MOHAWK - ONEIDA - ONONDAGA - CAYUGA - SENECA - TUSCARORA
MOHAWK NATION COUNCIL OF CHIEFS
VIA BOX 366 ROOSEVELTOWN NEW YORK 13683
Telephone (518) 358-3381 Fax (518) 358-3488
PRESS RELEASE
SYRACUSE, OCTOBER 3, 1996
By The Kahniakehaka (Mohawk) Nation Council of Chiefs (Traditional
Government), The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (United States); and The Mohawk
Council of Akwesasne (Canada); (Together referred to as - the Mohawks of
Akwesasne, or the Mohawks).
The State of New York today, in a move contrary to the wishes of the
Mohawks, and of the Federal Judge hearing the case, broke off negotiations
for a settlement of the Mohawk land claim in Northern New York. The
negotiations had been on-going for more than ten years, and many
participants felt we were finally nearing a satisfactory conclusion for
all parties.
The State of New York, however, about six months ago added a new element
that derailed the negotiation. It insisted that as a part of the
settlement of the land claim, the Mohawks also agree to collect all state
taxes on sales to non-Indians on their reservation and turn them over to
the State. The State announced that it was requiring all tribes in the
State to negotiate tax compacts with it. This brought other tribes and
Indian merchant groups into the issue, The Mohawks said that the tax issue
is not one that a single tribe can negotiated, and asked the State to
handle it separately from the land settlement. In May 1996 and again on
October 3, 1996, Judge McCurn, the federal judge handling the Mohawk case
in Syracuse, agreed with the Mohawks, and urged the State to proceed with
the tax issues separately from the land settlement. The State refused and
now has broken off negotiations.
This means the land case will be tried and decided by the federal court,
rather than settled. The Indians and non-Indians of New York are facing
years of costly and contentious litigation, instead of the anticipated
amicable resolutions of the Mohawk claims. It is likely that the United
State will enter the case on the side of the Indians as it has done in the
Cayuga Nation.
The lands at issue in the Mohawk claim are approximately 11,642 acres
consisting of county land in St. Lawrence and Franklin counties, 640 acres
in Massena, 640 acres in Fort Covington, and 144 acres in the Hogansburg
Triangle, 2,060 acres of another triangle, and a series of lots along the
Grass River between the two towns, In addition, the ownership of Barnhart
Island, where the Robert Moses is located, and a number of other islands,
including but not limited to Croil and Long Sault Islands, are in dispute.
Spokespersons for the Mohawks said they are disappointed. They said they
have been trying to settle the case in a way that would be fair to the
Mohawks, but would not dispossess any non-Indian land owners. Subject to a
final ratification of their people, they had tentatively agreed to five
(5) conditions the State had earlier insisted upon the settlement talks -
namely:
1. that all titles to property would be cleared,
2. that the United States would make a contribution to the settlement,
3. that land going to the Indians would be public lands or lands acquired
from willing sellers,
4. that the tax base of the local governments would be addressed,
5. and that the settlement would be reasonable related to the size of the
claim.
The Mohawk negotiators had also agreed to recommend that their people give
up any claim to lands in the two heavily populated one mile squares in
Massena and Fort Covington, or on the Grass River, in return for the right
to buy county property from willing sellers. The Mohawks had secured the
agreement of the Federal government to pay a substantial amount of the
settlement. They were also negotiating with the New York Power Authority
to settle the claims to the Islands.
Again, although an agreement had not been reached, the negotiations were
making very significant progress towards an agreement.
The Mohawks said that going back to court, of course, means that there are
no agreements at all, and that all the claimed land is back in the suit.
The Mohawks of Akwesasne, and The Kahniakehaka (Mohawk) Nation Council,
The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne and The St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Council;
state that these legal proceedings will be brought without prejudice to
the Aboriginal and Treaty rights of all Kahniakehaka (Mohawk) as well as
the United Mohawk Councils of Akwesasne.
History of the Mohawk Claim
To understand the Mohawk claim, one must go back to the promises made to
the Mohawks in the Treaty of 1796, and the ruling of the United States
Supreme Court in a similar case involving the Oneida Tribe.
Notwithstanding the Mohawk Position on the 1796 Treaty, the Aboriginal
rights of the Mohawks are larger than those mentioned in the treaty. The
Mohawks at Akwesasne make a claim to land outlined in the 1796 Treaty and
to islands, including but not limited to Barnhart, Croil and Long Sault.
The Mohawk land claim is divided into a mainland claim and an island
claim. The mainland claim is based on a 1796 treaty between the Mohawks
and the State of New York, approved by the United States. The Treaty
guaranteed a reservation of 36 square miles drawn on a map (in the area of
the present New York reservation and the village of St. Regis), two areas
of one mile squares situated around mills the Mohawks had (now in the
middle of Massena and Fort Covington), and meadows on the Grass River. In
violations of federal law, New York later made several purchases of the
Reservation established by the 1796 Treaty, but without the required
consent of the United States.
The United States Supreme Court, several years ago, in a similar case
brought by the Oneida Indians held that such purchases by the State
without the consent of the United States, violated federal law and were void.
The Mohawks claim ownership of their treaty land, and damages for having
been deprived of some 15,287 acres of it for many years.
The Mohawk Island claim is primarily for three Islands (Barnhart, Croil,
and Long Sault), that were thought to be in Canada at a time the treaty
was made, but later were determined to be in the United States. The State
of New York, in the 1840's, recognized that the Mohawks owned the Islands
and should be paid for them, New York had unlawfully sold the Islands to
developers.
New York did not return the Islands to the Mohawks. The transaction was
without the required consent of the United States.
The Mohawk claim states that the Islands were never lawfully the property
of the State, and remain Mohawk property. The Island Claim is substantial
because the Robert Moses Dam is anchored on Barnhart Island and federal
laws provide Indians with a right to share in the power revenues when
their reservations are used for power production, The New York Power
Authority is seeking a renewal of its license for the Robert Moses Dam,
and while contesting the claim, had been moving towards a negotiated
settlement with the Mohawks. That settlement possibility was also pulled
off the table when the State walked out of the talks.
Additionally, while no suit was brought, the Mohawks claim ownership under
the same theories to a number of the Islands in the Thousand Island Chain
that currently are the site of expensive summer homes. At New York's
request, the Mohawks were negotiating to settle that claim as a part of
the overall land claim settlement. The Mohawk Nations Council of Chiefs is
presently doing the research to bring that claim forward.
New York's decision to terminate settlement talks appears to be motivated
in part by a recent Supreme Court decision in "The State of Florida vs.
Seminole" granting states broad sovereign immunity from lawsuits. The
counties and private parties who are defendants in the Mohawk case do not
enjoy sovereign immunity and will not be able to dismiss the claims
against them on that ground. Although the State rightfully bears the
responsibility for confiscating Mohawk land in violation of federal law,
Governor Pataki now seems prepared to wash the State's hands of that
responsibility, and to shift the burden to local governments and private
landowners.
- 30 -
For more information, please contact Joyce King-Mitchell at:
(518) 358-3381
or by e-mail at: