conflict with the Federal Constitution, treaties with 
 Indian tribes, or congressional enactments. (New York u. Dibble, 21 How., 366.) In 
 brief, the principle involved may be broadly stated, that all State laws beneficial to 
 Indians will be upheld, while those of a detrimental nature will be scrutinized with 
 greater c&,re. 
 
SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YORK, 15 
 
 In internal matters of this kind, wherever the Nation remains passive, then the State 
 of necessitjr must become active. In truth, the Indians in New York occupy a some- 
 what peculiar status, in that they may be said to be wards of both the Nation and the 
 State. Jurisdiction seems concurrent rather than ejcclusive, and in passing it may be 
 said that the State has always been generous in dealing with these people. Judging 
 f rona concrete results, the Federal Government has manifested but slight interest in tha 
 affairs of these Indians. "Its greatest shortcoming has been by omission rather than by 
 commission. The New York Indian problem Siould have been history long since. 
 One hundred and twenty-seven years have passed since the adoption of the Federal 
 Constitution, and we find these people to a large extent in the same position they 
 occupied in the early days, at least in so far as their land tenures are concerned. Ap- 
 parently the State has waited for the Nation and the Nation for the-State. Has it 
 never occurred to either to cooperate? 
 
 Originally the Federal Government dealt with the Indian tribes as quasi, or de 
 facto nations, by treaty. Later Congress deemed it incongruous to deal with these 
 people by such formal means as treaties, which impUed equality, and directed 
 that thereafter their affairs would be regulated by legislation only. (Act March 3, 
 1871, 16 Stats., 566.) The power of Congress so to do has been fully recognized, even 
 to the extent of abrogating by legislation the provisions of a prior treaty with an 
 Indian tribe. (United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S., 375; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 
 187 U. S., 553.) February 19, 1875 (18 Stats., 330), Congress passed an act to regu- 
 late leases by the Seneca Indians in New York. September 30, 1890 (26 Stats., 
 558), the prior act was amended in certain respects. The control of Congress over 
 the subject matter was most strongly upheld in Ryan v. Knorr (19 Hun., 540), and 
 Shongo V. Miller (45 A. D., 339). Need more be added to show jurisdiction in the 
 Federal Government over the Indian tribes in New York? The one case of Fellows 
 V. Blacksmith (19 Howard, 366), would be amply sufficient to prove this. 
 
 Congress having assured the Six Nations peaceful possession of their reservations 
 (7 Stats., 44), and the Supreme Court having denied the State the right to tax their 
 land (The New York Indians, 5 Wall., 761), the hands of the State are effectually 
 tied in so far as working out a feasible solution of the problem is concerned. We 
 have just seen that prior treaties may be superseded by subsecjuent legislation, but 
 this power rests solely with Congress. Certainly it does not exist in the State. Just 
 when, in what manner, and to what extent this power is to be exercised, therefore, 
 rests in the sound discretion of Congress. Presumably the power will be exercised 
 only after full considerations of humanity and public pohcy. 
 
 It has heretofore been shown that the actual title — ^the fee — in the St. Regis and 
 Onondaga Reservations is in the State, that of the Tonowanda Reservation is in the 
 comptroller of the State, and as to the Shinnecock and 4,329 acres of the Tuscarora 
 Reservation it is in the respective tribes. Aside from the locus of the actual title, 
 however, we have also found that the Indians' right of possession is an indefeasible 
 one which can not be disturbed without the sanction of the Federal Government. 
 (Fellows V. Blacksmith and The New York Indians, supra.) As to the locus 
 of the fee of the Allegany, Cattaraugus, and 1,920 acres of the Tuscarora Reservations, 
 we are confronted with a more difficult problem, these lands being subject to the 
 "claim" of the Ogden Land Co., so-called — a claim of such a peculiar nature that a 
 short recourse to colonial history is again necessary. 
 
 By charters in 1628-29 James I, King of England, granted certain land in the 
 new continent to the Plymouth Colony. March 12, 1664, Charles II likewise granted 
 certain land to the Duke of York. Owing to the deficient geographical knowledge 
 of the then new country, the descriptions in these grants were more of less vague, 
 and in many cases overlapped. Massachusetts succeeded to the title of the Plymouth 
 Colony and shortly after the close of the Revolution a dispute arose between that 
 State and New York over the owtiership of certain territory a^regating upward of 
 6,000,000 acres located in the western part of the latter State. The controversy was 
 first submitted to the Continental Congress and a court was appointed to hear and 
 determine the cause. The matter was finally adjusted, however, without resort to 
 the court, a convention for this purpose having been held at Hartford, Conn., Decem- 
 ber, 1786, New York being represented by 6 commissioners and Massachusetts 10. 
 A compact or agreement was drawn and duly executed December 16, 1786. By this 
 compact New York retained the right of government, sovereignty, and jurisdiction 
 over the disputed territory, but ceded to Massachusetts the right of preemption of 
 the soil from the native Indians, coupled with the power to sell or assign such right. 
 
 Massachusetts proceeded promptly to dispose of its title and in April, 1788, Ohver 
 Phelps and Nathaniel Gorman negotiated with that State for the purchase of the 
 entire area for $1,000,000, payable within three years in public paper of the State, a , 
 kind of scrip which was then greatly depreciated. Phelps and Gorman failed to 
 
16 SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OP NEW TOKK. 
 
 comply in full with their agreement and subsequently Massachusetts brought suit to 
 recover title. A compromise agreement was effected, however, under which Phelps 
 and Gorman obtained a clear title to about 1,900,000 acres of the original area, the 
 remainder being again Telinquished to the State. March 8, 1791, Massachusetts con- 
 veyed to Robert Morris for $225,000 the land which Phelps and Gorman had failed 
 to acquire. Morris retained 500,000 acres of this land, .which thereafter became 
 known as '"The Morris Beserve," and by four separate deeds in 1792-93, conveyed 
 the remainder, aggregating 3,600,000 acres, to a company of Amsterdam capitalists, 
 among whom Wilhelm Willnick was the largest owner. These conveyances from 
 ' Morris were coupled with an agreement on his part to extinguish the Indian title, 
 which he promptly endeavored^to do and which finally resulted in the agreement or 
 treaty of Big Tree, September 15, 1797 (7 Stats., 601). 
 
