32) 
 

 ^/y jAm^/ra'fpr^ 
 
 ^/^t^ A^ /icVij^/ 
 
 ^^rr^j 
 
 W^^f^xxx^ isi i^mi^xtu. 
 
 Co 
 
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 ^^ AMEKICi 
 
^- 
 
A FURTHER ILLUSTRATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CASE OF THE SENECA INDIANS 
 
 IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 
 
 IN A 
 
 REVIEW OF A PAMPHLET 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 "AN APPEAL TO THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY, &c. 
 
 BY NATHANIEL T. STRONG, 
 A Chief of the Seneca Tribe." 
 
 PRINTED BY DIRECTION OF THE JOINT COMMITTEES ON INDIAN 
 
 AFFAIRS, OF THE FOUR YEARLY MEETINGS OF FRIENDS 
 
 OF GENESEE, NEW YORK, PHILADELPHIA, 
 
 AND BALTIMORE. 
 
 " Wherefore, O King, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by 
 righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, if it may be a lengthen- 
 ing of thy tranquillity." Daniel iv. 27. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 PRINTED BY MERRIHEW AND THOMPSON, 
 
 No. 7 Carter's Mley. 
 
 1841. 
 
E1^ 
 
" At a meeting of the Commiltees of the four Yearly Meetings of Friends 
 of Genesee, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, on Indian concerns, held 
 at Rose street meeting-house, in the city of New York, Fifth month 1, 1841, a 
 work entitled < A further illustration of the case of the Seneca Indians, in the 
 State of New York, in a Review of a pamphlet entitled " An Appeal to the 
 Christian Community," &c., by Nathaniel T. Strong, a Chief of the Seneca 
 Tribe,' was produced and read ; which was approved, and a Committee ap- 
 pointed to have it printed for general information. 
 
 " BENJ. FERRIS, Clerk." 
 
A FURTHER ILLUSTRATION, &c. &c. 
 
 The Joint Committees of the four Yearly Meetings of Friends, 
 of Genesee, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, who are 
 charged with the concern of those meetings, for the welfare of 
 the Indian natives, believed it to be their duty to publish a work, 
 entitled "The case of the Seneca Indians in the State of New 
 York, illustrated by facts." 
 
 We had clearly seen that the interests of these poor Indians, 
 as well as the character of our country, were suffering, not, as we 
 supposed, from any defect of moral feeling in the community, but 
 because their case was almost unknown to our fellow-citizens ; 
 and of the few who understood it, some were interested in pre- 
 venting the truth from being published. We believed if the facts 
 at that time within our knowledge, and illustrative of their case, 
 were generally known, the virtuous part of society, in this cause 
 of justice and humanity, would lift up a voice so loud as to be 
 heard in the legislative halls of our country, whei'e there is a 
 power to prevent further injuries, and to redress past wrongs. 
 
 The object of our book was what its title imports ; to illustrate 
 the case of the persecuted Seneca Indians, by laying facts before 
 the community. To the parties, whether of the white men, or 
 red men, engaged in the cruel work of coercing this suffering peo- 
 ple into an exile, so terrible to them, we were strangers ; and 
 certainly owed them no ill will. Many of them probably knew 
 little or nothing of the measures pursued in their names. Some 
 of them, we understand, are British capitalists, who perhaps 
 neither know nor care any thing about the Indians, — their sole 
 concern being the pro/its on the capital invested. Others probably 
 are men, who, honest themselves suppose others are honest, and 
 have taken it for granted that no unfair means would be resorted 
 to in the prosecution of their interests. 
 
 As it regards the Land Company we do not find fault with 
 them, because they pursue with unceasing vigilance their own 
 
 1* 
 
interests ; but because they pursue them by unfair means. Their 
 conduct has been exposed, not because it was a pleasure to us to 
 lay before the public the evidences of their turpitude, but because 
 we could not truly state the case without making such exposure. 
 Injustice cannot exist without agents ; — an act caruiot be stamped 
 as criminal without involving individuals or companies in the 
 charge of crime. It would have been more agreeable to us, if the 
 case of the Seneca Indians could have been illustrated without re- 
 ference to facts, or that facts could have been stated without refer- 
 ence to agents. This, however, was impossible, and truth spoken 
 from necessity is no breach of charity. 
 
 In reply to our book, a pamphlet has lately made its appear- 
 ance, entitled "An appeal to the Christian community, on the 
 condition and prospects of the New York Indians ; in answer to 
 a book entitled ' The Case of the New York Indians,' and other 
 publications of the Society of Friends. By Nathaniel T. Strong, 
 a Chief of the Seneca tribe," pp. 65. New York, 1841. 
 
 The reputed author of this pamphlet is one of those Chiefs of 
 the Seneca nation, v/ho, violating their duty as its representatives, 
 and perverting the authority conferred upon them at their inau- 
 guration, have turned traitors to their country, and used that au- 
 thority, and all their individual influence, to drive their brethren 
 into a " waste howling wilderness," contrary to their well known 
 wishes, repeatedly and most earnestly declared in council, amoni; 
 themselves, and before the authorities of our country. 
 
 Had this pamphlet truly exhibited to " the Christian commu- 
 nity" the " condition and prospects of the New York Indians," 
 this notice of it would not have been necessary. Such an exhibit 
 would have excited the commiseration of every mind not callous- 
 to the sufferings of an innocent and cruelly oppressed people. It 
 would have called from that community a terrible sentence of 
 condemnation upon the authors of these wrongs. In the judg- 
 ment to be pronounced by " the Christian community," when 
 truly informed, the Indians have nothing to fear. 
 
 But it was not the purpose of the writer of that pamphlet to ex- 
 hibit to " the Christian community" the true " condition and pros- 
 pects of the New York Indians." His object was not to exhibit, 
 but to veil from the public eye that condition — to make the com- 
 munity l.'elieve that transactions originating in the grossest sel- 
 
fisljness were the fruits of " Christian" benevolence; a benevo- 
 lence so impulsive as to justify bribery and all manner of fraud 
 to secure its object ! His design in writing that work was to en- 
 list the sympathy of religious professors in a cause so unholy, so 
 cruel, so destitute of all regard for the rights, the interests, the 
 feelings of a poor defenceless people, that millions who never 
 heard the name of the Redeemer, would turn from the scene with 
 disgust and shame. 
 
 That Nathaniel T. Strong, whose name is attached to this 
 pamphlet, has permitted himself to become an instrument in the 
 hands of selfish and cruel men, without seeing the miserable con- 
 sequences of his agency, we would charitably hope. His conduct 
 in regard to his nation, however enormous, is perhaps more the 
 I'esult of his weakness than his wickedness. The official docu- 
 ments, printed by order of the Senate, prove that he has kept un- 
 profitable company ; and we have it from high authority, that 
 " evil communication corrupts good manners." 
 
 In regard to the Society of Friends, Nathaniel T. Strong has 
 taken a position which distinguishes him from every other Indian 
 of the American continent, either of the past or present time. He 
 is the first and only red man that ever put his name to a book, to 
 injure the well earned fame of William Penn, or the character of 
 the Society of which he was a member. 
 
 But there is another circumstance which places our author in 
 a very conspicuous point of view. We allude to his literary at- 
 tainments. We mean, at present, to make no further use of this 
 circumstance than as a caution to our readers, how they admit 
 the truth of any assertions or insinuations, on the part of theOg- 
 den Land Company, or their advocate, against the possibility of 
 civilizing the Indians. This " Chief of the Seneca tribe" has 
 acquired at least some of the " arts" of civilized life. 
 
 We have said the object of the author of this pamphlet was to 
 veil from the public eye the true state of the case, and we trust 
 that, in the course of a brief review of his work, this will be made 
 manifest. It appears to be one continued laborious effort to cover 
 up the truth — to give to facts a false coloring — to make the pub- 
 lic believe that a course of operations, whose object was to wrest 
 his land from the rightful owner, was the fruit of Christian cha- 
 rity ! In fine, it is an attempt, en masque, to justify that which 
 
8 
 
 Justice abhors — ^to support a scheme which every honorable man 
 can fully understand only to condemn. 
 
 It is not our intention again to give a history of this highly 
 discreditable transaction, or to go extensively into matters already 
 of public record. The endeavor to thread this gloomy labyrinth, 
 to detect the frauds and falsehoods lurking in its intricate wind- 
 ings, has already been sufficiently painful. We feel no disposi- 
 tion unnecessarily to descend into its dark mazes, or again to 
 breathe its offensive atmosphere. We shall, therefore, go no fur- 
 ther into that history than is necessary to elucidate this subject, 
 and enable the reader to connect the facts referred to in their 
 proper order. 
 
 One of the means used by the Land Company to veil from 
 public view the true state of the case, is the use of ambiguous 
 terms, or the false application of others, when they speak of what 
 they call their title to the Indians' land. We deem it important to 
 notice this subject, because words may be repealed in a wrong 
 sense so frequently, and so long, as to acquire a new meaning, 
 wholly foreign to the true one ; and, in the present case, highly 
 prejudicial to the cause of the poor Senecas. If by these means 
 the public mind can be prejudiced with the idea that the Ogden 
 Company are the rightful owners of the soil, they will have little 
 trouble to make the community believe that the Indians are the 
 aggressors, obstinately and unjustly keeping them out of their' 
 rights. 
 
 The truth is, that no individuals or companies whatever, have 
 any title, either in law or equity, to the Seneca Reservations, 
 except the Indians themselves. The Ogden Company have not 
 only no " fee simple title" to them — they have no title to them 
 of any kind whatever ! 
 
 In a letter addressed to the President of the United States, dated 
 April 4th, 1839, the Ogden Land Company have the presump- 
 tion to style themselves the " pre-emptive owners of the lands 
 occupied by the Seneca and Tuscarora tribes of Indians, in the 
 western parts of the State of New York." And subsequently, 
 they say, " In 1826 these owners extinguished the Seneca claim 
 to parts of these lands; in the residue, hy title regularly derived 
 from the crown of England, through the states of New York and 
 
 i 
 
9 
 
 Massachusetts, they still hold a legal estate in fee simple, subject 
 only to the possessory right of the native Indians." 
 
 This representation of their " title," so diametrically opposed 
 to the facts of the case, and at variance with the plain language 
 of the compact between New York and Massachusetts, looks very 
 much like a deliberate attempt to deceive. When the Company 
 call a mere pre-emptive right " a legal estate in fee simple," they 
 explain our meaning, where we charge them with making 
 " a false application of terms," when speaking of their title to 
 the Indian lands. 
 
