In 1890 there were 175 Cayugas living with the Senecas in New York State, and 138 Sandusky Seneca-Cayugas in the Indian Territory.

It is obvious that the Sandusky Indians were indifferently treated as Senecas and Cayugas, and that the whole body of them shared in any benefit derivable by Senecas from the United States, or by Cayugas from the state of New York. It is probable that there were Cayugas with this band. It is certain that many of the band were not Cayugas. There is no reason to doubt, however, that they were all reckoned as Cayugas for purposes relevant to this case. Witnesses from among them testified in 1890 that they were "all in one" with the Senecas, and the New York band show by way of petition to the state in 1843 that they (the New York Cayugas) have amalgamated with the Senecas. Pages 167, 392.

This completes the history of the Cayugas who did not settle upon the Grand River. They have become separated into two bodies, if indeed there be any semblance of coherence among them. Those within the state of New York have been without lands or any place of habitation which they could call their own, since, at latest, 1807; and those who went to the westward, temporarily residing at Sandusky, if they be capable of any sort of identification, seem now to be maintaining a precarious existence under the name of Senecas within the Seneca reservation of the Indian Territory. It is doubtful, indeed, whether it would be possible now to produce any evidence of the identity of these fragments of the nation independently of the fact that Indians living in the United States have successfully asserted claim to the Cayuga national funds. There may of course have been grounds of policy which in the judgment of the government of the state of New York sufficed for the expedient of diverting the funds of the nation, but it is impossible to anticipate or even to imagine any reasons in support of the claim (if it be a claim) that there was any legal justification for this proceeding, or that the action of the state can be invoked to excuse its failure to satisfy its treaty obligations with the nation established at the Grand River. Therefore, in the absence of notice that the United States will rely upon the dealings of the state of New York with these Seneca-Cayugas, or upon the treaties negotiated since the War of 1812, it may perhaps be sufficient to observe that these transactions and engagements ignore the assurances of the state leading up to the treaty of 1795, and are at irreconcilable variance with the obligation thereby undertaken.

23907-31

PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOVERY OF CLAIM SINCE 1849.

The statement of the efforts made on behalf of the nation at the Grand River to recover its annuities may now be resumed.

It has been stated that from 1849 there is documentary proof of these efforts. It may be observed, however, that as early as 26th March, 1819, at a council of the Six Nations held at the Grand River, when Hon. Wm. Claus, the British Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, was present, an Onondaga chief referred to the cessation of payments to the Cayuga and Onondaga Indians because of their having taken part in the War of 1812, and their inability to recover them, and asked what could be done. Mr. Claus replied that the Cayugas and Onondagas had a right to be paid, and reminded them that they were paid up to shortly before the war. The Onondagas produced a duplicate of the Onondaga treaty of 1795, and the Cayugas said that they had a similar instrument. It was concluded that both nations would consult Mr. Dickson, a lawyer. In 1820 at a meeting at Ancaster the same matter was again brought up, and the Indians were to be informed how much Mr. Dickson would charge for his services. Apparently, however, his price was not available. Pages 863-865.

66

On July 31st, 1824, "Echo," an Onondaga chief, asked for $50 to pay his expenses to New York State, and also for instructions as to how he would work that his nation should get their propor"tion of the money for the sale of the land to the States." The enquiry was made in a letter from George Martin, Indian interpreter, to Mr. Claus, stating that "Mr. Webster, the interpreter, wrote to me awhile ago. He says in his letter that it is not the fault of the Government. They are willing they should have their due. The Indians would not consent." Mr. Webster was an interpreter for the state of New York. Further, there is evidence of three Canadian Oneida Indians making direct application to Governor DeWitt Clinton in 1825 without success. Pages 875, 876.

The proof of the proceedings from 1849 onwards consists of memorials for relief, decisions of committees and courts, bills for relief and diplomatic representations, according to the following chronology:

1849. The commissioners of the Land Office of the state of New York reported in favour of recognizing and paying the claim, holding that; "To come to any other conclusion would be pregnant with injustice." The board decided that the Canadian Cayugas were parties to a sale of their lands by way

of solemn treaty and that the state could not pay "a favoured few" and thus discharge their liability to the bulk of the nation. This report was referred to the legislature, but received too late for action in the session of 1849.

1850. Opposition arose from Cayugas in the United States. headed by Dr. Peter Wilson. No action was taken by the legislature.

1882. Another petition was presented, which was referred back and forth among various committees until 1884, when the proceedings were removed to the Supreme Court of the State by certiorari.

1884. The Court in the certiorari proceedings pronounced judgment in favour of the Canadian Cayugas upon the merits of the claim.

1886. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, not upon the merits, holding that the Land Board was without jurisdiction.