 The Amsterdam capitalists subsequently became known as the Holland Land Co., 
 and in 1810 the company conveyed to David A. Ogden certain described lands, em- 
 bracing an area within which will be found the present Allegany, Cattaraugus, and 
 TuBcarora Reservations. Ogden later associated other capitalists with him and the 
 combination became known as the Ogden Land Co., title to all lands acquired being 
 taken in the name of certain members, in trust for the company, which, however, 
 was not incorporated. Later a trust deed was executed under which the holdiuigs 
 of the company were divided into 20 shares of no specified value. A dispute 
 having arisen among the shareholders, suit was instituted, in which a part of the 
 joint owners were plaintiffs, the remainder being defendants. December 10, 1883, 
 a decree was entered in the Supreme Court of Queens County, N. Y., designating 
 Charles E. Appleby, of New York, a trustee, and William D. Waddington as co- 
 trustee of the concern. Waddington died prior to 1888, lea^dng Charles E. Appleby 
 sole surviving trustee of the company, who served until the latter part of 1913, when 
 he also died. Who now represents the company in an official or legal capacity is not 
 known, but in 1894 the owners of these 20 shares were reported to be: 
 
 Shares. 
 
 Estate of Joshua Waddington 4 
 
 Estate of Peter S. SchermSrhorn 1 
 
 Estate of Thomas Ludlow Ogden 2 
 
 Estate of Louisa Troup 1 
 
 Estate of Abraham O^den 1 
 
 Estate of Robert L. Tillotson 1 
 
 Estate of Duncan P. Campbell ., 1 
 
 Estate of Charlotte Brinckerhoff 1 
 
 Estate of James S. Wadsworth 1^ 
 
 Estate of Ogden Murray 0| 
 
 Estate of Benjamin W. Rogers 2 
 
 Estate of Robert Bayard 1 
 
 Charles E. Appleby 1 
 
 Estate of Shaw and Wilson, now held by Bank of England 2 
 
 Total 20 
 
 The nature and extent of the claim of the Ogden Land Co. still remains to be con- 
 sidered, howevei. This claim has received various designations, having grown 
 in the estimation of the company, from an original right of preemption to that of an 
 absolute fee. Many theories have been advanced as to its exact nature and the 
 decisions of the State courts before whom this matter has been brought are not con- 
 ducive to a clear understanding of the case. Much fruitless labor seems to have 
 been expended in an effort to determine the locus of the fee, presumaby due to the 
 old common-law fiction that necessarily the fee must be in some one. That this 
 is merely a fiction, however, is apparent from a moment's consideration. In whom 
 is the fee to an uninhabited and undiscoverfed island in the Pacific Ocean? On 
 discovery does the fee arise and hail the discoverer as a deliverer? 
 
 Ogden V. Lee (6 Hill, 546) would indicate that the fee to these lands is in the Seneca 
 Nation, subject to the preemption right ceded to Massachusetts by the State of New 
 York. Fellows v. Lee (5 Den., 628) affirmed the decision of the lower court on the 
 ground that the Indian title to land is an absolute fee, and that the preemption right 
 ceded to Massachusetts was simply the right to acquire by purchase whenever the 
 Indians choose to sell. In Seneca Nation v. Christie (126 A. D., 322) and Seneca 
 Nation v. Appleby (127 A. D., 770) the preemption right to the Ogden Land Co. 
 seems to have matured into what has variously been styled a " fee subject to the Indiaii 
 right of occupancy," "qualified fee," "naked fee," ultimate fee," etc. But little 
 satisfaction is obtained from examining these various decisions with a view of deter- 
 
SENECAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OP NEW YORK. 1:7' 
 
 mining just where the fee in these lands lies. Neither does a process of elimination 
 produce a more satisfactory result. Necessarily four parties are to be considered in 
 the matter, the Indians, the Nation, the State, and the Ogden Land Co. The doctrine , 
 of discovery, as laid down in Johnson i;. Mcintosh (supra), does not recognize an abso- 
 lute fee in an Indian tribe, their right being that of possession only. We have hereto- 
 fore seen that the absolute fee was never placed in the Federal 'Government; nor isi 
 it in the State of New York, the latter having ceded all right and title, except that of ' 
 sovereignty and jurisdiction, to Massachusetts. Massachusetts parted with whatever, 
 title it acquired, and we find the present claimants to be the Ogden Land Co. It is 
 well, therefore, to examine with greater care the compact between Massachusetts and . 
 New York. The second and tenth articles read; 
 
 "Secondly. The State of New York doth hereby cede, grant, release, and confirm 
 to the said Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and to the use of the Commonwealth, 
 their grantees, and the heirs and assigns of such grantees forever, the right of preemp- 
 tion of the soil from the native Indians, and all wieir estate, right, title, and property 
 (the right and title of government, sovereignty, and jurisdiction excepted) which the 
 State of New York hath of, in, or to (description of land involved follows). 
 
 "Tenthly. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts may grant the right ot preemption 
 of the whole or any part of the said lands and territories to any person or persons who 
 by virtue of such grant shall have good rk;ht to extinguish by purchase the claims of 
 the native Indians: Providing, however, That no purchase from the native Indians by 
 any such grantee or grantees shall be valid unless the same slmll be made in the pres- 
 ence of and approved by a superintendent to be appointed for such purpose by the 
 Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and having no interest in such purchase, and unless 
 such purchase shall be confirmed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts." 
 