 In the year 1497, under the reign of Henry VII. of England, 
 John Cabot and his son Sebastian, in their own ships, and at 
 their own expense, discovered the coast of North America. On 
 this foundation the claim of England to this country primarily 
 rests ; under this claim she drove the Dutch from New York, in 
 the reign of Charles II. To acquire it she expended no money, 
 effected no landing, took no possesgion ; but having quietly passed 
 along the coast, and seen the land, it was left where it rightfully 
 belonged, in the tenure of the natives. One hundred and twelve 
 years afterwards, Henry Hudson, then in the employ of the 
 Dutch " West India Company," after in vain attempting to dis- 
 cover a northwest passage to China and Japan, sailed down the 
 coast of North America, and discovered New York Bay. He 
 landed on Manhattan Island, and, by permission from the lords of 
 the soil, built a cabin, and opened a trade with then). This was 
 the first European settlement within the limits of New York 
 State ; the first act of possession by foreigners in her territory. 
 We would ask, did that act give the Dutch " a fee simple title" to all 
 the land in that State, extending from Manhattan point to the Ri- 
 ver St. Lawrence, and from the Hudson to the Niagara? The 
 idea is preposterous ! And yet, in reason, it is a better title than 
 that under which the crown of England claimed it, and by virtue 
 of which they expelled the Dutch. 
 
 The Indians, at the time of Hudson's landing, held the highest 
 right, the most august title to their lands, of which the human 
 mind can have any conception ! They say, and it cannot be 
 truly gainsaid, that " the Great Spirit made these lands, and gave 
 them to his red children." Cornplanter, the celebrated Seneca 
 Chief, in a speech to General Washington, then President of the 
 
10 
 
 United States, about the year 1790, said, " The land we live on 
 was received by our fathers from God, and they transmitted it to 
 us for our children. You claim it as ceded to you by the King 
 of England. We deny that it ever belonged to the King of Eng- 
 land, and he had no right to cede it to you." To the justice of 
 this conclusion, every unsophisticate understanding freely yields 
 its assent. The title thus claimed, is of immemorial tenure. It 
 is inherent, original, and indefeasible. It is an " allodial title," 
 which Blackstone describes as "the highest known to the law." 
 It is higher than " a fee simple title," because, as the learned 
 judge remarks, " it is that which a man holds in his own right, 
 without owing any rent or service for it whatever." It is a right 
 "wholly independent, being held of no superior at all." Com- 
 mentaries, vol. 2, pp. 60, 67. 
 
 " The right of discovery" can neither in law nor in equity touch 
 this title — it can never impinge upon or affect it in the slightest 
 manner or degree. The righ| of discovery can confer no title, 
 adverse to the original ownership. It is a right that can go no 
 further, at best, than to exclude all claims under subsequent dis- 
 coveries ; and even then, it is questionable whether it can right- 
 fully exclude them, unless the original discoverer has taken and 
 maintained a possession. Thus, in the case of New York, the 
 expulsion of the Dutch by Charles II. under the plea of discovery 
 by the Cabots, without any claim by possession, has been deemed 
 unjust and arbitrary. The question of right in tlie case was 
 settled, not by an appeal to reason, but to arms. 
 
 "With no other title to the country than the discovery by the 
 Cabots, James I. of England, in the year 1620, granted by patent 
 to a company of adventurers, a tract of land called New England, 
 extending in width north and south, from the 40th to the 48th 
 degree of north latitude, and running from the Atlantic to the 
 Pacific Ocean. The King, by this act, gave to forty individuals 
 nearly all the land in the United States, north of Mason and 
 Dixon's line, including also New Brunswick, all the Canadas, as 
 far north as Lake Superior, and all our territories west of the 
 Mississippi, to the mouth of the Columbia river! Thus the lord 
 of a little isle, " a spot, not quickly found if negligently sought," 
 can, by the dash of a pen, dispossess millions of their rights, and 
 
11 
 
 confer them, according to the doctrines of the Ogdcn Land Com- 
 pany, " in fee simple," on forty of his subjects. 
 
 The title under this patent, preposterous as it is, that Company 
 in their letter to the President of the United States, calls a " title 
 regularly derived from the crown of England through the States 
 of New York and Massachusetts," and by which " they still hold 
 a legal estate in fee simple, subject only to the 'possessory 
 right of the native Indians." But whatever they may call it, 
 and after all that has been said or can be said on the subject, this 
 is the only ground of title which this great Land Company now 
 have to the land of the Seneca Indians. It is, at most, the right 
 which Henry VII. of England had to it, by the discoveries of the 
 Cabots ! How are all the ideas of justice, of right, of common 
 honesty, implanted in the human mind, or unfolded there'by the 
 Author of our being, shocked by the doctrine, that the discovery 
 of a populous country, can give any right to it prejudicial lo the 
 original owners and actual occupants of the territory ! 
 
 Tradition says, that when William Penn was about to leave 
 England, on his first voyage to America, he waited on the King, 
 to take leave of him. In a conversation with him on that oc- 
 casion, Penn mentioned his intention to ■purchase of the Indians 
 their lands. The monarch expressed surprise at such determina- 
 tion, inasmuch as Penn had already bought them of the crown. 
 To which Penn replied, that he did not consider that purchase as 
 giving any right, impairing or superceding the Indian title — a 
 title which the right of discovery could never weaken or destroy, 
 seeing that the original and rightful owners were not parties to 
 the contract. In illustration of these truly Christian and rational 
 views of the subject, Penn asked the King to reverse his own po- 
 sition, and suppose that, instead of a discovery of America by the 
 English, the Indians had discovered the British Islands, effected a 
 landing, and claimed a right to them by discovery ! This appli- 
 cation of the King's own rule, demonstrated its absurdity ; and, 
 though it may not suit the purposes of " a grasping Land Com- 
 pany," will meet the approbation of every truly " Christian com- 
 munity." 
 
 It is highly honorable to the good sense and integrity of the 
 statesmen, concerned in settling the controversy between New- 
 York and Massachusetts, in the year 1786, that they laid no 
 
12 
 
 claim to a " fee simple title" to the Indians' land. It is greatly 
 to the credit of the State of Massachusetts, as a virtuous and up- 
 right community, that, in conveying her claims to these lands, 
 she assumed to herself no such title. The great men who then 
 represented both these States, understood and recognized the 
 supreme and exclusive i'ights which the aborigines possessed in 
 all their lands ; rights of which they could not be divested with- 
 out their own consent. 
 
 In the able Report of the Committee appointed by the Governor 
 and Council of Massachusetts, (dated Council Chamber, Nov. 21, 
 1840,) to investigate the subjects of complaint on the part of the 
 Senecas, they say: 
 
 " The sale and conveyance, by Massachusetts, of its said right 
 of pre-emption, or exclusive right to purchase the land of the In- 
 dians, gave no title or interest in the land itself. Such title or 
 interest could be acquired only by a sale and conveyance thereof 
 by the Indians, and the 10th Article of the agreement of 16th De- 
 cember, 1786, was intended to guard them effectually against 
 fraud and imposition." See Report, p. 7. 
 
 Here we have a statement from high authority, confirming the 
 sentiment as before expressed, that the " Ogden Company have 
 not only no fee simple title to the Indian lands, they have no title 
 to them of any kind whatever." These views of the subject ap- 
 pear perfectly plain, from the language used by the States of New 
 York and Massachusetts, when they adjusted and settled their 
 respective claims to the western part o? the State of New York. 
 The words of that agreement, before quoted, are as follows : — 
 " The Commonwealth of Massachusetts may grant the right of 
 pre-emption of the whole, or of any part of the said lands and 
 territories, to any person or persons, who, by virtue of said grant, 
 shall have good right to extinguish by purchase the claims of the 
 native Indians. Provided, however, that no purchase from the 
 native Indians, by any such grantee or grantees, shall be valid, 
 unless the same shall be made in the presence of, and approved 
 by a superintendent to be appointed for such purpose by the Com- 
 monwealth of Massachusetts, and having no interest in such pur- 
 chase ; and unless such purchase shall be confirmed by the Com- 
 monwealth of Massachusetts." 
 
 Thus it appears that neither New York nor Massachusetts 
 
13 
 
 claimed any ownership in " the lands occupied by the Seneca and 
 Tuscarora tribes of Indians." They claimed no " legal estate in 
 fee simple, regularly derived from the Crown of England." They 
 knew they had no such title, and consequently " the Ogden Land 
 Company" have derived no such title to these lands through them. 
 It was left to that company to make the discovery, that a mere 
 privilege to huy, gives a fee simple title to an estate, and leaves 
 the real orio-inal owner, and actual occupant of his land, no title 
 at all ; and nothing to hope for, but to be driven from his home 
 and his fireside, when someybe simple claimant, by trickery and 
 misrepresentation, by fraud and falsehood, could effect his cruel 
 and dishonorable purpose. 
 
 The Articles before quoted say, " The Commonwealth of Mas- 
 sachusetts may grant the right of pre-emption." The word " pre- 
 emption" is liable, from the frequent misapplication of it, by men 
 interested in perverting it, to be misunderstood. The Lexicogra- 
 phers tell us that pre-emption is a word compounded o^ pre, mean- 
 ing before, and emption, from emptiim, the passive participle of 
 emere, to bvy or imrchase, and simply means a right " or claim 
 to buy before others." Now it is evident, from the language 
 quoted, that all New York granted, and all Massachusetts claimed, 
 was " the right of pre-emption ;" in their own words, " a right 
 to extinguish, by purchase, the claims of the New York In- 
 dians." 
 
 From which it appears, that all the " ownership," all the " legal 
 estate in fee simple," claimed by the Ogden Land Company, as 
 " regularly derived from the Crown of England, through the 
 States of New York and Massachusetts," is nothing more than a 
 right " to buy before others" the claims of the native Indians : — 
 And even this right is hedged about with guards and trammelled 
 with restrictions. How does this inflated title, " derived from the 
 Crown of England," dwindle at the touch of truth ! 
 
