20 Ind. C1. Corm. 177

BEFORE THE INDIAR CLAIFiS CO?NISSION

THE SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, ) 1

Petitioner, ) )

v. ) )

THE UNITED STATES OF PMERICA, 1 )

Defendant.

TONAWANDA BAND OF SENECA INDIANS,) )

Petitioner, ) 1

v. 1 )

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 1

Defendant. 1

Docket Nos. 342-B 34 2 -C 34 2-D

Docket No. 368

Decided: December 30, 1968

Appearances:

Paul G. Reilly, Attorney of Record for -Petitioners

Craig A. Decker, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Clyde 0. Martz, Attorneys for Defendant

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

Yarborough, Commissioner delivered the opinion of the

Commission.

Docket Nos, 342-B, C, & D, combined .with Docket No. 368,

are timely suits filed against the United States under Section 2

20 Ind. C 1 . Comm.. 177

of t h e Indian Claims Commission Act of 1 9 4 G (25 U.S.C. 70a) . The

Indian t r i b e s which f i l e d t h e s u i t s a r e t he Seneca Nation of Ind ians 1 / -

and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Ind ians .

The lands involved c o n s i s t of t h e bed of the Kiagara R ive r ,

t h e i s l a n d s i n t h e River w i th in the United S t a t e s , and ad jacen t

l a n d s t o t h e e a s t of t h e River . These l a t t e r lands c o n s i s t of a

s t r i p one mi le wide (or fou r mi les wide) running along t h e Niagara

River from Lake Ontar io on t h e no r th t o t h e mouth of Buffalo Creek

on Lake E r i e on t h e south. These l ands w i l l h e r e a f t e r be r e f e r r e d

t o as t h e s t r i p .

The l and claimed by p e t i t i o n e r s i n Docket No. 342-B i s t h e

sou the rn h a l f of t h e s t r i p , t oge the r wi th a l l l ands belonging t o

t h e United S t a t e s l y i n g i n t h e bed of t h e River , s a i d southern h a l f

be ing one m i l e wide commencing and extending from Buffalo Creek on

Lake E r i e t o t h e mouth of G i l l Creek. Docket No. 342-C concerns a l l

t h e i s l a n d s t h a t l i e i n t h e Niagara River between Lake E r i e and Lake

On ta r io , l y i n g wi th in t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e United S t a t e s . Docket

No. 342-D concerns a s t r i p of land f o u r mi l e s wide, t oge the r w i t h

t h e a d j a c e n t r i v e r bed of t h e Niagara River commencing a t G i l l

1/ A l l f o u r c la ims were consol ida ted f o r t r i a l by o rde r of t h e - Commission of February 7 , 1957, znd were t r i e d on J u l y 1 8 and 1 9 , 1965. The Commission granted defendant ' s motion t o d i s m i s s t h e c a s e s f o r l ack of prosecut ion on May 1, 1967, 1 8 Ind . C 1 . Comrn. 412; t h i s order was s e t a s i d e and p e t i t i o n e r was pe rmi t t ed t o f i l e proposed f ind ings of f a c t and b r i e f by o rde r of June 1 9 , 1967, 1 8 Ind. C 1 . Corn. 424.

20 I n d . C 1 . Comm. 177 1 7 9

Creek n o r t h e r l y t o Lake O n t a r i o . Docket No. 368 a l s o d e a l s w i t h

t h e l a n d s c le imed i n Docket Nos. 342-B and C, b u t s t a t e s t h e c l a i m s 2 / -

i n somewhat d i f f e r e n t language.

P e t i t i o n e r s b a s e t h e i r c la im f i r s t on I n d i a n o r a b o r i g i n a l

t i t l e t o a l l t h e l a n d claimed i n Docket Nos. 342-B, C and D and 368

and t h e l a c k of f a i r and honorable d e a l i n g s by i t s c e s s i o n i n t h e

1784 T r e a t y of F o r t Stanwix. Without doubt , a f t e r t h e middle of t h e

1 7 t h c e n t u r y , t h e Senecas were t h e dominant t r i b e of t h e a r e a . The

European powers when i n t h e Niagara a r e a d e a l t w i t h t h e Senecas

e x c l u s i v e l y , when n o t s u f f e r i n g t h e i r a t t a c k s .