 In construing the foregoing in Ogden v. Lee (supra), the court said: 
 
 "In the adjustment of the conflicting claims of the States ot Massachusetts and New 
 York to the tract of country which includes the Cattaraugus Reservation, Massachu- 
 setts ceded all her right to 'the government, sovereignty, and jurisdiction of the dis- . 
 puted territory,' and New York ceded 'the right of preemption of the soil from the. 
 native Indians.' The words which follow — 'and all other the estate, right, title, and 
 property which the State of New York hath' — were not intended to enlarge the grant 
 mto an xmqualified fee. It is impossible to suppose the parties meant to disregard and 
 set aside the Indian title, which they had but the moment before fully recognized by 
 contracting for 'the right of preemption of the soil from the native Indians.' This 
 point is rendered stOl more clear by a subsequent clause in the deed of cession. By 
 the tenth article the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was authorized to grant 'the 
 right of preemption,' and nothing more; and her grantees were only to acquire "good 
 right to extinguish by purchase the claim of the native Indians.' * * * "rbetr 
 right (the Indians') is as perfect now as it was when the first European landed on this 
 continent, with the oingle exception that they can not sell without the consent of the 
 Government. The right of occupancy to them and their heirs forever remains wholly 
 unimpaired. They are not tenants of the State, nor of its grantees. They hold under 
 their own original title. The plaintiffs have acquired nothing but the right to pur- 
 chase whenever the owners may choose to sell." 
 
 The doctrine laid down in the foregoing appears sound. In any event, by elimi- 
 nating the State and Federal Governments, in neither of whom it seems the fee exists, 
 and placing in juxtaposition the "title" of the Indians against that of the Ogden 
 Land Co., we instantly recognize the stronger — the Indians. The courts of both the 
 Nation and the State have repeatedly denied the right of the assignees of Massachusetts 
 in any manner to interfere with the right of the Indians to the peaceful and continued 
 possession of their soil. We dismiss, therefore, from further consideration any attempt 
 to determine the locus of the fee, and admit, for all intents and purposes, that it lies 
 dormant and will remain dormant until present conditions are changed. Some 
 workable plan under which these conditions may be ameliorated is of far greater 
 import either to the Nation, the State, or the Indians, than any fruitless pursuit of the 
 locus of the fee. 
 
 The Indians deny that the Ogden Land Co. has any valid claim to their lands, but 
 the convention between Massachusetts and New York involved upward of 6,000,000 
 acres and the validity of the original grant to Massachusetts, and the subsequent sale 
 by that State has been too long recogmzed and upheld by a long line of court decisions 
 to justify any attempt to repudiate the transaction at this late date. The title to 
 millions and millions of dollars worth of property in the western part of New York is 
 based primarily on the convention between the two States. It is not seen how the 
 courts could repudiate it. In fact, it appears to have been confirmed by the National 
 Government. (Seneca Nation v. Christie, 162 U. S., 284-285.) 
 
 H. Doc. 1590, 63-3 2 
 
18 SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YORK. 
 
 Various attempts have been made from time to time to adjust the claims of the Ogden 
 Land Co., hut without success. The act of August 15, 1894 (28 Stats., 301), directed 
 the Secretary of the Interior to investigate the claim of the company, which investi- 
 
 fttion was had and report submitted to the Fifty-third Congress, third session. (Senate 
 xeeutive Document No. 52.) Later, by act of March 2, 1895 (28 Stats., 887), the 
 department was authorized to negotiate with the Ogden Land Co. for the pm'chase of 
 its claim, which investigation was also had and report submitted to Congress under 
 date of February 20, 1897. (House Document No. 309, 54th Cong.) Later, bills 
 were introduced looking to a settlement of the matter (H. R. 12270, 53d Cong., and 
 H. R. 7262, 54th Congress), both of wtich failed of enactment. 
 
 Matters thus stood until about 1905 when the Seneca Indians instituted suit against 
 6harles K. Appleby, surviving trustee, for the purpose of testing the extent and 
 validity of the Ogden Land Co.'s claim. This resulted, in a decision by the Supreme 
 Court of the State of New York virtually recognizing the ultimate fee as being in the 
 Ogden Land Co., witK right of possession in the Indians. As to the title of the Ogden 
 Land Co., the decision of the court Is not of great import; but one suggestion made by 
 the court in its decision is of great interest at this time: 
 
 "The affirmance of the judgment (of the lower court) does not establish the propo- 
 sition that if the plaintiff becomes disintegrated that the defendant's title will vest in 
 possession at once. Allotment among the individual Indians by the plaintiff has 
 been permitted for a considerable period by the National Government. Inheritance 
 la- allowed in accordance with the statutes of the State of New York, and conveyances 
 amongst the Indians are also allowed. It may well be held that even though the 
 nation in its tribal capacity should be dissolved, if the individual Indian holds his 
 land by virtue of this recognized method of allotment, that the occupancy will con- 
 tinue to his most remote desceijdant." 
 
 In effect, this would intimate that the courts may find room to hold that a,llotment 
 ef these lands among the Indians will not result in a disintegration of the tribe, or 
 a vesting of the right of the Ogden Land Co. , if any such right exists. In other words, 
 the lands may be allotted to individual members of the tribe and still remain subject 
 to the claim or right of the Ogden Land Co. This seems to be the basis on which 
 recent proposed legislation by the National Government is founded (H. R. 18735, 
 63d Cong., 2d sess.). Whether that contention is sound, remains yet to be seen. In 
 either event, no matter in what form this question is adjusted, the prospect of its 
 ultimately being thrown into the courts for decision is exceedingly strong. The 
 representatives of the Ogden Land Co., when last approached, placed what was re- 
 garded as a fictitious value on their claim. If any compulsory method of settlement 
 xa invoked, as by condemnation, it would necessitate the institution of proceedings, 
 with the Government acting as party plaintiff. Doubtless if the> lands are allotted 
 subject to the right of the Ogden Land Co., representatives of that company would 
 promptly institute suit to test the power of the Federal Government so to do, or the 
 validity of the allotment so made; basing their claim on the theory that the "ultimate 
 fee" rests in them, and the dissolution of .the tribal organization by allotment vests 
 full title in the company. 
 
 However, it is not seen how the power of the Federal Government to enforce a divi- 
 sion of these lands among the tribal membership can be denied. If whatever title the 
 tribe has to specified areas within these reservations is placed by authority of Congress 
 in individual members, who would deny the power of Congress so to do? If such 
 action is had and the Ogden Land Co, or its assignees institute proceedings to test 
 the right of the individual Indians, necessarily the Government must stand behind 
 the Indian to defend his title. 
 