 But notwithstanding this boast of being " pre-emptive ou'/iera" 
 of those Indian lands ; notwithstanding they tell the President of 
 the United States, that " by title regularly derived from the Crown 
 of England, through the States of New York and Massachusetts, 
 they still hold a legal estate in fee simple in these lands ; subject 
 only to the possessory right of the native Indians," — we say, 
 notwithstanding all this, it seems they doubt their own assertions! 
 
 2 
 
14 
 
 for when they come to draw a deed, for conveying to theniselves 
 this " possessory right," they take especial care to draw it exactly 
 as if the Indians had the '■'■fee simple title''' in them! they make 
 use of language fixed by custom for the purpose of conveying 
 such title, and necessary in law to express such intention. Thus 
 when these " fee simple owners" come to be tested, in a case 
 where sincerity is no virtue, the truth comes to light, and a mere 
 " possessory right" assumes the dignity of the highest feudatory 
 title ! Not satisfied with a fee simple title, " regularly derived 
 from the Crown of England," they must have another fee simple 
 title, derived from " the Seneca and Tuscarora Indians," by 
 bribery, corruption and fraud. 
 
 To those who desire further light on this part of our subject, as 
 well as on other interesting points in the present controversy, we 
 would recommend a perusal of the lucid report to the Governor 
 and Council of Massachusetts, to which we have already referred. 
 This able document, the fruit of close research and deep investi- 
 gation, will go down to future time, a testimony to the indefati- 
 gable industry, sound judgment, and unbending integrity of that 
 Committee. 
 
 In the year 1837 a Commissioner was appointed by the Go- 
 vernment of the United States to negociate a treaty with the New 
 York Indians, ostensibly for the purchase of certain Green Bay 
 lands, but, as we have stated in our " Case of the Seneca Indians," 
 p. 8, with " the real object of obtaining the means, and money, 
 and influence of the government, to assist the said land speculators, 
 in their efforts to obtain the more valuable lands of the Indians in 
 the State of New York." Our opponent endeavors to avoid this 
 conclusion, not by showing that it was incorrect, but by giving an 
 opinion that the speculators " had no immediate action in bring- 
 ing about the Council, nor in the selection of the Commissioner 
 appointed to hold it." To this it may be said, that " immediate 
 action" was not charged upon them. It is mediate action — veiled 
 action — action that shuns the light, which designing men mostly 
 use to effect offensive purposes. Our statement on this subject, 
 was founded on the assertion of Senator Sevier, who, in his ad- 
 dress to the Senate, says, " a purchase of this Green Bay land 
 was the ostensible object of this mission : — the real object, as I 
 yhall show you in this discussion, was to obtain our infuence. 
 
15 
 
 and our means and money, to assist a dozen or so of land specu- 
 lators to purchase of the New York Indians their New York 
 lands." Here we have high authority for our statement, which 
 time has corroborated, by showing the results of this negociation. 
 If the " Ogden Land Company had no immediate action in the 
 selection of the Commissioner," his whole conduct in the business, 
 as most forcibly illustrated by the Senator, shows that he was ad- 
 mirably fitted to carry out the dark designs of the Company. 
 See Sevier's speech, "Case," p. 65, et seq. The truth of our 
 position, we are confident, will be the more evident to our readers, 
 the moi'e they become acquainted with the history of that nego- 
 ciation. 
 
 In consequence of this appointment, a treaty was concluded 
 with some of the Seneca Chiefs, dated January 15, 1838. It 
 was of this treaty that we said in our book, page 9, " Great exer- 
 tions were made by the Land Company to secure such a ratifica' 
 tion of the treaty as would eflect their object. Large bribes were 
 offered to such of the Chiefs as could be deceived by misrepresen- 
 tations, or gained by the love of money; and where such a re- 
 luctance to leave their homes was manifested, as no pecuniary 
 rewards could overcome, they were threatened with a forcible 
 removal, or bribed by an offer of leases for life, of the lands on 
 which they dwelt, free of rent ; and, in some instances, by fee 
 simple titles." Nathaniel T. S'.rong, speaking of this treaty, 
 says, " the treaty and a draft of a conveyance for the Seneca 
 lands, were both read, article by article, to the Council, and 
 faithfully interpreted in the presence of several persons acquainted 
 with the Indian language," and that " both were regularly signed 
 in general council by a majority of the Seneca Chiefs, according 
 to the usage of the Six Nations." 
 
 In this passage our author has omitted one important fact — 
 that of those who then signed that treaty, ten of them, at least, 
 were bribed by the promise, under articles of agreement with the 
 agent of the Ogden Land Company, to the amount of more than 
 twenty-four thousand dollars. But he has mentioned another that 
 is very important, and which we would wish to be retained in the 
 memory of all his and our readers ; that " the usage of the Six 
 Nations" requires that treaties, to be "regularly signed," must be 
 executed " in general council." 
 
16 
 
 But whether that treaty was " regularly signed in general 
 council" or not, is wholly immaterial to the question before us. 
 That treaty which he says was so " faithfully interpreted," is not 
 the one now under discussion. It was afterwards rejected by the 
 Senate because it was " so defective" that they could not agree 
 to its ratification, and consequently it never was binding on either 
 party. If it had been " read, article by article, to the council" — 
 nay more, if it had been duly and fairly executed by a constitu- 
 tional " majority of the Seneca Chiefs, according to the usage of 
 the Six Nations ;" — if these Chiefs had been unbribed, unbought, 
 undisputed Chiefs, it would have availed nothing, because the ac- 
 tion of the Senate upon it afterwards, rendered it, and every clause 
 of it, null and void. A contract signed by one party, and its con- 
 ditions, or any of them, afterwards changed by another party, is 
 not binding on cither : — it is no longer the same contract. 
 
 It was of this same treaty that, in our book, p. 9, we said," A 
 treaty, together with a deed of conveyance of their lands to the 
 Ogden Land Company, was ofTered to the Chiefs, and on the 15th 
 of the First month, 1838, signed by such of them as had, by 
 hrihery or otherwise, been prepared for its execution." The ten 
 bribery contracts inserted in " the case," page 189, et seq., and 
 that of Daniel Two Guns, a BufTalo Chief, p. 230, amounting to 
 more than twenty-four thousand dollars, were all made before the 
 signing of that treaty, and are part of the price of its execution. 
 Such a foul instrument ought to have no force while there was a 
 dissenting voice in the whole nation. 
 
 But not only was that treaty fraudulent, the deed of conveyance 
 was corrupt also ! The makers of the deed put into it a conside- 
 ration or price, much lower than even the bribed Chiefs had ex- 
 pressed themselves willing to receive. Some of them who under- 
 stood accounts, discovered this artifice, and complained of it, but 
 bribery was again resorted to, in order to silence them ! Daniel 
 Two Guns, one of the Seneca Chiefs, in an affidavit taken before 
 H. A. Salisbury, Commissioner of Deeds for Erie County, says, 
 that " while the emigrating Chiefs [that is the bribed chiefs and 
 others] were in council with the Ogden Company as to the price 
 of their lands, the Chiefs asking two dollars and fifty cents per 
 acre, the Ogden Company offering one dollar and eighty cents 
 per acre, this deponent was taken by Potter [the agent of that 
 
17 
 
 company] into another room, and was told by said Potter, that ;/ 
 he would sign the treaty, and say nothing more about the price 
 of the land, he would give him 8200 in hand, and 8300 in three 
 months after the ratification of the treaty, in addition to the 8400(1 
 before mentioned ; to which this deponent agreed, and did sign 
 the treaty and deed, and was paid the 8200 by Potter." 
 
 This fact suggests other circumstances of a very suspicious 
 character. It appears by the memorial of the Seneca Chiefs to 
 the Governor and Council of Massachusetts, in 1840, that their 
 reservations contain 119,000 acres. A letter from Ransom H. 
 Giilet, the commissioner who negociated the treaty, to T. II. 
 Crawford in the Indian Department at Washington, dated Nov., 
 1838, states their contents to be 1 16,958 acres. By the "contract" 
 or deed of conveyance, prepared by the Ogden Company, the 
 amount is only 114,869 acres ; and in the deed we find the words, 
 '' be the same more or less," carefully inserted. This phrase, as 
 lawyers know, covers all surplusage. 
 
 By the foregoing statements it appears, that the quantity of land 
 in these reservations is, by the Indian account, 4131 acres, and 
 by Commissioner Gillett's account, 2042 acres more than is men- 
 tioned in the deed prepared by the Ogden Company. It would 
 appear, from these accounts, that the land in the neighborhood of 
 Lake Erie and the Niagara River have the property of contractahi- 
 lity f If the Indian reservations in that vicinity should continue 
 to shrink at this rate, the time will not be long before, in the pathetic 
 language of one of their Chiefs, they will not have "room to spread 
 a blanket on," and they will have no inducements to remain, for 
 the land, with all the bones of their fothers, will vanish for ever. 
 If the Indian estimate of the contents of their lands be correct, at 
 the price demanded by the emigrating Chiefs, that is, two doUtiri? 
 and fifty cents per acre, the consideration mentioned in the said 
 deed is 95,500 dollars less than those chiefs intended to take for 
 them. But when we consider the great fertility of these reserva- 
 tions, their proximity to the city of Buffalo, and other thriving 
 towns, and to rich and highly improved agricultural districts, the 
 wrong practiced upon the Indians in this case is enormous. It is 
 believed that these lands, when divided, would sell for two, or per- 
 haps tliree millions of dollars ! 
 
 Having shown that the treaty which Nathaniel T. Strong sets 
 
 2* 
 
18 
 
 out in such fair colors, was, in fact, a foul instrument, and that, 
 fair or foul, is wholly immaterial to the validity of the treaty now 
 in question, we shall proceed to give the reader the proofs of this 
 statement. 
 
 It is very important to a right understanding of the subject, 
 that the reader should constantly bear in mind, that there were 
 two treaties said to be concluded with the Seneca Indians. The one 
 was that of which our opponent speaks in such flattering terms, 
 and which was rejected by the Senate ; the other is that known 
 by the name of " the amended treaty." With the former we have 
 nothing to do, except to expose its character. It has been 
 dead and buried now more than three years. Nor do we believe 
 it would have been referred to by the author of the " Appeal," 
 but for the purpose of confusing the subject, or deceiving his read- 
 ers. Nathaniel T. Strong knows very well that this treaty 
 was set aside. Our statements from official sources, and the whole 
 course of action on the part of the commissioner Gillett, of the 
 President of the United States, and the Senate, for the last three 
 years in this concern, prove the fact. 
 