2/ A t a b l e of t h e r e l e v a n t t r e a t i e s and areas:

T r e a t y

1764 T r e a t i e s

1784 T r e a t y

Area

Seneca ceded f o u r m i l e wide n o r t h e r n and s o u t h e r n s t r i p t o G r e a t B r i t a i n .

Seneca ceded f o u r m i l e wide n o r t h e r n and s o u t h e r n s t r i p t o U n i t e d S t a t e s .

(1786 H a r t f o r d Compact) (New York r e t a i n e d o n e m i l e wide n o r t h e r n and s o u t h e r n s t r i p i n c e d i n g preemption r i g h t t o M a s s a c h u s e t t s . )

1789 T r e a t y

1794 T r e a t y - 1802 S a l e

Seneca ceded f o u r m i l e wide n o r t h e r n and s o u t h e r n s t r i p t o U n i t e d S t a t e s .

Seneca ceded f o u r m i l e wide n o r t h e r n s t r i p t o U n i t e d S t a t e s , b u t was g r a n t e d one m i l e wide s o u t h e r n s t r i p .

Seneca s o l d one m i l e wide s o u t h e r n s t r i p t o New York.

1 8 1 5 S a l e Seneca s o l d i s l a n d s t o New York.

20 Ind . C 1 . Corni. 177

However, t h i s p a r t i c u l a r t r a c t i n q u e s t i o n , t h e Niagara River

and a narrow s t r i p on i t s e a s t bank, was one of t h e key r o u t e s o f

t r a v e l d u r i n g t h e c o l o n i a l p e r i o d . The f u r t r a d e w i t h t h e Western

I n d i a n s was conducted through i t . There was v i r t u a l l y con t inuous

European occupancy of t h e a r e a a f t e r 1700. I n t h e n o r t h e r n p a r t of

t h e s t r i p , f o r t s were b u i l t t o p r o t e c t t h e p o r t a g e r o u t e around

Niagara F a l l s . Whether t h e s e f a c t s a l o n e would d e f e a t t h e c l a i m of

a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , t h e Ind ians d i d e n t e r i n t o t r e a t i e s of c e s s i o n t o

t h e B r i t i s h i n 1764, as set o u t i n our F ind ings . The ev idence f u r t h e r

shows t h a t i n l a t e r y e a r s , a f t e r American s o v e r e i g n t y . h a d a t t a c h e d ,

t h e Seneca recognized t h a t they had ceded t h e s t r i p a r e a t o t h e

B r i t i s h . The t r e a t i e s of c e s s i o n of 1764 t o t h e p r i o r s o v e r e i g n

Great B r i t a i n are conc lus ive a s ev idenc ing a n i n t e n t of t h e Seneca

t o abandon and r e l i n q u i s h any a c t u a l e x c l u s i v e u s e and occupancy of

t h e Niagara R i v e r s t r i p a f t e r 1764. T h e i r c e s s i o n of t h e n o r t h e r n

p a r t o f t h e s t r i p , t h a t c o n t a i n i n g t h e p o r t a g e around t h e F a l l s ,

was r e p e a t e d i n t h e t r e a t i e s of 1784, 1789 and 1794 and of t h e

s o u t h e r n s t r i p i n t h e t r e a t i e s of 1784 and 1789.

A s we f i n d t h a t t h e Seneca had no cornpensable i n t e r e s t i n

t h i s N i a g a r a a r e a a t t h e t i m e of t h e T r e a t y o f F o r t Stanwix i n

1784, no c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e United S t a t e s a r i s e s f o r any l a c k of

f a i r and h o n o r a b l e d e a l i n g s i n o b t a i n i n g t h e c e s s i o n of t h e

Niagara a r e a . The c l a i m i n Docket No. 342-D w i l l be d i smissed .

20 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 177

The 1794 T r e a t y , hokrever, w e h o l d t o have the e f f e c t of a t r e a t y of

r e c o g n i t i o n , o r g r a n t of the U . S. i n t e r e s t i n t h e s o u t h e r n s t r i p and t h e

3 / - i s l a n d s . The words of t h e t r e a t y g r a n t a r e c l e a r and u n e q u i v o c a l , and

i t i s n o t m a t e r i a l t h a t t h e Seneca no l o n g e r had a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o t h a t

t r a c t . Miami T r i b e o f Oklahoma v . U . S . , 146 C t . C l s . 421 (1959) .