 The Indians not being satisfied with the decision found in The Seneca Indians v. 
 Appleby (127 A. D., 770), the case was appealed, and the appellate court of New- 
 York dismissed the proceedings on the ground that the Indians were without power 
 to sue and that the lower court was without power to try and determine the cause 
 (196 N. Y., 318). This virtually nullified the decision of the lower courts and leaves 
 the matter still at large. Afte- examining the numerous decisions by the State 
 eoiu-ts relating to this matter, io with great satisfaction one reviews the last case 
 before the appellate court of tha State and finds therein the following: 
 
 "Nor is it at all a subject of regret that we find that the action can not be maintained 
 On the contrary, we think it eminently wise of the legislature not to have authorized a 
 determination now of questions which may not arise until the remote future, and whose 
 determination, when they arise, may be seriously affected by considerations we can 
 not now foresee. * * * The respondent contends that the rights of the Indians 
 will not survive the dissolution of the nation or tribal existence, while the learned 
 
 C'ge of the appellate division is of opinion that- the rights continue as long as the 
 ds are actually occupied by Indians of the tribe, whether the tribe as an entity 
 
SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YORK. 19 
 
 continues to exist or not. * * * The question had much better be left till the 
 nation or tribe becomes disintegrated, when the courts of that day will doubtless 
 be competent to deal with it, as well as with the whole question of what rights, if any, 
 the defendant or his successors in interest have in the lands embraced in these 
 reservations." 
 
 Did the framers of the compact between Massachusetts and New York ever dream 
 of the future diflBiculties being stored up when they conceived the plan of divorcing 
 the right of preemption from that of sovereignty? 
 
 The claim of the Ogden Land Co. has stood continuously as an effective stumbling- 
 block to a ready solution of "the New York Indian problem." The company has 
 not heretofore been disposed to place a reasonable value on its claim, and the pay- 
 ment of an exorbitant price should not be considered, in view of the doubtful 
 nature of that claim. Within recent years many of the Indians have manifested a 
 strong tendency to object to any disturbance of that claim. After the decision of the 
 appellate court, holding that they were without capacity to sue, the tribe applied to 
 the State legislature and by that body was granted the requisite authority. The 
 matter was dropped at that point, however, as the Indians began to fear that any dis- 
 turbance of the claim would result in a speedy allotment in severalty, a dissolution 
 of their tribal organizations, and the assumption of full responsibilities of citizenship. 
 In other words, the claim has acted as a blanket to protect them from these ultimate 
 ends, which they do not appear to desire. As matters now stand they enjoy the full 
 benefits accorded other residents of the State, such as adequate school facilities, 
 excellent highways constructed within their reservations at the expense of the State, 
 yet at the same time their property is exempt from taxation and the Indians are not 
 bound by financial obligations arising under contracts. From a personal or selfish 
 standpoint, therefore, why should they desire a change? 
 
 At its own expense the State maintains 33 schools exclusively for Indians and em- 
 ploys 37 teachers therein. If the State is denied the right to tax their lands, should 
 it be expected to support, protect, and educate the Indians? Has the nation been 
 altogether fair to the State in this matter? Should not this be a burden upon the 
 nation rather than the State? If the nation denies financial responsibility, should 
 the State be denied the right to tax or to take such other steps as may be necessary to 
 solve the problem? 
 
 By invitation, from time to time, the State legislative assembly has invited these 
 people to divide their lands in severalty, and the courts of the State have respected, 
 as fully as possible, the division so made. Beyond this the State could not go. as the 
 Nation has guaranteed these people peaceful possession of their soil. The State has 
 been without power to compel a division of their lands, as this power is peciiliarly 
 vrated in the Nation. 
 
 March 21, 1888, the State legislative assembly appointed a committee of five to 
 investigate the Indian problem in New York, and the report of that committee, with 
 extensive exhibits, covering some 410 pages of printed matter, was presented to the 
 assembly under date of January 31, 1889. Much valuable data can be gathered from 
 that report, aad the specific rscommendations made by that committee are not without 
 interest even at this time. They read: ^ 
 
 1. That a compulsory attendance school law be enacted. 
 
 2. That the legislature request the General Government to take action to extinguish 
 the claim of the Ogden Co. to the lands of the Senecas and that portion of the Tusca- 
 roras covered by it. 
 
 3. Ihat the lands of the several reBer\ations be allotted in severalty among the 
 several members of the tribe, with suitable lestrictious as to alienation to whites, and 
 protection from judgments and other debts; but such division not to go into effect as 
 tolands affected by the Ogden Co.'s claim until that claim be removed. This allot- 
 ment in severalty ought not to be limited to a division of the possession of the land, 
 but should comprise a radical uprooting of the whole tribal system, giving to each 
 individual absolute ownership of his .share of the land in fee. 
 
 4. The repeal of all existing laws relating to the Indians of the State, excepting 
 those prohibiting sale of liquors to thorn and intrusion upon their lands, the extension 
 of the laws of the State over tham, and ttieir absorption into citizenship. 
 
 The State subsequently enacted and has with a reasonable measure of success 
 enforced a compulsory attendance school law, but as to the other recommendations 
 they stand to-day practically as when made 26 years ago. How much longer muSt 
 the State await the pleasure of the Nation in offering a solution of the problem? That 
 present conditions should be permitted to continue indefinitely on these reservatioris 
 wouli be a shame upon the Nation and a disgrace to the State. In a majority of theSe 
 tribes the infusion of white blood has been so great that out of an "Indian" popula- 
 tion of over 5,000 in the State one will find scarcely a single full blood, less thaln 500 
 half bloods, and a great number with so much white blood that only the closest scru- 
 
20 SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OP NEW YOEK. 
 
 tiny of a keen observer will disclose any Indian characteristics. The remnants of 
 the former tribes on Long Island have intermarried so largely with negroes that their 
 present descendants are more nearly negro than Indian. All of these people deserve 
 but scant sympathy, therefore, as "Indians," although any adjustment of their 
 affairs should be based on sound principles of justice and humanity. A large per- 
 centage of them have reached a comparatively advanced stage of education and. 
 civilization along certain lines. Many of them are progressive, shrewd, keen, busi- 
 ness men with large land holdings, fine homes, excellent barns, up-to-date farming 
 implements, and in a number of cases even automobiles. On some of these reserva- 
 tions marriage to a large extent consists of but cohabitation and divorce but separa- 
 tion at pleasure. In the midst of thriving communities, in some cases adjacent to 
 large cities, the continuanca of such conditions is abhorrent to the finer sensibilities 
 of civilized mankind. The cause should have been removed long since and no 
 doubt would have been had the power existed in the State to force an effective 
 solution of the problem. 
 
 Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as intending to imply that these 
 reservations are hotbeds of iniquity or corruption. Among these people will be 
 found many upright, honorable men and women, who are law-abiding, self-respecting 
 inhabitants, but the lax enforcement of the law on these reservations allows the 
 unruly element full license to do pretty much what they please. Being powerless 
 to dissolve the tribal organizations and to compel a division of the lands among the 
 Indians, the State could only abide in jjatience the time when either the_ Nation 
 would remove the obstacles or the Indians voluntarily agree to a relinquishment 
 of their title. Thus the tribes to a large extent have been left to themselves, both by 
 the Nation and the State, in so far aa police supervision and internal government is 
 concerned. Doubtless the State has been influenced in its action by the doubtful 
 question of jurisdiction and the superior power of the Federal Government over the 
 subject matter. 
 
 One of the most serious difficulties, however, presented in connection with a solu- 
 tion of this matter lies in the fact that to all intents and purposes these reservations 
 were "allotted " years ago. The Indians under their tribal government have divided 
 the lands among tiiemselves; valuable improvements have been erected, and_ trans- 
 fers have been made by sale, purchase, gift, or otherwise, until the present claimants 
 are confirmed in their respective holdings by recognition of the tribal officers, by 
 the tribal membership at large, and even by lie State courts, who have upheld such. 
 transactions. Shrewd members of the various tribes in many cases have acquired 
 land holdings many times in excess of the number of acres to which they would be 
 entitled under a present pro rata division. Naturally, to a man, such owners are - 
 opposed to any settlement which would not recognize and confirm their present 
 possession, the title to which they could in many cases prove by inheritance or pur- 
 chase for valuable considei:ations. Cases may be found, of course, where the acquisi- 
 tion would/not bear the light of close investigation, but in the majority of cases it will 
 be found that rightful inheritance or the payment of adequate consideration has 
 been the basis of the "title" over and above the acreage to which the present owner 
 would be entitled under a pro rata division. 
 
 Those members of the tribes who possess no land naturally are in favor of a division 
 of the tribal property. If their right as a member of one of these tribes is worth any- 
 thing in dollars and cents they want it, and the faction of the tribes favoring a division 
 is composed largely of this class. A few, having in their possession only the approxi- 
 mate number of acres to which they would be entitled in case of a pro rata allotment, 
 or who have a family with sufficient members to absorb the entire area now occupied, 
 would be very glad to receive ultimate title with power to convey, to outsiders, as on 
 practically every reservation such power, coupled with their present title, would 
 practically double the per acre value of their lands which, even at this date, is by no 
 means inconsiderable. 
 
 The lands of the St. Regis Reservation are fertile farming lands and many of these 
 Indians are expert dairymen. The Tuscarora Reservation lies within one of the most 
 fertile parts of the State of New York and the lands there are very valuable both for 
 agricultural and fruit-raising purposes. The Shinnecock Reservation on Long Island 
 is not of an exceedingly high value for agricultural purposes, yet these lands are so 
 beautifully situated on Shinnecock Bay— a small arm of the Atlantic Ocean— that 
 to-day they have an actual value of approximately $2,000 per acre for building-site 
 purposes. Many wealthy people from New York City and elsewhere have built fine 
 summer houses in Southampton, which is but 2 miles distant from this reserve 
 and within which unimproved land is worth about $5,000 per acre at this time. On 
 the Onondaga, Tonawanda, Allegany and Cattaraugus Reservations the valley lands 
 are very fertile, and have been improved and cultivated for many years past. Any 
 timber of commercial value on the hills within these reservations has been removed 
 
SENEGAS AND OTHEK INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YORK. 21 
 
 long since and these lands are now mainljf valuable for grazing purposes. The average 
 value of the lands within these reservations will closely approximate $60 per acre. 
 
 Before any attempt is made to suggest an adjustment of present landholdings an 
 accurate survey of each reservation should be made, the present owner of each acre 
 ascertained, the manner in which title was acquired looked into, and the general 
 conditions studied with a view of offering the most equitable plan, both to the present 
 holders and the tribe at large. In brief, each reservation should be made the subject 
 of a special study and such maasures taken as would best fit conditions on that par- 
 ticular reservation. Any broadside legislation applying indiscriminately to all these 
 reservations and designed to affect present landholdings, aside from meeting strenuous 
 opposition, might produce disaster. At present these people are contented; fairly 
 prosperous, and, in a few cases, wealthy to a limited extent. The greatest present 
 need on these reservations is proper police supervision and the enforcement of the 
 law. The peace oflEicers of the State have been chary about enforcing State laws, 
 moved in part by the doubtful question of jurisdiction and possibly more so by the 
 uncertain outcome of any attempt to collect their usual fees. ' 
 
 Each reservation should be provided with an officer with full powers to see that the 
 law is obeyed. The pow r ow placed in the hands of the tribal organizations should 
 be promptly curtailed, as, in the past, this power has too frequently been used for 
 selfish purposes or in other cases has not been exercised to compel order and obedience 
 to the laws. In the past th State has been burdened with practically all expense 
 connected with whatever enf ment of the law has been compelled, all local educa- 
 tional facilities furnished, and yet its hands have been efiectually tied in so far as 
 taxation of the property of these people is concerned. The Natiqn should either untie 
 the knot_ by turning the entire matter over absolutely to the State or else assume full 
 jurisdiction and effectually enforce it. 
 
 In view of the superior jurisdiction and power of the Federal Government over the 
 subject matter, its broader experience in dealing with Indian problems, the urgent 
 need for some remedial legislation and the inability of the State to offer or force a 
 feasible solution, it is suggested that the matter be placed before Congress with recom- 
 mendations that legislation to accomplish the following results be speedily enacted. 
 