 Of that treaty. Senator Sevier, in his speech to the Senate, 
 said, "It was read in the Senate, was properly referred, and then 
 your Committee went to work upon it. They found it so essen- 
 tially defective, that it was out of their power to recommend its 
 ratification. The objections to it were connnunicated, among 
 others, to the Senators from New York. Some alterations in it 
 were suggested by the War Department, and all agreed, without 
 a dissenting voice in any quarter, so far as I recollect, that it could 
 not be ratified in the form in which it was executed. We amend- 
 ed it so thorovghly as to make nearly a new treaty of it, and in 
 these amendments the Senate concurred, and I believe with una- 
 nimity." 
 
 Thus we have evidence of the fact that the Senate rejected the 
 treaty of the 15th January, 1838; and, by changing its condi- 
 tions " thoroughly," made " nearly a new treaty of it." 
 
 Nathaniel T. Strong, in page 9 of his " Appeal," has ventured 
 to put in print a statement, contradicting the plain and positive 
 language of the Senator. He says, " it is well known to the 
 authors of the " Case," that the provisions of the original treaty, 
 in reference to the Seneca tribe, were left substantially unchanged. 
 
19 
 
 The object was to defeat the whole treaty." The Senator says, 
 ' ' We amended it so thorougJdy as to make nearly a new treaty 
 of it." By the statement of our opponent it appears, that the 
 Senate made " nearly a new treaty of it," without changing its 
 substance ! On this point, the committee appointed by the Go- 
 vernor and Council ot Massachusetts, in their report, say, " the 
 original treaty secured to the Senecas other and valuable const- 
 derations for the sale of their lands, many of which said con- 
 siderations were afterioards annulled, or commuted for others 
 by the Senate of the United States^ They particularize six 
 instances in which valuable provisions for the Indians were taken 
 out of it. 
 
 But what was the amount of damage to the Indians by the 
 change, is of litttle consequence in the discussion of this point. 
 Whether it was one thousand or one hundred thousand dollars, is 
 wholly immaterial. Any change in a contract, signed by one 
 party, done in his absence, and without his knowledge and con- 
 sent, destroys its obligation, whether, at the first, it was fairly 
 obtained or not. The Senate knew this perfectly well, and 
 therefore adopted the resolution, dated June 11, 1838, and sent 
 the treaty back to the Indians, for their consideration under its 
 new form. That resolution is in the following words, to wit : 
 
 " Provided always, and be it further resolved, (two-thirds of 
 the Senate present concurring) that the treaty shall have no force 
 or effect whatever, as it relates to any of the tribes, nations, or 
 bands of New York Indians, nor shall it be understood that the 
 Senate have assented to any of the contracts connected with it, 
 until the same, with the amendments herein proposed, is submitted, 
 and fully and fairly explained by a commissioner of the United 
 States, to each of said tribes or bands, separately assembled in 
 council, and they have given their free and voluntary assent 
 thereto. And if one or more of said tribes or bands, when con- 
 sulted as aforesaid, s\rd\\ freely assent to said treaty as amended, 
 and to their contract connected therewith, it sliall be binding and 
 obligatory upon those so assenting, &c." 
 
 By this resolution, the Senate of the United States, a branch of 
 the treaty -making power, having prepared the form of a treaty, 
 prescribe a certain course to be pursued by a commissioner of the 
 government, in procuring its execution by the other party. They 
 
20 
 
 say, in clear and peremptory language, that this treaty shall have 
 no force or effect whatever, nor shall it bo understood, that the 
 Senate have assented to any of the contracts connected with it, 
 until certain conditions be complied with : and these conditions 
 are so plainly laid down that the ingenuity of that commissioner, 
 and of all the parties interested in misconstruing them, have ut- 
 terly failed to substantiate the least doubt as to their meaning. 
 Every art has been tried to torture this document, — it has been 
 racked and stretched and twisted into every shape out of its ori- 
 ginal and natural one, to make it speak a language that would 
 sanction the dark schemes of those whose object was to remove 
 the Indians. But their labor has been in vain. The committee of 
 the Senate which prepared that resolution, was in possession of 
 facts in relation to some of the foul doings in the former negocia- 
 tion ; and the writer of the resolution, being forearmed, was de- 
 termined, if possible, to prevent future frauds. With this view he 
 has guarded the language of it with great care, and constructed 
 the whole so as to baffle every attempt of sophistry to pervert its 
 meaning. We will spend a ^ew moments in examining this 
 document. 
 
 No one has yet ventured to deny that the treaty was to be 
 " explained to each of the said tribes or bands, separately assem- 
 bled in council ;" and that part of the instructions was complied 
 with. But can any one doubt that the " free and voluntary assent 
 thereto" was a necessary condition to make it binding and obliga- 
 tory upon those so assenting ; and was not that assent to be given 
 in council ? The resolution says, "and if one or more of the 
 said tribes or bands, tohen consulted as aforesad, (that is, when 
 " separately assembled in council,") shall freely assent to the said 
 treaty, and to their contract connected therewith, it shall be bind- 
 ing, &c." 
 
 Whether we decide this question upon the reasons of the case, 
 by the circumstances existing at the time, or upon a fair construc- 
 tion of the language used, we have demonstrative evidence that 
 it was the intention of the Senate that the " tribes or bands" were 
 to be assembled in council — that the treaty was to be explained to 
 tliem i7i council — that they were to be considted in council, and, 
 when thus "consulted" they were to give a free and voluntary as- 
 sent to it in council assembled. 
 
21 
 
 The reasons for this course arc obvious. Senator Sevier savs, 
 speaking of the rejected treaty, " while tliis treaty was before the 
 committee, we heard many complaints from the Indians and others 
 against the treaty. Fraud, unfairness, and bribery, of which, at 
 that time, M-e had no evidence, were charged ; and it was slated 
 that a majority of the Chiefs neither approved of, nor had signed 
 the treaty, although, from the preamble, it purported to have been 
 executed in council, and properly assented to. To guard these 
 chai'ges, the Senate adopted the resolution of 11th of June, 1838," 
 the same now under review. 
 
 It was reasonable that these solemn transactions should take 
 place in council, where the concentrated intelligence of the 
 nation might be exercised. It was an occasion involving 
 their dearest interests and happiness, as they stand connect- 
 ed with the present state of existence. They are an unlettered 
 people, and, on that account, under gi'cat disadvantages where 
 transactions and conclusions are stated in writing. Being unable 
 to read, they have no power to detect frauds in written instru- 
 ments, and have often been grievously wronged by signing papers 
 •whose import was represented falsely. 
 
 The circumstances of their case, at that time, were peculiarly 
 perilous. The agents of the Ogden Company were shrewd men — 
 some of them well versed in all the subtleties of the law, and ar- 
 dently impelled to the prosecution of their schemes by the vast 
 amount at stake. They had under them numerous sub-agents, 
 attorneys, counsellors, hired runners, and, in fine, a well disci- 
 plined army of servants, fitted to their various stations ; besides, 
 ample pecuniary means, to give elasticity and motion to the 
 whole ; while the poor Indians, on the other hand, had little proper 
 aid, and were constantly surrounded hy those who had been 
 bribed to betray them. Those who desire to understand this 
 subject — and the curious and wonderful machinery that was put 
 in operation to effect the execution of the amended treaty, should 
 attentively read the official documents appended to our "Case of 
 the Seneca Indians illustrated." 
 
 The language of the resolution also clearly confirms the views 
 we have already expressed. What is the plain meaning of these 
 words, "And if one or more of the said tribes or bands, when con- 
 sulted as aforesaid, shall freely assent, &c." The words are not 
 " if one or more ifidividuals of said tribes or bands shall freely 
 
22 
 
 assent :" — and the reason is evident. The preceding sentence of 
 the resolution had declared that the treaty should have no force 
 or effect until fully and fairly explained " to each of said tribes 
 or bands separately assembled in council." It vi'as to be ex- 
 plained to the "tribes or bands" in their coZZec^ive capacity. And 
 now it says, still speaking of them collectively, " if one or more 
 of the said tribes or bands, when consulted as aforesaid, shall 
 freely assent, &c," that is, consulted collectively in council, for 
 no other place or m.anner of consultation is mentioned, or in any 
 way indicated. 
 
 Now what are we to think of our learned Commissioner Gillett, 
 who, by his conduct, interprets this resolution to mean, if one or 
 more of the Chiefs belonging to these " tribes or bands," when 
 " consulted" in a tavern at Buffalo, in a wigwam on the banks of 
 the Cattaraugus — or in the public highway, shall, by bribery, 
 threats of forcible removal, deception, and intimidation, be induced 
 to sign an assent to the amended treaty, it ought to be binding and 
 obligatory ! Such interpretation is surely without example in all 
 the chronicles of sophistry. 
 
 One of the conditions of the resolution is, that " the said tribes 
 or bands, when consulted as aforesaid, shall yreeZ^/ assent." But 
 is the assent obtained by a $6000 bribe a free assent 1 — is the 
 assent reluctantly given under threats of forcible removal, a "free 
 and voluntary assent?" No upright honorable mind can for a 
 moment entertain an affirmative opinion on these questions. 
 
 But it was not only in one or two instances that the Commis- 
 missioner disregarded his instructions, as expressed in the resolu- 
 tion of the Senate ; he either violated or disrespected nearly all 
 of them. The " contracts connected with the treaty," (that is 
 the deeds of conveyance to the Ogden Land Company, said to 
 have been executed by the Indians) were to have been explained 
 in council, at the time the amended treaty was under considera- 
 tion. This is evident from the plain language of the resolution. 
 " The treaty shall have no force or effect whatever, as it relates 
 to any of said tribes, nations, or bands of New York Indians, nor 
 shall it be understood that the Senate have assented to any of the 
 contracts connected with it, until the same, with the amendments 
 herein proposed, is submitted, and fully and fairly explained, by a 
 commissioner of the United States, to each of said tribes or bands 
 
23 
 
 separately assembled in council, and they have given their yrce 
 and voluntary assent thereto. And, if one or more of said 
 tribes or bands, ichen consulted as aforesaid, shall freely assent 
 to said treaty as amended, and to their contracts connected there- 
 with, it shall be binding and obligatory, 6z:c." But that very im- 
 portant part of this resolution, relating to "the comracts," and 
 consequently to the alienation of their lands for ever, was wholly 
 disregarded. The deed was neither explained nor assented to on 
 that occasion. 
 