Colone l Timothy P i c k e r i n g , t h e Uni ted S t a t e s n e g o t i a t o r f o r t h e

1794 T r e a t y , wro te o f h i s embarrassment a t making the o s t e n s i b l e r e l i n -

qu i shment t o t h e I n d i a n s of l a n d of which he f e l t t h e Uni ted S t a t e s d i d

n o t have t h e power o f d i s p o s i t i o n ( s e e F i n d i n g No. 1 2 ) . F o r t u n a t e l y , i t

i s w i t h i n t h e purpose of t h e I n d i a n Claims Commission Act t o c u r e any

d e c e p t i o n t h a t may have been v i s i t e d on t h e I n d i a n s .

W e f i n d t h a t t h e words o f g r a n t i n t h e 1794 T r e a t y a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o

-- c r e a t e a n e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l a g a i n s t t h e United S t a t e s t o deny t h a t t h e s e

were t h e n I n d i a n l a n d s i n which t h e Seneca had a compensable i n t e r e s t

e q u i v a l e n t t o a recognized t i t l e . Any subsequen t d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e l a n d s

by t h e Seneca would be under t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e Trade and I n t e r c o u r s e

A c t :

" In t h e l i g h t of i t s l a n g u a g e , contemporaneous c o n s t r u c t i o n , and h i s t o r y , we h o l d t h a t t h e Trade and I n t e r c o u r s e A c t c r e a t e d a s p e c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e F e d e r a l Government

3 / "Now, t h e United S t a t e s acknowledge a l l t h e l and w i t h i n t h e - aforement ioned boundar ies , t o be p r o p e r t y o f t h e Seneka N a t i o n ; and t h e United S t a t e s w i l l n e v e r c l a i m t h e same, n o r d i s t u r b t h e Seneka n a t i o n , . . . b u t i t s h a l l remain t h e i r s . . ." ( S e e F i n d i n g NO. 1 1 . )

20 I n d . C1. Comm. 1 7 7

and those Indians covered by the l e g i s l a t i o n , with r e spec t to the d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e i r l ands , and t h a t the United S t a t e s assumed a spec i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t and guard aga ins t u n f a i r t reatment i n such t r ansac t ions . C f . The Oneida Tribe of Indians v . United S t a t e s , 1 6 5 C t . C 1 . 4 8 7 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , c e r t . denied, 379 U.S. 9 4 6 . Thi s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was not merely t o be p re sen t a t the nego t i a t i ons o r t o prevent ac tua l f r aud , decept ion , o r duress a lone ; improvidence, u n f a i r n e s s , the r e c e i p t of an unconscionable cons ide ra t ion would l ikewise be of f ede ra l con- cern . . .

. . . I t neces sa r i l y fo l lows , we th ink , t h a t wherever t h i s Act app l i e s the United S t a t e s i s l i a b l e , under the Indian Claims Commission Act, f o r t h e r e c e i p t by the Indians of an unconscionably ~ O V cons idera t ion ." Seneca Nation of Indians V. G., 173 C t . C ls . 917, 925-6 (1965). k/

I n t e s t i n g whether t h e United S t a t e s i s respons ib le i n damages under t h e . - - .-!Indian Claims Cormnission Act, i t i s of no concern whether t he Indians '

-*-

vendee was a p r i v a t e par ty , a S t a t e , o r what ac tua l powers the United

S t a t e s may have possessed o r exerc ised o r f a i l e d t o exe rc i se i n super-

v i s i n g a . p a r t i c u l a r s a l e . The United S t a t e s has made i t s e l f r e spons ib l e

under t h e Ind ian Claims Commission Act f o r any f a i l u r e of the Ind ians t o

r e c e i v e a consc ionable cons idera t ion f o r t h e i r lands.