 1. Promptly curtail the power and authority now lodged in the respective tribal 
 organizations. 
 
 2. Place one or more representatives of the Federal Government on each reserva- 
 tion, with full powers to maintain order and enforce obedience to the laws, such offi- 
 cers to be subordinate to the special agent or other officer in charge of the New York 
 Indians. 
 
 3. Declare the Indian reservations in the State of New York to be " Indian country " 
 within the meaning of the Federal statutes prohibiting the introduction of intoxicants 
 into such country. 
 
 4. Provide for an accurate survey of the lands within each reservation, so as to de- 
 termine the present owner or claimant of each acre therein, the time when and manner 
 in which such possession was acquired, and the equitable right of such owner thereto, 
 which should be coupled with an investigation as to present membership of the tribes 
 owning lands and those who are without such means. 
 
 Possession of information suggested In the preceding paragraph should enable 
 specific recommendations to be made with a view of suggesting an equitable adjust- 
 ment of the New York Indian problem. 
 
 Appreciating fully the need in the Indian Office of a ready reference to at least some 
 of the many court decisions, congressional documents, and miscellaneous papers 
 relating to the New York Indians, an index of the character indicated has been 
 prepared and attached hereto as an appendix. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 John R. T. Reeves. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 The New York Indians. 
 
 treaties. 
 
 October 22, 1784 (7 Stats., 15), with the Six Nations. 
 
 January 9, 1789 (1 Stats., 33), with the Six Nations. 
 
 November 11, 1794 (7 Stats., 44), with the Six Nations. 
 
 December 2, 1794 (7 Stats., 47), Oneidas, Tuscaroras, and Stockbrldges. 
 
 May 31, 1796 (7 Stats., 55), Seven Nations of Canada. 
 
 March 29, 1797 (7 Stats., 61), Mohawks. 
 
22 SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW YOEK. 
 
 September 15, 1797 (7 Stats., 601), Senecas and Robert Morrie. 
 
 June 30, 1802 (7 Stats., 70-72), Senecas. w v t 
 
 February 8, 1831 (7 Stats., 342), Menominee in Wisconsin, ceded land (for New Y orK 
 Indians). ' t /i at 
 
 October 27, 1832 (7 Stats., 407-409), Menominee in Wisconsin, ceded land (for JNew 
 York Indians). 
 
 January 15, 1838 (7 Stats., 550), Six Nations. 
 
 February 13, 1838 (7 Stats., 560), St. Regis. 
 
 May 20, 1842 (7 Stats., 586), Senecas. 
 
 June 27, 1846 (9 Stats., 35), Senecas. 
 
 November 5, 1857 (11 Stats., 735), Tonawandas. 
 
 November 5, 1857 (12 Stats., 991), Tonawandas. 
 
 February 19, 1875 (18 Stats., 330), leasing, surveys, etc., Senecss. 
 
 September 30, 1890 (26 Stats., 558), leasing. 
 
 February 20, 1893 (27 SUts., 470), leasing. 
 
 June 10, 1896 (29 Stats., 340), leasing. 
 
 June 6, 1897 (30 Stats., 89), leasing. 
 
 February 28, 1901 (31 Stats., 819), leading. 
 
 March 3, 1901 (31 Stats., 1809), leasing. 
 
 May 30, 1908 (35 Stats., 535), leasing. 
 
 February 21, 1911 (36 Stats., 927), leasing. 
 
 Idlay 25, 1878 (20 Stats., 535), surveys, Cattaraugus. 
 
 Congressional documents relating, to leases. 
 
 Document. 
 
 No. 
 
 Congress. 
 
 Session. 
 
 Volume. 
 
 Page. 
 
 
 2786 
 
 1680* 
 
 2293 
 
 23* 
 
 76* 
 
 145* 
 
 2655 
 
 2020 
 
 366 
 
 raty-flrst 
 
 First 
 
 21 
 22 
 30 
 39 
 
 40 
 44 
 55 
 
 17636 
 
 
 
 do 
 
 19130 
 
 Do 
 
 Fifty-second 
 
 Second 
 
 26041 
 
 Do 
 
 Fifty-fourth - . .. 
 
 ... do . 
 
 36076 
 
 Do 
 
 Fifty-fifth 
 
 First :. 
 
 37430 
 
 Do 
 
 
 
 ■40769 
 
 House Report. . 
 
 Fifty-seventh 
 
 First 
 
 51408 
 
 Do 
 
 Sixty-first 
 
 Third 
 
 
 Do 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Those marked with an * contain valuable information. Some of the reports listed are duplicates of prior 
 Teports, but are giv«n here for convenient reference. The volume and page references are to ''Miscellaneous 
 Indian Documents" on file in the Indian Office Library. 
 
 STATE COURT DECISIONS RELATING TO LEASES. 
 
 [Abbreviations: A. D., appellate division; A. N. C, Abbott's new cases; Hun., reports of the State 
 
 supreme court.] 
 
 Ryan v. Knorr (19 Hun., 540). 
 
 Baker v. Johns (38 Hun., 625). 
 
 Sheehan v. Mayer (41 Hun., 609). 
 
 Sheehan affirmed (129 A. D., 675). 
 
 Shongo V. Miller (45 A. D., 339). 
 
 Wait V. Jemison (15 A. N. C, 382). 
 
 Buffalo, etc., Ry. Co. v. Lowry (75 Hun., 396). 
 
 Buffalo affirmed (149 A. D., 576). 
 
 Reservation Gas Co. et al. v. Snyder.' 
 
 THE KANSAS AWARD. 
 
 Act January 28, 1893 (27 Stats., 426), authority Court of Claims to hear. 
 Act February 9, 1900 (31 Stats., 27), appropriation to pay iudgment. 
 Act March 3, 1901 (31 Stats., 1077), disposition of proceeds. 
 Act May 27, 1902 (32 Stats., 263), disposition of proceeds. 
 Act April 21, 1904 (33 Stats., 208), disposition of proceeds. 
 Act March 3, 1909 (35 Stats., 800), disposition of proceeds, 
 
 • Decided Dec. 7, 1914. 
 property. 
 