 Thus the treaty was to. have been assented to in council by the 
 tribes or bands in a collective capacity, as has been demonstrated; 
 aiid the contract likewise, as now appears. It is admitted on all 
 hands, that the assent, to be binding, must be the assent of a 
 majority. Now, only sixteen chiefs out of eighty-one, which are 
 admitted by both parties legally to hold that station, could be in- 
 duced to sign the treaty in council, although, as since appears, 
 more than one-half of them had been bribed to the amount of 
 more than twenty thousand dollars. And, at the same time, and 
 in the same council, sixty-four chiefs and warriors, dissatisfied 
 and disgusted with the proceedings, came forward and desired to 
 enter in writing a dissent or protest against the treaty, which the 
 magnanimous Commissioner refused to witness, under the pre- 
 tence that " he was not authorized to authenticate any document 
 other than such as he had been specially directed to submit for 
 their consideration." See Senate's documents, p. 62. The Com- 
 missioner, though sent to see that truth and fairness should be ex- 
 tended to the poor Indians, was too scrupulous to do an act essen- 
 tial to their performance ! But General H. Dearborn, the com- 
 missioner on the part of Massachusetts, did attest the dissent, and 
 it was forwarded to the Governor of that State and to the Presi- 
 dent of the United States. It will be found in the " Case of the 
 Seneca Indians illustrated," p. 133. 
 
 We have seen that the contracts or deeds of conveyance con- 
 nected with the amended treaty, were to have been explained in 
 council by the commissioner, at the same time the other explana- 
 tions were ordered ; and that this important service was wholly 
 disregarded. That the reader may more clearly understand this 
 part of the concern, we will add a few remarks. 
 
 When the original treaty was returned to the Senate, in the 
 
24 
 
 winter of 1837, 1838, there were connected with it two deeds of 
 conveyance, with long introductory preambles, one from the Se- 
 necas, and one from the Tuscarora tribe. The Senate, in speak- 
 ing of them, call them " contracts." The Senate intended, as ex- 
 pressed in their resolution, that these contracts should have no 
 force or effect whatever, to alienate those lands, unless assented 
 to in council, and unless the treaty should be accepted by the In- 
 dians ; whereby they would have some place to set a foot upon, 
 when their lands were gone from them. The Senate, therefore, 
 always connects the treaty with the contracts, as parts of the ge- 
 neral arrangement for the removal of the Indians. The report of 
 the committee to the Governor and Council of Massachusetts, be- 
 fore alluded to, in reviewing this part of the subject, makes the 
 following remarks: — 
 
 " The fact that the United States did not ratify the treaty of 
 the 15th January, 1838, but materially altered it, and the views 
 of the Senate, as expressed in the recited resolution, show, that 
 the Senate held any assent given by the Senecas to that treaty, to 
 be wholly void, and the deed of conveyance (or contract) to be 
 void also, unless that deed, and the treaty as amended, should 
 be ctCterwards freely assented to by the Senecas. The same reso- 
 lution shows, that the assent was not to be asked until after a full 
 and fair explanation of the amendments, &c., to the several tribes 
 assembled in council. And the expressions used in the resolution 
 in regard to the St. Regis Indians, as well as the other tribes, 
 show that the Senate intended the assent should be given i?i 
 council, and not out of council.*' See Report, pp. 16, 17. 
 
 We believe no disinterested person will be disposed to dissent 
 from the sentiments so clearly expressed in the foregoing quotation. 
 Yet we have evidence that the Commissioner threatened the In- 
 dians with the execution of the contracts, although the treaty 
 should not be ratified. General Dearborn, in his letter to the 
 Governor of Massachusetts, dated Lewistown, October, 1838, 
 says, " Among the numerous, and very cogent reasons, which 
 were urged by the Commissioner Tor inducing the Indians to assent 
 to the amended treaty, during the progress of the long protracted 
 deliberations-; he observed, that he had been directed by the offi- 
 cer at the head of the Bureau of the Indian Department, to state, 
 as his opinion, that the " contract" of the Indians for the sale of 
 
25 
 
 their right of possession to tlic Ogden Company was complete, 
 and might be carried into efTect whether the treaty with the United 
 States was ratified or not." This aWeged direction of the officer 
 in the Indian Department we have never seen. ]ts existence is 
 much to be doubted for many reasons, and especially, because it 
 can hardly be believed that any one, versed in contracts for the 
 sale of lands, could suppose a contract complete, and might be 
 enforced, when a great and essential part of the consideration was 
 not secured ; and particularly, when, as in this case, it must ut- 
 terly fail by the failure of the treaty. 
 
 The truth is, as expressed in the said report to the Governor 
 and Council of Massachusetts, " that the deed and first treaty 
 constituted one contract, and that the first treaty being nugatory, 
 the deed thereby became void, and must remain so until both the 
 deed and amended treaty shall be confirmed and assented to by 
 the Seneca nation, in a fair and legal manner ;" that " they are 
 connected together, and are to be considered as one contract — 
 both equally needing ratification, on the part of the Seneca na- 
 tion — that all the considerations coming to the Senecas are de- 
 pendent on the treaty ; that the 10th article of the amended treaty 
 expressly treats the deed as part of that treaty, and as being 
 annexed thereto; that the said 10th article would not be intelligi- 
 ble without the deed, and that the -$202,000 purchase money is 
 not to be paid to the Seneca nation except as provided in that 
 article; that the amended treaty, not having received the assent 
 of a majority of their chiefs and headmen, in council, nor the 
 constitutional assent of the Senate, is void ; and that the deed, 
 as part of it, is void also." See that report, pp. 23, 24. 
 
 During the transactions of the Commissioner, those persecuted 
 Indians had not only to contend with this mighty Land Company 
 and their army of agents, subagents, bribed chiefs, and others ; 
 they had also to stem the powerful torrent of governmeiit influ- 
 ence against them. It is well known that for some ten or twelve 
 years past, the avowed policy of the federal government has been 
 to remove the aborigines beyond the Mississippi. The Ogden 
 Company, in all their operations, took advantage of ibis policy ; 
 and the government seconded their views, by an appropriation of 
 400,000 dollars of the public treasure, to carry them out. When 
 the Indians, on the other hand, appealed to the authorit'es r' 
 
 3 
 
26 
 
 Washington on the affairs of their nation, and particularly in re- 
 lation to any scheme to drive them from their lands, they felt the 
 full weight of this influence against them. They were coolly told 
 that it was " the settled policy of the government to remove them." 
 Every executive officer in the Indian Department partook more or 
 less of the influence which arises from this source ; and, however 
 humane and honorable in their intentions, it produced results 
 which, we may very safely say, never would have taken place if 
 the bias had been as strong in the opposite direction. 
 
 It is saying much in favor of the cause we espouse, and in 
 corroboration of the facts we have published, when we state the 
 fact, that the late President of the United States, although warmly 
 in favor of removing the Indians, returned the amended treaty 
 twice to the Senate, because he could not ratify it consistently 
 with the resolutions of that body. In his last message on that 
 occasion, dated January 13, 1840, he pronounces a sentence of 
 condemnation on the authors of the iniquitous transactions con- 
 nected with its execution, which, coming before the public through 
 the highest officer under the constitution, and emanating from the 
 seat of government, ought to make them for ever to shrink from 
 any " appeal to the Christian community" on this occasion. 
 
 In that message, referring to the clandestine conduct of the 
 Commissioner, in his efforts to obtain an execution of the treaty, 
 the President says, " The provision of the resolution of the Se- 
 nate of the 11th of June, 1838, requiring the assent of each of 
 the said tribes of Indians to the amended treaty to be given in 
 council, — has not been complied with as it respects the Seneca 
 tribe." 
 
 In relation to the fact which was stated in the " Case of the 
 Seneca Indians illustrated," p. 61, that " not one-seventeenth part 
 of the Seneca Indians are favourable to the treaty," the President 
 says, that " statements were made to the Secretary of War, at 
 (>attaraugus, to show that a vast majority of the New York In- 
 dians were adverse to the treaty," and that " no advance towards 
 obtaining the assent of the Seneca tribe to the amended treaty in 
 council was made ; nor can the assent of a majority of them in 
 council, be now obtained." 
 
 On the subject of bribery, and referring to the shameful conduct 
 of the agents of the Ogden Company in attempting to corrupt the 
 
27 
 
 chiefs, the President affirms, that " improper mean shave been em- 
 ployed to obtain the assent of the Seneca chiefs, there is every 
 reason to beheve ; and I have not been able to satisfy myself that 
 I can, consistently with the resolution of the Senate of the 2d of 
 March, 1839, cause the treaty to be carried into effect in respect 
 to the Seneca trihe^ 
 
 These extracts from the President's message, coinciding, as 
 they do, with our own views, go to prove incontestibly that the 
 •treaty is neither just nor valid, and ought to be annulled. 
 
 But there are other reasons for setting aside that treaty, which 
 we think are alone sufficient to justify such a measure. It was 
 begun, carried on, and executed against the laws, customs, and 
 usages of one of the contracting parties. 
 
 First. It was begun contrary to those laws, because the Senecas 
 did not, in a council of their own, and among themselves, first 
 agree to a sale of their reservations, and authorize their chiefs to 
 negociate the same. Touching all treaties for the sale of their 
 lands, the proposition for such sale must first be laid before the 
 whole nation in council. If such council, after full deliberation, 
 agree to the sale, they authorize the chiefs to negociate, and thus 
 they become the proper agents of the nation, and are bound to 
 consult its interests by obtaining the host and fullest consideration 
 for the transfer. Without such provision, a k\v individuals of 
 the nation might, through corruption or otherwise, sell all their 
 territory, with its improvements, against the will of every one of 
 the people except themselves. This is not an extravagant suppo- 
 sition, for, in the case now before us, out of a population of 2449, 
 only 138 are in favor of a sale, and this small minority includes 
 Nathaniel T. Strong, and all the bribed chiefs. 
 
 Secondly, It was carried on contrary to the usages of the nation, 
 because the majority of the names on the treaty were placed there 
 in a private, clandestine way, and not in public council. A chief 
 cut of council cannot lawfully sign a treaty, unless specially de- 
 legated by a council for that purpose. 
 
 Thirdly, It was executed contrary to law and usage, because 
 several of the signers were not legally constituted chiefs, and, 
 therefore, had no authority to sign a treaty either in or out of 
 council. 
 
 And lastly. It was not ratified by the Senate of the United 
 
28 
 
 States, according to the express provisions of the constitution, 
 which says, " the President of the United States shall have povi'er, 
 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make trea- 
 ties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." The 
 treaty, when last returned to the Senate, had not been executed 
 according to the conditions required by the Senate itself — and 
 this fact was duly announced to that body by the President, who, 
 in his message, declared that he could not consistently with the 
 resolution of the Senate of the 2d of March, 1839, cause the treaty 
 to be carried into effect. When the final vote was taken on the 
 question of its ratification, the Senate was equally divided, and the 
 decision was made, not by a concurrence of " two-thirds of the 
 Senators present," but by the casting vote of the Vice President. 
 Out of 52 Senators, only 19 voted for the treaty, there being at 
 the time but 38 present. 
 
 One of the prominent measures to which the author of the 
 " appeal" has resorted, to reconcile the public to the cruelty and 
 injustice of the Land Company, is to represent his brethren as 
 ignorant and vicious — already sunk and still sinking deeper in 
 misery. This is a policy that is by no means new. It has been 
 common for those who would deprive the Indians of their lands, 
 first to describe them as ignorant, or stupid, or savage, and then, 
 " for such worthy cause, to doom and devote them as their lawful 
 prey," to put them out of the pale of civilization, and then shut 
 upon them the gate of mercy. 
 
 But it is not true that these remnants of the Six Nations are 
 either barbarous or vicious. On the contrary, they are an innocent 
 and improving people. Feeling their own weakness, they have 
 been forced to yield to oppression and injury; but they are neither 
 quarrelsome nor vindictive. They are the remnant of a bold, 
 warlike and highly gifted race ; fallen indeed from the dizzy height 
 of a tremendous political and physical power, but bearing that fall 
 with patience and dignity, inspiring respect, and rendering them 
 objects of intense interest to the philanthropist and philosopher. 
 
 These New York Indians, like all other communities of man- 
 kind, present great varieties of character and grades of intellect ; 
 but as a people, perhaps none of the aborigines of North America 
 have equalled them in all the manifestations of mental power. 
 They have not had the use of letters to store their minds with 
 
29 
 
 knowledge, or to record their own achievements ; yet we know 
 that they have had many great and highly talented men among 
 them, who, making a very moderate allowance for the want of 
 education, would not suffer by comparison with the greatest of 
 their European competitors. They have, from the earliest time, 
 been considered a very extraordinary race, distinguished from all 
 the surrounding nations by their capacity for negociation, elo- 
 quence, and war. Remarkable for the love of liberty, they scorned 
 submission to foreign control. Baron La Hontan says of them, 
 "they laugh at the menaces of kings and governors, for they have no 
 idea of dependence — the very word to them is insupportable. They 
 look upon themselves'as sovereigns, accountable to none but God, 
 whom they call the Great Spirit," De Witt Clinton, in his his- 
 tory of the Six Nations, informs us, that they held " supremacy 
 over a country of amazing extent and fertility, inhabited by war- 
 like and numerous nations, which must have been the result of 
 unity of design and system of action proceeding from a 
 wise and energetic policy, continued for a long course of time. 
 That in eloquence, in dignity, and in all the characteristics of per- 
 sonal policy, they surpass an assembly of feudal barons." Their 
 territory was estimated at 1200 miles long by 700 broad, includ- 
 ing the great lakes or inland seas which bound our possessions to 
 the north. Among their orators they have had a Garangula, a 
 Cornplanter, a Red Jacket, and a Big Kettle, of whom an elegant 
 writer has said, " they were men whose majesty of mind shone 
 with a lustre that no belittling appellatives could bedim." Pre- 
 sident Jefferson says, " I may challenge the whole orations of 
 Demosthenes and Cicero, and of any more eminent orator, if 
 Europe has furnished more eminent, to produce a single passage 
 superior to the speech of Logan," yet this Logan was the son of 
 a Cayuga Chief, one of the New York Indians. 
 
 The author of the " appeal," in order to enlist the feelings of 
 the " Christian community" against the friends of his nation, 
 opens his case by misrepresenting the state of his own people. 
 "Our people," says he, "after years of suspense and anxiety, 
 considered the question of emigration settled, and they fondly 
 hoped that their rights, under the treaty being now secure and in- 
 violable, they might commence the preparations necessary for 
 their removal ; and, with the kind wishes and encouragement of 
 
 3* 
 
30 
 
 their white brethren, be permitted to enter on the new path, whicli 
 a kind Providence had opened for their escape from bondage, 
 degradation, and misery, in the cheering hope of enjoying, in the 
 asylum provided for them by your government, the blessings of 
 freedom and independeitce." 
 
 To a reader wholly unacquainted with the actual state of the 
 Seneca Indians, it would appear, from this statement, that before 
 " the Ogden Company" had most disinterestedly and benevolently 
 interfered for the rescue and relief of that people, they were suffer- 
 ing under some tyrannical government, who held them in " bond- 
 age, degradation, and misery," — that the announcement of the 
 ratification, by the Senate, of the amended treaty, was like the 
 trumpet, proclaiming a jubilee throughout all the land — a liberty 
 to the captive, and a joyous return of an exiled people — every 
 man to his family, and every outcast to his possession ! 
 
 How unlike the reality is this deceptive fancy sketch ! Not a 
 feature in the picture resembles the original. Instead of rejoicing, 
 there was unutterable sorrow. To the poor Senecas it was " a 
 day of darkness and of gloominess, of clouds and of thick dark- 
 ness," through which a ray of gladness could not penetrate. At 
 a council held with a delegation of Seneca chiefs, at Farmington, 
 in the State of New York, a kw weeks after that event. Friends 
 were told that when the news of that ratification was announced 
 to the Indians, consternation and gloom was every where spread 
 over their settlements. Relying on the protection of government, 
 and the justice of their cause, they were not, after the disclosures 
 that had been made to the public authorities at Washington, pre- 
 pared for such an issue; and, on being apprised of it, they mani- 
 fested the deepest distress. Their women were seen on all sides 
 weeping — in their houses — along the roads — as they passed to 
 their occupations — and in the fields whilst engaged in their labors. 
 One of their chiefs, in a speech on the occasion, said, " it seems 
 as if we should be worn dow.i. When we see our fields covered 
 with grain, and our orchards loaded with fruit, it only increases 
 our sorrows. We know the treaty has been sanctioned, and we 
 are now in extreme distress." 
 
 Such was the unaffected description of their feelings aud suffer- 
 ings. The settled and expressive gloom that was manifested in 
 
31 
 
 their countenances and deportment, attested the reality of their 
 sorrows. 
 
 On the same occasion we received a written communication 
 signed by sixteen cliiefsof the Tonewanda reservation, from which 
 the following is an extract : 
 
 " Brothers, — We are in trouble. We have been told that our 
 land is sold. We again solicit your advice and sympathy. Under 
 the accumulating difficulties and trials that now seem to surround 
 us, we feel more than ever our need of the help of the Great and 
 Good Spirit to guide us aright. May His counsel ever guide and 
 direct us all in true wisdom. It is known to you, brothers, that 
 at different times our nation has been induced to cede, by stipu- 
 lated treaty, to the United States, various tracts of our territory, 
 until it is now so small that it only affords us a home. We 
 hoped, by these liberal concessions, to secure the quiet and un- 
 molested occupancy of this small residue ; but we have abundant 
 reason to fear that we have been mistaken. The agent and sur- 
 veyor of a company of land speculators, known as "the Ogden 
 Company," have been on here, to lay out our land, for the pur- 
 pose of selling it off. We have protested against their proceeding, 
 and have forbid them, until after a general council, to be held at 
 Buffalo in four days. 
 
 Brothers, — What we want is, that you should intercede with 
 the United States government in our behalf. We want you to 
 knorv, and we want the government and people of the United 
 States to know, in the first place, that we have never signed a 
 treaty to give up our lands ; that of six hundred Indians who 
 compose this tribe, one Indian only, has signed it ! — and he re- 
 sides at Buffalo ! — that this treaty, which, we are told, has been 
 ratified by President Van Buren, we know and are sure is a fraudu- 
 lent one ; that Ransom H. Gillett, the government's agent, violated 
 the good faith of the government, and a law respecting the rati- 
 fication of treaties, by applying to the Indians at their houses — 
 some of them on their sick beds; also on the highways and at 
 taverns, and offering them money, if they would sign the treaty : 
 that in the general council at Buffalo, for the express purpose of 
 considering the treaty, sixteen chiefs only, were in favor of sign- 
 ing it, and sixty-four were decidedly opposed to it ; that Jimmy 
 Johnson, the head chief of the Seneca nation, never signed that 
 
32 
 
 treaty ; and the putting of his name to the treaty, whether by the 
 agent, or some one else, was a forgery. 
 
 Brothers, — We want the President to know that we are for 
 peace, and that we only ask the possession of our rights. True, 
 we are small in number, but we only ask for justice. We want 
 to be allowed to live on our land in peace. We loveTonewanda. 
 We have no wish to leave it. It is the residue of the land of our 
 fathers. Here we wish to lay our bones in peace. 
 
 Brothers, — We are determined to keep to our lands till our 
 friends send us information and advice, which we want immedi- 
 ately. We want the surveyors to be kept from our land. 
 
 Brothers, — In conclusion, we thank you for your friendly as- 
 sistance heretofore, and earnestly solicit your further advice and 
 assistance. 
 
 Signed by Jimmy Johnson, the head chief or great sachem 
 of the nation, and fifteen other chiefs. 
 
 Thomas Jemison, ? t , . 
 
 ,jx r, > Interpreters. 
 
 William Cunt, > ^ 
 
 Asa Carrington, ? ^^,r■. 
 
 o K f Witnesses. 
 