4 / Most o f t h e o t h e r land con£ irmed t o the Seneca by the 1794 - T r e a t y was purchased from them by Robert Morris i n 1797. Rul ing t h a t t h e United S t a t e s had a f i d u c i a r y o b l i g a t i o n and t h a t t h e Seneca had a compensable i n t e r e s t , the Court of Claims has remanded the quest ion of the adequacy of the c o n s i d e r a t i o n received t o the Commission. Seneca Nation of I n d i a n s v . U . S . , supra. -

20 Ind . C 1 . Comn. 177

The Seneca acqu i red t?lr same i n t e r e s t i n t h e i s l a n d s a d j a c e n t

t o t h e s o u t h e r n s t r i p a s they d i d t o t h e s h o r e . The 1794 T r e a t y

boundary d e s c r i p t i o n , " . . . t o t h a t r i v e r ; . . . t h e n t h e l i n e r u n s

a l o n g t h e R i v e r Niagara t o Lake E r i e i t h e n a l o n g Lake E r i e ...,"

by c o n s t r u c t i o n i n c l u d e s t h e a d j a c e n t i s l a n d s s o f a r a s U n i t e d

S t a t e s ownership went , o r t o t h e main channe l o f t h e r i v e r .

"Thus, d e s c r i p t i o n s of a boundary l i n e runn ing ' t o t h e r i v e r , and t h e n c e up t h e r i v e r , ' ' t o t h e r i v e r and t h e n c e up and a l o n g t h e same' t o a beg inn ing monument on t h e bank of t h e r i v e r , o r even ' t h e n c e on t h e r i v e r s h o r e ' c a r r y t i t l e t o , and f i x t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f , t h e g r a n t e e ' s a t t h e t h r e a d of t h e stream." 8 Am. J u r . , Boundar ies 525, p.763, a l s o 4 T i f f a n y , Rea l P r o p e r t y , 5995.

i NO showing of a c o n t r a r y i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s is made. The 1802

sale t o New York, however, i s c l e a r l y o n l y o f a one m i l e wide s t r i p

on t h e s h o r e .

No p o r t i o n of t h e r i v e r b e d a d j a c e n t t o t h e s o u t h e r n s t r i p

can b e s a i d t o have been g r a n t e d by t h e 1794 T r e a t y . The r u l e i s

w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e r e i s a p resumpt ion a g a i n s t t h e s o v e r e i g n ' s

a l i e n a t i o n of t i t l e t o t h e l a n d under n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s :

"It i s a p r i n c i p l e d e r i v e d from t h e E n g l i s h common law and f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h i s c o u n t r y t h a t t h e t i t l e t o t h e s o i l under n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s i s i n t h e s o v e r e i g n , e x c e p t s o f a r a s p r i v a t e r i g h t s i n i t have been a c q u i r e d by e x p r e s s g r a n t o r p r e s c r i p t i o n . S h i v l e y v . Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1. The r u l e i s

20 Ind. C1. Cornm. 177

applied both to the territory of the United States (Shivley v . --- Bowlby ' supra) and to land within the confines of the States whether they are original States; Johnson v. FIcIntosh, [ 8 Wheat. 5 4 3 1 ; ?/artin v. Maddell, 116 Pet. 3671, or States admitted into the Union since the adoption of the Constitution. United States v. Holt State Bank, 270 U.S. 49. The dominion over navigable waters, and property in the soil under them, are so identified with the exercise of the sovereign powers of government that a pre- sumption agafnst their separation from sovereignty must be indulged, in construing all grants by the sovereign, of lands to be held in private ownership. Martin v. Waddell; Shivley v. Bowlby, supra. Such grants are peculiarly subject to the rule, applicable generally, that all grants by or to a sovereign government, as distinguished from private grants, must be construed so as to diminish the public rights of the sovereign only so far as is made necessary by an unavoidable construction. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Peters, 420, 544- 548; Shivley v. Bowlby, supra." Massachusetts v. New York, 271, U.S. 65, 89 (1926) construing the Hartfords Compact's effect on lands under Lake Ontario; see accord Cherokee Nation v. Oklahoma,

I?. 2d (10th Cir. 1968), U.S. grant to Indians not passing title to riverbeds.

In summary, the Commission holds that although the Seneca

had no compensable interest in the Niagara lands prior to 1794,

the 1794 Treaty created a compensable interest in the Senecas to

the southern strip and the islands. Under the fiduciary re-

lationship required by the Trade and Intercourse Act the United

States will owe compensation under our Act if the Seneca received

less than a proper consideration for these lands in their sales

20 I n d . C1. Comnl. 1 7 7 185

t o NCY: York i n 1802 and 1815 . The e x a c t a c r e a g e i n v o l v e d , i t s

f a i r marke t v a l u e , and the c o n s i d e r a t i o n r e c e i v e d will be d e t e r -

mined i n f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s .

John T. Vance, Chairman

. - Theodore R. McKeldin, Commissioner