ADDENDUM

TO ANSWER OF THE UNITED STATES

Comments upon Certain Statements Appearing in the Memorial of His Britannic Majesty's Government and in the Index to the Annexes to the Memorial.

THE MEMORIAL.

Page 3 (par. 1). "The settlements and villages of the league were then found planted within the territory which became the State of New York, where the confederated nations continued to reside in undisturbed possession until the time of the Revolutionary War, shortly after which they migrated to lands lying upon the Grand River in Canada,' where they have ever since been domiciled and established, maintaining their cohesion, ancient constitution and method of government.'

Comment. The apparent inference to be drawn from this statement is that the entire League of the Iroquois migrated in a body to the Grand River. As a matter of fact, only the Mohawks went as a nation. The other Indians, who migrated, went over at different times as individuals, and not as tribes, and were allowed by the Canadian Government to settle on certain lands, which were given to the Mohawks "and others of the Six Nations who have either lost their settlement within the territory of the American States or wish to retire from them to the British" (Memorial, page 258). In migrating these departing Indians left behind them organized nations and the ancient Iroquois Confederacy, which lacked only the Mohawk tribe. With the League and the separate nations the Governments of the United States and the State of New York continued to deal.

Page 4 (par. 3). "This treaty [of. 1789] was not in fact, however, executed by any sachem, or competent Indian authority.” Comment. This statement assumes that a document conveying national or tribal rights in land required execution by a sachem. The assumption is without supporting evidence. National action

'The italics used in this and subsequent quotations do not appear in the original

text

was directed by a council of the nation, at which, when the decision of the council was reached, authorization to speak for the tribe was given to individuals specially designated. An examination of the treaties and agreements shows that the sachems rarely were delegated by the nation.

Page 4 (par. 7). "For reasons which will hereinafter be stated, arising from the absence of national authority on behalf of the alleged chiefs and warriors, parties to the treaty of 1789, it was found necessary or expedient on behalf of the state to negotiate with the sachems and chiefs, the constituted rulers of the Cayuga Nation, in order to make effective the provisions of the treaty,

* *

Comment. By the statements in this paragraph the memorial affirms that the tribes of the Six Nations were autocracies, governed by rulers called sachems or chiefs. No evidence is offered in support of this important affirmation. On the contrary, the evidence produced with the memorial shows that every matter of importance was made the subject of a special council, in which all the men and women of the tribe participated, and from which the authority to act in the particular case proceeded. The governmental system was, therefore, a democracy of the purest type, the sachems and chiefs being advisers rather than legislators or administrators.

Page 5 (par. 3). "It is pertinent to observe that a considerable movement of the Cayugas to Canada took place immediately after the treaty of 1790,

Comment. This assertion is unsupported by citations of evidence. In the comments upon the heading in the index “CANADIAN CAYUGAS" (post, p. 125) an assertion that the majority of the Cayugas removed to Canada in 1790 is shown to be unsupported by evidence of value. The statement here goes further and fixes the time as "immediately after the treaty of 1790." Of this there is no evidence of any sort. The obvious implication is that the movement took place because of the treaty, which is entirely unwarranted.

Page 5 (par. 3). that for the purposes of the treaty of 1795 the representatives of the nation from Canada attended at Cayuga Ferry, where the treaty was made, upon the invitation of

Comment. It is to be inferred from this statement that the principal negotiators of the treaty came from Canada, and that the New York authorities sent to Grand River for them for that purpose. There is no citation of evidence to support this, and the only passage in the documents accompanying the memorial, from which such an inference can be drawn, is an account rendered by Jasper Parrish, an interpreter of New York State, which contains an item for "time and services from May 10th to July 9th in bringing forward the Indians from Buffalo Creek and Grand River to the Treaty." (Memorial, page 819). It appears that about one hundred and fifty "Chiefs and Indians" went from Buffalo Creek and Grand River to Cayuga Ferry. (Memorial, page 843). Apparently a general invitation was sent to the Cayuga and Onondaga Nations. There is no evidence that Parrish went to the Grand River or even to Buffalo Creek.

Page 6 (par. 1). "The said counterpart of the treaty, which, it will be observed, is made evidence of title, was delivered by the commissioners to Fish Carrier, who had attended with his brother chiefs from Canada, for the purpose of the negotiation."

Comment. The statement that Fish Carrier "attended with his brother chiefs from Canada" is without evidence to support it. The traditionary and documentary proof is that he resided at Buffalo Creek and Cayuga Lake until his death in 1796.

Page 6 (par. 2). "Fish Carrier with his people then returned to Canada *

Comment. This statement depends on the unsupported testimony of a single Indian witness, aged eighty-six years in 1889, who testified through an interpreter that it was the tradition that Fish Carrier brought over a treaty with the United States to Canada. (Memorial, page 93). ́

Page 6 (par. 3). "From the time of the treaty of 1795 sachems and chiefs of the Cayuga Nation attended annually and received from the proper authorities of the State of New York the stipulated annuities. They continued to do so until shortly before the War of 1812 when the payments ceased owing to the approach of hostilities and the causes and events which led up to the war."

Comment. No citations are given as authority for the fore

attending annually and receiving the annuities. In the second place, the annuities were not received from "the proper authorities of the state of New York." The money was paid by the State to the United States Indian Agent at Canandaigua, as agent of the Cayuga Nation, and never to the Indians directly. In the third place, the payments did not cease shortly before the war, but were duly made to the agent of the Cayuga Nation, and they were, therefore, not stopped "owing to the approach of hostilities." If the assertion as to cessation of payments is assumed to be true, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the events leading up to the War of 1812 caused such cessation in 1810.

Page 7 (par. 4). "Thereafter the agents of the Cayuga Nation from time to time made various journeys to the State of New York in the fruitless endeavour to obtain payment of the annuities, which had previous to the war been customarily paid."

Comment. This statement contains two assumptions; one that the Cayuga Nation was in Canada; the other that the Indians of Cayuga blood in Canada had received the annuities before the War of 1812. There is no evidence in support of either assumption. The implication is that application was made to the State of New York for "payment of the annuities," not that certain Indians visited the Cayuga Nation in New York for the purpose of obtaining a share of the annuities, of which there is some traditional evidence.

Page 10 (par. 3). "Accordingly the commissioners of the state found it necessary to obtain confirmation of these treaties by adequate authority."

Comment. It is a noticeable fact that the expressions, “national authority," "adequate authority," the "authorities of the Cayuga Nation," and similar ones are used frequently in the memorial without any analysis of the Iroquois institutions and customs and without any statement showing in what body resided this "national authority" or "adequate authority," or who were the "authorities" of the Nation. The assumption that the exercise of authority by the influential Cayuga chief, Steel Trap, and the others, who negotiated the Agreement of 1789, was improper, is