 STEPHEN AtWATER, ) 
 
 We have said of N. T. Strong's imaginary scene of joy, exhi- 
 bited by the Seneca Indians on hearing of the ratification of the 
 treaty, " Not one feature in the picture resembles the ori- 
 ginal." Inhabiting a country uncommonly rich and fertile, origi- 
 nally well stocked with game, and still abounding in excellent 
 fish, perhaps none of the aborigines of North America, were more 
 comfortably circumstanced than the Senecas. Living on the 
 shores of the beautiful Lake Erie, and the great River Niagara, 
 they had easy access to these waters and their numerous tributa- 
 ries, in which the Great Spirit had provided for his red chil- 
 dren, a rich and inexhaustible supply of animal food. Free as 
 the air they breathed, and buoyant with life, they were wont, in 
 their light canoes, to skim the bright surface of their rivers and 
 lakes, and amply to draw from this storehouse of the great Crea- 
 tor, the fruits of his bounty. To " bondage and oppression," un- 
 der the government of the United States, they were strangers. 
 They have always been permitted to retain their nationality, and 
 live under their own laws. The state of New York has treated 
 
33 
 
 them with a liberality and kindness, which history will record to 
 her lasting honor. Their white neighbors dwelling round the 
 borders ot' their several reservations, have generally maintained 
 towards them the relations of peace and friendship. If we may 
 judge of the feelings of those who reside in their vicinity, by the 
 deep interest that has been manifested for their success in the pre- 
 sent struggle, we may conclude that nothing but sordid self inte- 
 rest has raised them an enemy. It is a fact, that by far the 
 greater part of their sorrrows, for more than forty years, has 
 arisen from the cupidity of land speculators ; and no soui'ce of 
 " misery," in all that time, has proved so fruitful of " distress," 
 anxiety, and bitter suffering, as the interference and action of the 
 " Ogden Land Company." 
 
 The cruelty of the attempt to drive these Indians into the wil- 
 derness, is greatly enhanced by the consideration, that, within the 
 last half century, under the careof Friends, and being surrounded 
 by a civilized race, with all its advantages before them, they have 
 made a great advance towards a state of civilization. They have 
 good houses, barns, horses, wagons, horned cattle, sheep, swine, 
 and farming utensils. They have places of worship and schools. 
 Some of them can read and write, and have books and private 
 libraries. They have good farms, and are rapidly advancing in 
 agricultural science. Perhaps their greatest deficiency relates to 
 the mechanic arts. For the advantages resulting from these, they 
 are mostly dependent on the whites, and obtain them by purchase 
 or exchange. They are just in that stage of their progress from 
 barbarism to civilization, in which, having long ceased to depend 
 on the chase for subsistence, they could not, in that way, now 
 support themselves ; while they are not sufficiently advanced in 
 knowledge to subsist without those arts, and otlici's which they 
 have not attained. It would be far less cruel to drive the sur- 
 rounding white population into the deserts beyond the Missouri, 
 than to send there the Seneca Indians. The former would soon 
 gather round them all the comforts of life — the latter would soon 
 be scattered, or perish for ever. 
 
 We have assumed that N. T. Strong, by the term " our people," 
 means the whole Seneca nation, or at least a majority of them. 
 If on this point we have not mistaken him, then he has most un- 
 fairly represented them. But if he means by "our people," his 
 
34 
 
 own little, and truly " degraded" party, there is certainly more 
 truth in his statement than we have admitted. " Our people,^'' 
 says he, " after years of suspense and anxiety, considered the 
 question of emigration as settled, and they fondly hoped that 
 their rights under the treaty, being now secure and inviolable, 
 they might commence the preparations necessary for their re- 
 moval." That the reader may be able to appreciate this state- 
 ment, under the supposition that Nathaniel means, by " our peo- 
 ple," only his own party, we must bespeak the patience of the 
 reader while we Ltate a ^ew facts, necessary to a proper under- 
 standing of the subject. 
 
 In the summer of 1839, a council of the Six Nations was 
 called, by the President of the United States, and attended, on be- 
 half of the government, by the Secretary of War. The Presi- 
 dent, knowing the friendly relations which had long subsisted 
 between the Indians and the Society of Friends, invited us to at- 
 tend that council. To most of the committee, who accepted that 
 invitation, the circumstances of the Senecas, in relation to the 
 amended treaty, to the facts connected with its origin, with the 
 progress of its negociation, and with its alleged execution, were 
 at that time but partially understood. We, therefore, attended 
 that council rather as learners, than as counsellors in their 
 cause. 
 
 On inquiry respecting the numbers of the two parties, we were 
 astonished to find that, according to the Indian account, not one- 
 fifteenth part of the nation were in favor of removal ! Their re- 
 port on this subject was founded upon a census, which had been 
 taken one year previously, by very respectable agents, and duly 
 certified, with legal solemnities. According to this census, the 
 whole number of Senecas, exclusive of the Tuscaroras and others, 
 was 2505. Of this number, there were against emigration, 
 2So9 ; for emigration, 146. Although this census bore an offi- 
 cial character, yet, fearing there might be some mistake, and 
 wishing that no uncertainty might rest on the subject, we advised 
 that another should be taken, by men of undoubted veracity, and 
 duly certified according to law. This was done, and the numbers 
 returned were, 2449 Senecas, of whom there were against emi- 
 gration, 2311, for it, 133. The difference in the two censuses 
 
35 
 
 being accounted for bv death, removal, and absence on huntin" 
 expeditions. 
 
 The persons employed to take this census were Ariel Wei 
 man, commissioner of deeds for Cattaraugus county ; Lewis P. 
 Thorp, justice of the peace ; Joseph N. Hillman, superintendent 
 of Indian concerns on Friends' settlement at Cattaraugus ; E. M. 
 Pettit, justice of the peace ; John Kenedy and John Hudson, In- 
 dian chiefs at Buffalo reservation ; Peter Wilson, Cayuaga chiet 
 and educated interpreter, and others. They were all severally 
 sworn or affirmed to the truth of their statements, and, from the 
 well known characters of these agents, we have full confidence, 
 that the trust was faithfully executed. By a comparison of the 
 two censuses, it was evident that the numbers of the two parties 
 had been correctly reported, and that the returns in both cases 
 were a close approximation to the truth ; and we felt ourselves 
 justified in stating to the officers of government at Washington, 
 that not one-ffteenth part of the nation were in favor of removal. 
 This statement was considerably within the bounds of truth, for, 
 in fact, the emigration party did not amount to one- seventeenth 
 part of the whole ! 
 
 N. T. Strong says, " Our people^ after years of suspense and 
 anxiety, considered the question of emigration settled, and they 
 ibndly hoped that their rights, under the treaty, being now secure 
 and inviolable, they might commence the preparations necessary 
 for their removal," &c; That " our people," meaning N. T. 
 Strong's party, were thus relieved from " suspense and anxiety," 
 and could indulge in ^' fond hopes" for the future, is easily ac- 
 counted for. The leaders of this party were Nathaniel T. Strong 
 and the bribed chiefs, who had deceived their ignorant followers, 
 with fanciful descriptions of the wilderness beyond the State of 
 Missouri. The sums already ascertained as coming to only ten of 
 them, amount to more than 20,000 dollars! By the written con- 
 tracts the chiefs were not to receive "the price" of their treachery, 
 until " within three months after notice of the ratification of a 
 valid treaty." These corrupt chiefs, now " fondly hoping that 
 their rights under the treaty" were " secure," and that the " pieces 
 of silver," (the " price" for which they had betrayed, and sold into 
 a cruel exile, 2311 of their own people,) were now about to come 
 into their " bag," felt much relieved from " suspense and anxiety." 
 
36 
 
 This was very natural ; for, these poor " degraded" creatures, 
 had then been about tuw years, very doubtful whether their 
 treachery would ever receive any other reward than infamy and 
 scorn. It was, of course, a great relief to think, that if they had 
 lost their character, they would gain the money ! 
 
 It might also have been some " relief" to such minds, to con- 
 sider, that if, through their agency, 2311 men, women, and chil- 
 dren, from decrepid old age to helpless infancy, were driven from 
 their comfortable homes, into a waste howling wilderness; these 
 betrayers of their own fesh and blood, might quietly stay at 
 home, and live in comparative luxury — enriched by enormous 
 bribes. And it might be a further relief, to get rid of men whose 
 presence was perpetually reminding them of their own baseness. 
 
 Nathaniel T. Strong, in a letter to the Secretary of War, dated 
 March 7, 1839, amongst many other gross falsehoods, had the 
 boldness to declare, in contradiction to facts well known to him- 
 self, that " it is admitted on all hands, that a numerical majority, 
 comprehending most of the principal chiefs, have executed and 
 assented to the treaty." He then proceeds, " What more will be 
 required ? Four or five additional names could hardly strengthen 
 the deed, for it is already most emphatically, and according to 
 the strictest rules of the whites, the act of the nation."* 
 
 It is curious fact, and one to which we would invite the par- 
 ticular attention of the reader, that at the very time Nathaniel 
 was writing this letter, and in the most imploring attitude 
 supplicating Government to consummate this iniquitous 
 treaty, there were on the two Reservations at Tonewanda 
 and Allegany, containing together a population of 1224 persons, 
 only three individuals who were ivilling, even to say they would 
 remove ! — and on the other reservations, having an aggregate 
 population of 1225 souls, only 135, including himself and all the 
 jyurchased signers, were professed emigrationists ! ! 
 
 We can hardly conceive it possible that any evidence, short of 
 mathematical demonstration, could more clearly prove his utter 
 disregard to truth, or the nefarious character of this treaty con- 
 cern, than that which these facts afford. In the execution of a 
 treaty by the representatives of only one hundred and thirty- 
 
 * Senate's Doc. 1840, p. 279. 
 
37 
 
 eight persons, out of a population of two thousand four hundred 
 and forty -nine, we have what this veracious Nathaniel T. Strong 
 calls " the act of the nation, most emphatically, and according 
 to the strictest rides of the lohites.'''' According to this new code 
 of morality, 1224 persons, against their will, and in contempt of 
 their tears and intreaties, may be driven from all the endearments 
 of home, at the suffrage of three individuals ! — each of whom, 
 in all probability, were largely paid for their vote, and, after all, 
 are to spend their days on the ground they now occupy ! Yet 
 we are told this is " according to the strictest rules of the 
 whites !" 
 
 It is no cause of marvel that this census and classification of 
 the parlies, for and against emigration, should so manifestly dis- 
 turb the feelings, and call forth the invective of our Indian oppo- 
 nent ! They afford a species of evidence in the case, that must 
 carry conviction to every unprejudiced mind ; they speak a lan- 
 guage not to be misunderstood ; they leave to sophistry no room to 
 mystify, to chicanery no hope to deceive. 
 