 Not yet reported. Held that oil deposit is tribal rather than individual 
 
SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OP NEW YORK. 23 
 Congresswnal docwmmts relating to Kansas award. 
 
 Document. 
 
 ExeciitiTe document 
 House 
 
 Do 
 
 Senate miscellaneous 
 House 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 Senate miscellaneous 
 
 Senate 
 
 House Executive 
 
 House 
 
 Senate 
 
 Senate miscellaneous. 
 Senate 
 
 Do 
 
 House 
 
 Se^te 
 
 Do 
 
 Do 
 
 No. 
 
 Y 
 751 
 449 
 
 38 
 2001 
 673 
 
 15 
 
 76 
 508 
 
 1393 
 46 
 910 
 761 
 
 91 
 285 
 
 Congress. 
 
 Fortieth 
 
 Forty-sixth.. 
 Forty-sev^lft 
 
 '.'.'.'.do'.'.'."'.'. 
 
 Forty-eighlii. 
 Filtietti?..... 
 
 do 
 
 .....do 
 
 do 
 
 Fifty-flrst.... 
 
 do 
 
 Fifty-second.. 
 
 do.. 
 
 Forty-eit, 
 ,Fifty-sjisd 
 ...:do.. .'.... 
 
 do 
 
 Fifty-eighth. 
 
 Third.. 
 Second. . 
 First. . . 
 Second. . 
 ....do.. 
 First- . . , 
 ....do.. 
 ....do.. 
 ...,do.. 
 ...jdo. . 
 ....do.. 
 ....do.. 
 ....do.. 
 ...;do.. 
 ....do.. 
 
 do.. 
 
 do.. 
 
 do.. 
 
 S^Qond. 
 
 Vol- 
 ume. 
 
 Page. 
 
 4142-4 
 6260-9 
 
 6887 
 7029 
 8079 
 
 14375 
 
 14926 
 
 15449 
 
 16374 
 
 16977 
 
 19098 
 
 23965 
 
 24740 
 
 38636 
 .47102 
 
 48091 
 •48563 
 ,53588 
 
 Some of the reports are duplicates. Volume and page references are to miscellaneous Indian documents, 
 Indian Office library. 
 
 POUBT BECiaiONS ipiLATING TO THE KANSAS AWARD. 
 
 New York Indians v. United States f30 Ct. ,Cl3iimB Ilepts., 413). 
 New York Indians v. United St?ites (33 Ct. CiaJms R^,ta.,.510.) 
 New York Indians v. United States (40 Ct. Claims Bepts., 448). 
 New York Indians v. United States (41 Ot. flls^inis Bsep.ts., 462). 
 New York Indians v. United States (170 U. S., 1). 
 United States v. New York Indians (173 V.3,„ 464). 
 
 THE OGDEN JuA}ip CO. 
 
 Act August 15, 1894 (28 Stats., 301). 
 Act March 2, 1895 (28 S.tate., 887). 
 
 Congressiortal documents relating to. 
 
 Document. 
 
 No. 
 
 CwgTMS. 
 
 Session. 
 
 Vol- 
 ume. 
 
 Page. 
 
 
 478 
 
 52 
 
 154 
 
 2591 
 
 Torty-third 
 
 First 
 
 
 
 Re"ftt.« eTfwntivp , 
 
 Fifty-third 
 
 Third 
 
 34 
 ■39 
 55 
 
 58 
 
 31161 
 
 Do 
 
 Fiftv-fourth 
 
 Second 
 
 36245 
 
 
 
 
 51405 
 
 Hearbigs onH. R. 7262 
 
 Fifty-eighth 
 
 
 54115 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Documents other than congressional. 
 
 Volume. 
 
 By the Society of Friends 
 
 Do 
 
 By the Board of Indian Commissioners 
 
 By Hon. Daniel Sherman .' 
 
 By a special committee (State Assembly, No. 40) 
 By a special committee (State Assembly, No. 61) 
 
 3 
 
 37 
 
 20 
 
 31 
 
 (1906) 75 
 
 (1889) 41 
 
 290S 
 34375 
 16923 
 27139 
 
 All of the foregoing do not relate exclusively to the Ogden Land Co. claim, but cover conditions existing 
 generally at the time when prepared. Volume ^<lpEfgeireIereDce» are to Miscellaneous Indian Documen tB , 
 Indian Office Library. 
 
24 SENEGAS AND OTHER INDIANS, FIVE NATIONS OF NEW TOBK. 
 
 OOtTET DECISIONS RELATING TO THE OGDBN LAND CO.'S CLAIM. 
 
 Ogden V. Lee (6 HUl., 546). 
 
 Fellows 1). Lee (5 Den., 628). 
 
 Wads-worth v. Buff. Hyd. Asso. (15 Barb., 83). 
 
 People ^;. Pierre (18 Misc., 83). 
 
 Blacksmith v. Fellows (7 N. Y., 401). 
 
 Fellows V. Blacksmith (19 How. TJ. S., 
 
 New York v. Dibble (21 How. U. S., 366). ' 
 
 The New York Indians (5 Wal. U. S., 761). 
 
 Seneca Nation v. Christie (49 Hun., 524). 
 
 Senaca Nation v. Christie (126 N. Y., 122). 
 
 Seneca Nation v. Christie (162 IT. S., 283). 
 
 Seneca Nation v. Appleby (127 A. D., 770). 
 
 Senaca Nation v. Appleby (196 N. Y.,.818). 
 
 Jemison v. Bell Telephone Co. (186 N. Y., 493). 
 
 New York Indians v. U. S. (30 Ct. Cls., 413). 
 
 Unless otherwise specified references are to New York State court reports. Many 
 of the cases hereinafter cited under the Seneca and Tonowanda Tribes also touch on 
 the origin of the Ogden Land Co.'s claim. 
 
 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES. 
 
 ff Leading cases of the United States Supreme Court touching on the Indian question 
 generally, especially titles and the power of' ititie Federal Government over their 
 affairs, but not relating specifically to the Indians in New York: 
 
 Johnson v. Mcintosh (8 Wheat., 543). . 
 
 Cherokee JSfation v. Georgia (5 Pet., 1). ^ 
 
 Wooster v. Georgia (6 Pet., 515). 
 
 Mitchell V. United States (9 Pet., 711). 
 
 The Kansas Indians (5 Wal., 737). 
 
 Cherokee Tobacco Case (11 Wal., 616). 
 
 United States v. Cook (19 Wal., 591). 
 
 United States v. Kagama (118 U. S., 375). 
 
 Choctaw Nation v. United States (119 U. S., 1). 
 
 Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (187 U. S., 553). 
 
 Supreme Court decisions relating exclusively to the New York Indians: 
 
 Fellows V. Blacksmith (19 How., 366). 
 . New York v. Dibble (21 How., 366). 
 
 The New York Indians (5 Wal., 761). 
 
 Seneca Nation v. Christie (162 U. S., 283). 
 
 New York Indians v. United States (170 U. S., 1). 
 
 United States v. New York Indians (173 U. S., 464). 
 See also Benson v. United States (44 Fed., 178). 
 
 NEW YORK STATE COURT DECISIONS RELATING- TO, ARRANGED BY TRIBES. 
 
 Tonawanda. 
 
 Jimeson v. Bell Telephone Co. (109 A. D., 911). 
 
 Jimeson v. Bell Telephone Co., aflfirmed (186 N. Y., 493). 
 
 Hatch V. Luckman (64 Misc., 508).* 
 
 Hatch V. Luckman (155 A. D., 765).* 
 
 Blacksmith v. Fellows (7 N. Y. 3 Sel., 401). 
 
 Fellow V. Blacksmith (19 How., 366). 
 
 New York v. Dibble (21 How., 366). 
 
 People V. Soper (7 N. Y., 428). 
 
 Blacksmith v. Tracy (1 Denio, 617). 
 
 Tuscarora. 
 In re Jack (52 Misc., 424). 
 Peters v. Tallchief (52 Misc., 617). 
 Peters v. Tallchief, reversed (121 A. D., 309).* 
 Cueick V. Daly (78 Misc., 657). 
 Cusick V. Daly, reversed (212 N. Y., 183).* 
 Bates V. Printup (31 Misc., 17). 
 In re Printup (121 A. D., 322). 
 
 Cases marked * will be found to contain much valuable information. 
 
SENEGAS AND OTHBE INDIANS, PIVE NATIONS OF NEW YORK. 25 
 
 Cayuga. 
 
 Cayuga Nation v. Land CommisBioners (74 Misc., 154).* 
 Cayuga Nation v. Land CommisBioners, reversed, (152 A. D., 543).* 
 Cayuga Nation v. Land CommisBioners, reversal affirmed (207 N. Y., 42).* 
 Cayuga Nation v. State (99 N. Y., 235). 
 
 Montauh. 
 Pharoh v. Benson (69 Misc., 241).* 
 Montauk Tribe v. Long Island R. R. Co. (28 A. D., 470). 
 Johnson v. Long Island R. R. Co. (162 N. Y., 462). 
 
 St. Regis. 
 
 Terrance v. Crowly (62 Misc., 138).* 
 
 St. Regis Indians v. Drum (19 John., 127). 
 
 Seneca. 
 
 Seneca Natioli v. Jimeson (62 Misc., 91). 
 Silverheels v. Maybee (82 Misc., 48). 
 Seneca Nation v. Christie (49 Him., 524)*. 
 Seneca Nation v. Christie (126 N. Y., 122)*. 
 Seneca Nation v. Christie (162 U. S., 284). 
 Seneca Nation v. Appleby (127 A. D., 770)* 
 Seneca Nation v. Appleby (196 N. Y., 318). 
 Dole V. Irish (2 Barb., 639). 
 Jamison •!;. Pierce (78 A. D., 9). 
 Shongo V. Miller et al. (45 A. D., 339). 
 Ryan v. Knorr (19 Hun., 540). 
 Seneca Nation v. Lehly (55 Hun., 83). 
 Jones V. Gordon et al. (51 Misc.. 305). 
 Jimeson v. Lehly (51 Misc., 352). 
 Jemmison v. Keimedy (55 Hun., 47). 
 Bufialo, etc., Ry. Co. v. Lowry (75 Hun., 396). 
 Grouse v. N. Y. & O. R. R. Co. (49 Hun., 576). 
 Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Hill (60 Hun.. 347). 
 Seneca Nation v. Hugaboom (132 N. Y., 493). 
 People V. Pierce (18 Misc., 83). 
 Wait V. Jemison (15 Abb. N. C, 382). 
 Wadsworth v. Buff. Hyd. Asso. (15 Barb., 83)*. 
 Strong and Gordon v. Waterman (11 Paige, 607). 
 Fellow V. Denniston (23 N. Y., 420). 
 The New York Indians (5 Wal., 761). 
 
 Onondaga. 
 George v. Pierce (85 Misc., 105)*. 
 George v. Pierce, reported in a48 N. Y. Sup., 230). 
 Onondaga Nation v. Thacher (29 Misc., 428). 
 Onondaga Nation v. Thacher, affirmed (53 A. D., 561). 
 Hastings v. Ellis (3 Barb., 492). 
 Hastings v. Farmer (4 N. Y., 293). 
 
 Oneida. 
 Jackson v. Wood (7 John., 290). 
 Jackson v. Sharp (14 John., 472). 
 Jackson v. GooJell (20 John., 188). 
 Goodell V. Jackson (20 John., 693). 
 Boylan v. George (133 A. D., 514). 
 Dana v. Dana (14 John., 181). 
 
 Cases marked * will be found to contain valuable information. 
 
 Many of the cases cited relate to such matters as tribal and individual property 
 rights, tribal government and customs, inheritance, crimes, police power of the State, 
 right of eminent domain, jurisdiction. State and Federal, etc. A rearrangement of 
 the cases according to their respective subject matters would prove convenient. 
 The number of cases reported, however, is not so great as to render it burdensome 
 to find a few decisions relating to any of the points mentioned, and one case will carry 
 cross-references to other decisions relating to the same subject matter. 
 
 John R. Reeves.