Page 15 (par. 4). "The recognition on the part of the state of the Cayuga nation as embracing those who had not returned to their lands after the war and even although some of them were residing in a foreign jurisdiction and others awaiting only the disposition of their interests in the state in order to seek a new settlement was thus deliberate and formal. Fish Carrier and many of the nation had followed Joseph Brant to the Grand River as early as 1791. Pages 873, 17, 540, 547, 549, 735, 367, 368, 364, 767, 768, 369.' Comment. These statements are unsupported by the numerous citations to evidence at the end of the paragraph. It is probable that some of the Cayugas did not return to their lands at Cayuga Lake after the Revolution, but remained at Buffalo Creek within United States territory, which for a considerable time after the war was occupied by the British military forces. Possibly some Cayugas crossed to Canada to await the full restoration of peace before returning to their lands, being fearful of retaliation by the Americans, but, if they did go, there is nothing to show that they intended to remain there.

There is no citation of evidence given, and none has been found, to support the statement that others were "awaiting only the disposition of their interests in the State in order to seek a new settlement." Nor is there any evidence from which it can be presumed that the Cayugas had any intention such as is attributed to them in the memorial.

As to the assertion that Fish Carrier "had followed Joseph Brant to the Grand River as early as 1791," the evidence, which is cited here, has already been discussed and has been shown to be inconclusive and wholly inadequate to establish the allegation.

*

Page 16 (par. 3). "On 10th May, 1795, Jasper Parrish was sent to the Grand River to request the Cayugas and Onondagas to accompany him to a treaty to be held at Cayuga respecting their lands."

Comment. This statement rests upon the bill for services of Parrish (previously referred to) "in bringing forward the Indians from Buffalo Creek and Grand River to the treaty-"(Memorial, page 819.) It is important to note the position in the sentence of the phrase, "from Buffalo Creek and Grand River" which modifies "Indians" and not "bringing forward.” It clearly does

River, but rather "bringing forward" those Indians, who had come from Buffalo Creek and Grand River. If the other meaning had been intended the phrase would have followed immediately the words, “bringing forward," and not the word, “Indians.”

Page 16 (par. 4). "The holding of this treaty at Cayuga and the escorting of the proper sachems and chiefs from Grand River thereto ensured the attendance of all interested in the lands,"

Comment. What is intended by the word "proper" in this connection? What were "proper" sachems and chiefs? The question of the authority of a sachem or a chief is not discussed in the memorial nor are the particular powers conferred on these sachems and chiefs mentioned. The use of the adjective "proper" seems hardly to be warranted without explanation. As it appears by the next paragraph that 150 Indians were observed on their way to Cayuga, it might be pertinently asked, how many of them were "proper sachems and chiefs?"

Page 16 (par. 5). "-at about that date some 150 Indians from the Grand River and Buffalo Creek passed through Niagara on their way to Cayuga to sell their lands. Page 843."

Comment. This statement is supported by the citation of a letter stated in the memorial to be from W. J. Chew, but apparently signed by Joseph Chew. Whoever may have written the letter, however, it does not say that "one hundred and fifty Indians from the Grand River and Buffalo Creek," but says "chiefs and Indians from Buffaloe Creek and the Grand River in Number about one Hundred & Fifty." It will be noted that in this instance, as is practically always the case in documents, in which both places are mentioned, Buffalo Creek is named first and Grand River second. It does not appear from the letter that the Indians "passed through Niagara on their way to Cayuga." The writer, who was at Niagara, did not see them, but quoted Colonel Butler, who told him to acquaint his correspondent with the fact that the Indians were going to Cayuga in spite of Butler's efforts to dissuade them. While the facts here stated seem to be unimportant, the inaccuracy of their statement is significant.

Page 17 (par. 1). "Sixteen sachems or chiefs of the Cayuga Nation, headed by Ojageghti, the famous Fish Carrier, executed this treaty [of 1795] by their respective marks. Of these, twelve, in

the full enjoyment of their official powers and jurisdiction, are known to have settled upon the Grand River lands, of whom six were resident there at the time of the execution of the treaty, and the remainder were either then residing there, or removed thither shortly afterwards."

Comment. For these statements, no evidence is cited in the memorial. It is clear from the index appended to the memorial, however, that of the sixteen names of Indians appearing on the Agreement of 1795, only three can be construed to be those of sachems, and of these three, which are doubtful, only two actually signed by their marks. The three names mentioned are uncertain. One appears as "Dsinontawehhon" on the treaty and in the index is stated to be the same as "Kajinondawehhon," the other is Thoronghyongo" on the treaty, which the index interprets to mean "Dyonyonhgo." Another sachem's name, "Tekaeayon,” is signed by "Thaweyagearat," who also signs for himself. Tekaeyon is said in the index to be the same as Dehkaehyonh. Of the remaining thirteen names the last three are not credited with being chiefs in the index to the memorial.

