Recent developments in the Haudenosaunee land claims suggest that the same internal divisions and non-native racism that formed the backdrop of the original land sales are alive and well two centuries later. A shocking judgement in one of the cases has observers wondering about the future of all Haudenosaunee land claims in New York State.

Three land claims are at the forefront as of this writing. The Cayuga claim is before the U.S. District Court in Syracuse, New York. The Oneida claim is being negotiated behind closed doors. The Mohawk claim awaits a decision on a motion to dismiss made by the State of New York. Onondaga and Seneca claims are on the backburner while the other claims boil away.

The Cayuga Case: A Disturbing Award

On Thursday, February 17, 2000, a nine-member jury awarded the Cayugas $36.9 million in damages for the loss of 64,015 acres of land, or $576 per acre. This was even lower than the estimated $40 million amount the State of New York's appraisal came up with and almost 300 million less than the Cayugas sought. The non-native jury, some of whom reside in land claims areas, took only 12 hours to return a verdict.

The decision sent shockwaves throughout the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, as the low verdict will have an influence on how the state handles all future land claims cases. Non-native opponents of the claims, meanwhile, were elated. New York Governor George Pataki was quoted by the media as calling the verdict "fair and reasonable…This will allow us to end the decades-long case against the people of Cayuga and Seneca counties, while protecting taxpayers and fairly compensating Cayuga Indian Nation."

The recommendation by the jury will be considered by Judge Neal McCurn in his final decision. A number of other factors will have to be considered. The jury's method of determining the fair rental value will most likely be questioned, since this amounted to about $17,000 per year. With the likelihood of appeals, the case will probably drag on for years.

Before the case went to trial, a federal mediator offered a settlement of $125 million. This was rejected by the Cayugas who sought damages of up to $335 million. Once the trial began, however, Judge Neal McCurn refused to allow testimony by expert witnesses and the Cayugas themselves on the impact the loss of ancestral lands has had on their communities for the last 200 years. Testimony was limited to the dollar value of the lands in question as well as rental value.

The bulk of the trial was taken up by the testimony of land appraisers employed by the U.S. Justice Department (on behalf of the Cayugas) and the State of New York. Arvel Hale, of Manassas, Virginia, came up with a current value of $264.7 million and the fair rental value of the land for the past 204 years is $70.4 million. The state's lawyers then refuted his estimates with testimony by a number of experts who dismissed Hale's calculations as being based on the county computer data and not on personal, first-hand inspections.

The state's main witness, John D. Dorchester, of Arizona, valued the land at $40 million with the fair rental value at $10.9 million. Under cross-examination, it was determined that he was paid a half a million dollars for his work on the case as opposed to the $40,000 paid to Hale. A state attorney dismissed the discrepencies in his summation by saying, "you get what you pay for."

The Oneida Case: A Collapse in Unity

According to press reports, the negotiations between the three Oneida parties (New York, Wisconsin, and Ontario), New York State and the federal government are taking place with settlement amounts in the area of a half billion dollars. On Wednesday, February 2, a Syracuse newspaper published an interview with Bob Antone of the Thames Band of Oneidas of Ontario, Canada, in which he revealed that the Canadian Oneidas were being "squeezed out" of the settlement by the New York and Wisconsin Oneidas. He stated that the federal government stated that they had no obligations to the "Canadian" Oneidas and suggested that a settlement that included them would pose a problem for Congress.

According to the published account, Antone said the Oneidas of New York wanted a $225 million dollar settlement while the Wisconsin Oneidas said they wanted $250 million. When talks moved to the issue of land, the Wisconsin Oneidas agreed to the New York Oneidas' stipulation that the land for the Wisconsin Oneidas could be no larger than 1,500 acres and should be as far away from the New York Oneida lands as possible. Land in St. Lawrence County was discussed as the land the Wisconsin Oneidas would receive. They could not use the land for commercial purposes, including casinos, and would be subject to local laws. The next day, the Oneidas of New York insisted that even residential development was out of the question for the Wisconsin Oneidas, and no agreement was reached.

The New York Oneidas then stated that they would stop their land purchases at 45,000 acres but were willing to stop at 35,000 acres if the state would agree to allow slot machines at the Turning Stone Casino. New York state negotiators insisted that the New York Oneidas would have to collect and remit sales taxes on sales to non-natives or there would be no agreement. Again, no agreement was reached. Negotiators then departed for their respective communities.

The Oneida case has stirred up anti-native sentiments in the area. Anonymous death threats were made last year against the patrons of the Turning Stone Casino as well as a nation-owned gas station. Community forums have been full of tension and anti-treaty rhetoric, and rallies to protest the Oneidas have shown that the Oneida's historic role in defending the colonies in the American Revolution means little or nothing to the non-natives who live in the land claims area. Anti-Oneida sentiments are not just a grassroots phenomenon: in early February, officials from the city of Sherrill have threatened to evict the Oneida Nation's T-shirt shop and SavOn gas station for not paying $3,961 in back taxes. The Oneidas sued the city to block the eviction, claiming that it was immune to any such actions due to the 1790 Indian Trade and Non-Intercourse Act.

The Mohawk Case: A Question of Standing

There have not been any new developments in the Mohawk land claims since last fall. Both sides still await a decision by Judge McCurn on motions made by the State of New York to dismiss the claim. The State of New York has attacked the standing of the three parties, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Council (the elected council on the American side of Akwesasne), the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne (the elected council on the Canadian side of Akwesasne), and the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs (the traditional council which does not recognize the international border.)

It is hoped that the three Mohawk parties to the land claim will remain united and avoid any "divide and conquer" tactics that might be employed against them in future negotations to resolve their claim. News of what occurred in the Oneida case spread quickly in Akwesasne, which has a history of internal divisions based on the existence of the international border through the territory.

Although the Mohawk land claim isn't at the forefront of media attention, anti-Mohawk sentiments have already surfaced. On February 1, 2000, the New York Institute for Law & Society ran an ad in the Albany Times-Union in which it asked readers, "Why would Governor George Pataki give millions of dollars to a group accused of drug smuggling, money laundering, trafficking in illegal immigrants and violence?" Citing recent media stories about the smuggling of guns, drugs, cigarettes, and illegal aliens through the Akwesasne reserve, the ad states that, "Now Governor George Pataki wants to reward this illegal behavior by granting the St. Regis Mohawks the right to operate a gaming casino north of New York City. Pataki refuses to submit this agreement to the New York State Legislature as required by law." Although the issue at hand seems to be the proposed Mohawk casino at the Monticello Raceway, it is believed that the Mohawk land claims will inspire similar campaigns once there are new developments.

The Onondaga and Seneca Cases: Wait and See

The Onondagas have not yet filed a land claim and are taking a wait-and-see approach. They have been monitoring the Cayuga, Oneida, and Mohawk claims and hope New York State will avoid another trial by negotiating a fair settlement out of court. They are seeking compensation for about 70,000 acres of land—including a large portion of the city of Syracuse—which was lost in illegal land purchases between 1790 and 1822.

The Seneca claim is being discussed in meetings between the Seneca Nation of Indians and the Tonawanda Senecas. A preliminary court date is scheduled but the case is still being researched. Their claim includes Grand Isle on the Niagara River.

UPDATE: The Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Council, and the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, the plaintiffs in the "American claim," have agreed to begin discussions about the latest settlement proposal from New York State. There will be further updates in weeks to come.

Text and Graphics © 1999/2002 by Darren Bonaparte.