1886-9. Various committees and commissions appointed by the legislature, and others proposed, but without result.

1889. An investigation, instituted instituted by Commissioner Bissell, was discontinued before conclusion by Act of the legislature. The same year a senate committee investigated the claim and heard evidence under oath. Many witnesses examined.

1890. The senate committee reported inter alia in favour of declaring the national character of the Cayuga nation at an end, and distribution of principal fund among United States. and Canadian Cayugas upon further proof by the latter of their claim, the Board of Claims to have power to rehear the matter.

1890-9. Various bills introduced in the New York legislature, dealing directly or indirectly with the claim, none of which were passed.

1899. The claim was presented by the British Ambassador at Washington to the United States Secretary of State, who referred it to the Governor of New York, who referred it to the legislature. No action taken.

1900. Claim again presented at Washington, and again referred through the same channels. No action taken. See Index under "Canadian Cayugas" for references to docu

ments.

Having thus completed a brief statement of some of the leading facts connected with the claim, of which it is apprehended this memorial contains ample evidence, several matters may deserve further consideration.

IDENTITY OF THE NATION.

The claim being founded in treaty obligation with the Cayuga Nation of Indians with whom the covenants are made, argument is unnecessary for the position that the covenant cannot be discharged by act of parties otherwise than by the sanction and authority of the nation. If these Cayuga Indians who have inhabited the Grand River territory for more than a century, and who now number over one thousand individuals constitute the nation, or be the representative body of the nation, it follows that they are entitled to insist upon the benefits which accrue to the nation under the treaty covenants. Evidence of their national identity and representative character is not wanting, if required. There is no difficulty in defining the original nation of the Cayugas having regard to its composition, language, rulers, laws, constitution and method of government. The seat of the ancient government it is true has disappeared as the place of abode of any descendant of the national stock, but that was a circumstance necessarily involved in the project of the treaties, by which the territories of the nation were ceded to the state for the purpose of occupation by the incoming white settlers. The Cayugas at the Grand River, descendants of those who parted with their lands, embrace, and have always embraced at least upwards of two-thirds of those claiming such descent. They are living and have always lived in subjection to the direct successors of the ancient national rulers, and their language, laws and method of government remain. When the Cayugas migrated to the Grand River their sachems and chiefs went with them. They settled upon lands appropriated for the Six Nations by the British Government, and these lands, under the terms of Governor Haldimand's grant or license, were open to every member of the nation who chose to come and dwell upon them. The ancient hereditary sachemships have been filled; the chiefs possess their accustomed powers; except for the results flowing from the influences of civilization, the conditions and circumstances of the Grand River nation are not distinguishable from those which prevailed previous to the Revolutionary War in their settlement upon Cayuga Lake. See Index under "Organization" and "Enumeration."

In competition with these people as the representatives and successors of the nation it is possible at best to refer to the comparatively small number of descendants of those who remained within the state of New York, electing to reside at sufferance. upon the lands of their kindred, the Senecas. These have become merged with the latter nation, have adopted its language, and appear in its census. They seem indeed to have no motive to trace descent save for the receipt of annuity.. Some, inextricably mixed with the Senecas, have drifted away to the Indian Territory. See Index under "Organization " and "Enumeration."

The Cayugas resident in the United States have no sachems. In 1849 they proposed government by three annually elected councillors. As convincing proof that the Indians propounding this method of government regarded the Canadian Cayugas as belonging to the nation, or that the Cayuga nation in its identity embraced the whole kindred both Canadian and within the United States, it appears that before the step preliminary to the annual election of councillors was decided upon, the Cayugas in the United States met with their brethren at Middleport in Canada and discussed the proposed change, to which the Canadians would not agree. Another council was held on the Seneca Reservation in the state of New York, when the Canadians again refused to agree. These meetings, it is true, were meetings of the confederacy, but as each nation was by the laws of the league supreme in respect of its own affairs, and in matters affecting the Six Nations generally unanimity of the nations was required, the Canadian Cayugas being in the majority and deciding as they did, the continuity of the nation in its ancient mode of government was constitutionally maintained. See Index under "Councils of Six Nations," Buffalo and Middleport.

The Iroquois nations were divided in allegiance in two wars, but this did not, in their minds at least, dissolve their league. After the war of the American revolution and the removal of the Mohawks and Cayugas to Canada, the Six Nations remained a confederacy acknowledging the continued national character of its included Indian nations. The government of the United States also continued to recognize the league as theretofore. The Mohawks, though wholly resident in Canada, through the genius of Joseph Brant, became controllers practically of the policy of the confederacy, and their good offices were courted by the United States in all contemplated dealings with the league. (American State papers, Indian Affairs, Vol. 1, pp. 1-175).