Thus the memorial shows that this treaty was made without the participation of eight of the ten Cayuga sachems, and no evidence is given to prove that they authorized or could authorize the chiefs and warriors, who did sign, to act for them. The efforts, therefore, to prove the residence in Canada of the sachems are valueless in determining the location of tribal authority, since apparently the sachems had no special authority in regard to land cessions.

The evidence relied upon to prove the Canadian residence of "the sachems or chiefs" signing the treaty (if they really were sachems or chiefs) depends almost wholly upon alleged identification of different names for the same person, which appears, in many instances, to be founded upon very remote resemblances. For example, take the name of the alleged sachem, who signed next to Fish Carrier on the treaty, Dsinontawehhon. In the index appended to the memorial, the name is identified with "Kajinondawehhon (Sachem No. 2)" and also with the following "Ajondaugh," "Chenondayo," "Genandaughha," "Joandaughhaw,"

"Fish Carrier never occupied his square mile After 1791 he resided at the Grand

Page 18 (par. 7.) of reserved land at Cayuga. River, where he died in 1796."

Comment. The statement as to the residence and death of Fish Carrier is shown to be entirely inaccurate in the comment on the items under the heading "FISH CARRIER No. 1" in the index (post, p. 131).

Page 21 (par. 4). "It will be shown that the Cayugas who remained within the state of New York were merged with the Senecas. *

*

Comment. The impression conveyed is that, after the withdrawal from New York of those Indians of Cayuga blood who settled in Canada, the Cayugas in New York became incorporated politically with the Senecas. The implication is not sustained by any proofs accompanying the memorial and is in fact negatived by the evidence, for it is shown that the Cayuga Nation domiciled in New York continued to maintain a tribal government of its own, its agents receipting for the payment of the Nation's annuities.

Page 42 (par. 2). delivered, and who held the only by it, resided at the Grand River. Comment. The references are to statements, which relate to the presence of Fish Carrier on a certain occasion at the Grand River, and to the ceremonies which took place there after his death. The evidence is not sufficient for the assertion. The statement that the counterpart was delivered at the time of the execution of the Treaty of 1795 to Fish Carrier is unsupported by evidence of value. The implication, that the state authorities recognized a chief alleged to reside in Canada as the proper person to receive the counterpart from the hands of the state commissioners, is, therefore, without warrant.

"Ojageghti, to whom the counterpart was personal claim to lands secured Pages 873, 843."

Page 36 (par. 3). "Furthermore there is evidence of three Canadian Oneida Indians making direct application to Governor DeWitt Clinton in 1825 without success. Page 875, 876."

Comment. The citation in support of this statement (p. 876)

resided at Sandusky, Ohio, and that they made claim under a
treaty entered into by Sir William Johnson, the British Superin-
tendent of Indian Affairs, before the Revolution. The implica-
tion in the sentence quoted is obvious but unwarranted.

Page 37 (par. 7). "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."

Comment. The Senate Committee, in its report (Memorial,
pp. 473-477), found that the Cayugas, when they removed to
Canada, "Ceased to be members of that Cayuga nation of Indians
which was recognized and acknowledged by this State" (p. 476);
and that the State should cease to recognize the Cayugas "in a
national capacity, but should make provision for dividing among
the members of the nation a sum equal to the value of said annuity
and thus discharge its obligations." The committee also recom-
mended that the State Board of Claims be authorized to receive
and decide the claim of the "Cayuga Indians in Canada" to share
in such proposed distribution. There is clearly nothing in the
report to warrant the statement made in the memorial.

THE INDEX.

Page 53. "Atontaraheha. Name of Cayuga Sachem No. 9 as
spelled by Chadwick."

"Present at signing 1795 Treaty" citing p. 95.
"Removed to Grand River" citing p. 95.

Comment. These citations are to the testimony of Abram S.
Hill, a Canadian Cayuga born in Canada about 1803, who stated
that his step-father was "Hadondahahowh," who came from Cayuga
Lake and who told him that he was present when the Cayuga
Nation sold their lands. There is nothing to identify the two
names as being the same; and the fact that Hadondahahowh did
not sign the Treaty of 1795, though stated to have been present,
shows that he was not the Sachem Atontaraheha or else that a
sachem present was not authorized to sign the treaty. Further-
more, the witness, Hill, does not testify that Hadondahahowh was