 The only way to remove this formidable foe to the emigration 
 scheme, is to prove it false ; and this may easily be done, if the 
 census be not a fair representation of facts. We have given not 
 only the numbers in each famil)^ we have given the name of the 
 male head of each family, where it had a male head, and of the 
 female head where the family had no male head ; and we 
 gave the number of chiefs, warriors, women, and children be- 
 longinn; to each.* 
 
 It must be obvious to every reflecting mind, that it is only on a 
 just representation of the numbers in favor of, and opposed to 
 emigration, that we can come to a sound conclusion in reo-ard to 
 the equity of the treaty. It is, now, almost universally allowed, 
 that, in popular governments, there is no natural means of decid- 
 ing a case where all are equally concerned, so reasonable, so 
 equitable, so feasible, as by majorities. The principle has been 
 unanimously adopted by the people of this country ; it lies at the 
 foundation of all republican institutions, and is the mode of deci- 
 sion, in all our deliberative assemblies, for civil purposes, from the 
 Congress of the United States, down to the lowest juvenile de- 
 
 * See Censuses, " Case," pp 148, 153, 159, &c. 
 4 
 
38 
 
 bating club. It is, in fact, the mode adopted in this very case by 
 our government — it is one of the principles upon which the Presi- 
 dent of the United States refused to ratify the treaty, and returned 
 it to the Senate with this language, " a vast majority of the New 
 York Indians were adverse to the treaty," — " nor can the assent 
 of a majority of them [the chiefs] in council, be now obtained." 
 
 It is true, a treaty may be " valid," if executed by a majority 
 of chiefs, duly constituted as such, although contrary to the will of 
 a majority of the people composing the nation, because such chiefs 
 may be corrupted, and it may become a laio by its execution and 
 ratification, according to legal forms. If this treaty had been so 
 executed and ratified, although we might have deplored the fact, 
 and been pained in the consideration that it was not equitable, 
 yet we should not have appealed to government in the language 
 we now do. We might have asked for mercy and compas- 
 sion against that law. We now ask for justice and mercy, ac- 
 cording both to law and equity. 
 
 Nathaniel T. Strong, sensible of the awful import of this" cen- 
 sus," and afraid to touch it, is, at the same time, well aware that, 
 to pass it by unnoticed, would be to leave a most formidable ene- 
 my, strongly entrenched in his rear. Like one on whom is 
 imposed a necessity to take a nauseous dose of medicine, he shrinks 
 from the imposition, but, with the impossibility of evasion before 
 him, submits, and makes a short concern of it. We will give 
 our readers a sample of his contortions in this case of difiiculty. 
 He says :— 
 
 " What does this pretended ' census' amount to ? The Quakers 
 send emissaries upon their own representations of the dangers 
 and privations incident to a proposed emigration to the distant re- 
 gions of the west, to collect the suffrages of men, women, and 
 children on that measure — of men too ignorant to appreciate its 
 advantages, and of women and children equally ignorant, but 
 more easily alarmed by well told talcs of horror and hardship ; 
 and this species o^ farce, devised and got up by ' the delegates of 
 three yearly meetings,' is dignified by the name of a census.'''' 
 
 The most remarkable characteristic of this paragraph is, that it 
 contains neither fact nor argument. On the great question be- 
 fore him, he neither admits nor denies the truth of our statement. 
 
39 
 
 The question is not, by what means the Seneca Indians have been 
 brought to love their own beautiful country, the seat of their 
 ancestors for perhaps a thousand years ! — we are not inquiring how 
 it has happened that they are so much attached to the land of their 
 birth, and the scenes of their childhood. On that question there 
 might be some difference of opinion. But the question ife-, are 
 there, out of the whole number of Seneca Indians, amounting to 
 2449, only 138, who are willing to abandon their present com- 
 fortable homes, and encounter all the difficulties, and dangers, of 
 a new settlement, in an uncultivated wilderness? That is the 
 question ! and, until N. T. Strong can answer it better than by 
 calling our " census" a " species of farce," it would be prudent 
 to say nothing at all about it. 
 
 In the paragraph just quoted, our opponent has been more ge- 
 nerous than just to Friends. He gives them credit for more than 
 they deserve. We were spared the expense and trouble of send- 
 ing " emissaries" several hundred miles to take a census. We 
 found excellent agents on the spot. How eloquently they may 
 have depicted to the women and children, " the dangers and pri- 
 vations incident to the distant regions of the west," we have no 
 means to ascertain, although we suppose they had not much trou- 
 ble in that way, as the Indians already understood this part of the 
 subject much better than their friends. Seneca White, of Buf- 
 falo, Israel Jemison, of Cattaraugus, and William Patterson, 
 of Alleghany, all chiefs of the Seneca nation, men of high respect- 
 ability and standing in their tribe, had all been on exploring par- 
 ties, who had examined for themselves, and for the nation, this 
 boasted elysium of the land speculators ! The knowledge thus 
 derived, enabled them to describe to the " men, women, and chil- 
 dren" of their i-espective reservations, all the " horrors and hard- 
 ships" of the proposed change, without any aid from us. 
 
 Seventy-five chiefs and sachems, in a memorial to the President 
 of the United States, dated January 23d, 1840, say, " the climate 
 of the country, to which it is proposed we should emigrate, is 
 unsuited to us, and we fear that our people would not be healthy. 
 We dislike to be brought into contact with the warlike nations, 
 that live near the land offered us. The country we do not think 
 is well timbered ; and the proposition of government, to supply 
 
40 
 
 us with sufficient timber, is too difficult to be executed satisfacto- 
 rily either to the government or us."* 
 
 One of their gifted chiefs,t who, through the bounty of our 
 government, has had the benefit of a literary education, writing 
 on this subject, uses the following language : " Population is 
 with rapid strides going beyond the Mississippi, and, in process of 
 time, will notour territory there be as subject to the wants of the 
 whites, as that is xohich ive now occupy ? Shall we not then be 
 as strongly solicited, and by the same arguments, to remove still 
 further west ? But there is one condition of a removal, which 
 must certainly render it hazardous in the extreme to us. The 
 proximity of our then situation to that of other and more tvarlike 
 tribes, wiW expose us to constant harassing by them : and not 
 only this, but the character of those worse than Indians, those 
 white horderers, who infest the western limits of the white popu- 
 lation, will annoy us more fatally than even the Indians them- 
 selves. Surrounded thus by the natives of the soil, and hunted 
 by such a class of v.'hites, who neither " fear God nor regard 
 man," how shall we be better off there, than where we now 
 are ?" 
 
 " We desire to renounce those habits of mind and body which 
 prevailed when the country was first taken possession of by the 
 Europeans, and adopt in their stead, those habits and feelings — 
 those modes of living, and acting, and thinking, which result 
 from the cultivation and enlightening of the moral and intellectual 
 faculties. On this point I need not insult your common sense by 
 endeavoring to show that it is stupid folly to suppose that a re- 
 moval to the western wilds would improve our condition. What ! 
 leave a fertile and somewhat improved soil — a home in the midst 
 of civilization and Christianity — where books, and preaching, and 
 conversation, and business, and example, whose influence we 
 need, are all around us, so that we have but to open our ears and 
 turn our eyes to experience their enlightening effects ? Leave 
 
 ♦ " Case," p. 178. 
 
 j- See a work entitled " Address on the present condition and prospects of 
 the aboriginal inhabitants of North America, with particular reference to the 
 Seneca nation." By Maris B. Pierce, a chief of the Seneca nation, pp. 16, 
 1838. 
 
41 
 
 these! — and for what? Methinks I hear the guileful whisper of 
 some land company agent answer, ' for one or two dol liars an 
 acre !' And is the offer liberal? Of that, who but ourselves are 
 to be the final judges ? It is well known that those who are 
 anxious to purchase our reservations calculate safely on fifteen 
 dollars the acre for the poorest, and up to Jifty and more for the 
 other qualities ! By what mode of calculation or rules of judg- 
 ment is one or two dollars per acre a liberal offer to us, when 
 many times that sum would be only fair to the avarice of the 
 land speculator ?" 
 
 "Our lands are as fertile, and as well situated for agricultural pur- 
 suits, as any we shall get by a removal. The graves of our 
 fathers and mothers and kindred are here ; and about them still 
 cling our aflfections and memories. Here is the theatre on which 
 our tribe has acted its part in the drama of existence, and about 
 it are wreathed the associations which ever bind human affections 
 to the soil whereon one's nation and kindred and self have arisen 
 and acted. We are here in the midst of facilities for physical, 
 intellectual, and moral improvement. We are in the midst of the 
 enlightened. We see their ways and their works, and can thus 
 profit by their example. We can avail ourselves of their imple- 
 ments and wares and merchandise, and, once having learned the 
 use of them, shall deem them indispensable. We are here more 
 in the way of instruction, having greater facilities for getting up 
 and sustaining schools ; and, as we come to feel the want and 
 usefulness of books and prints, so we shall be able readily and 
 cheaply to get whatever we may choose. In this views of facts, 
 surely there is no inducement for removal." 
 
 But what are his readers to think of the modesty of our Indian 
 author ? He makes no hesitation in proclaiming to the world his 
 superior capacity to judge of things requisite to make other people 
 happy. The Indians, opposed to him, are " too ignorant to ap- 
 preciate the advantages of emigration.''^ He insinuates that 
 they are a very obstinate race, because, after having, through 
 their most faithful and confidential chiefs, carefully examined the 
 western wilds, and found them wholly unsuitable for their resi- 
 dence, they will not surrender their judgment to a single individual, 
 or, at best, 2311 will not submit to 138. But, to those who are 
 acquainted with Seneca White, Israel Jcmison, and William Pat- 
 
 4* 
 
42 
 
 terson, all attempts of our author to set himself above them, either 
 in point of intellectual power, clear discernment, or sterling good 
 sense, will be in vain. It is true, their vision has not been im- 
 proved, by what N. T. Strong calls " a personal gratuity," nor 
 by a " lease for life," of their own lands ! — but, in estimating the 
 conduct of those, who appear so anxious for their prosperity, 
 they have discernment enough to perceive that, like Esop's 
 wolves, who were so much concerned for the health of their sick 
 neighbor, the OgdenLand Company have other motives than those 
 that appear on the surface. 
 
 " But," says our author, " What does this pretended census 
 amount to ?" We will tell him. In the first place, it furnishes 
 an unanswerable refutation to all the false statements about ma- 
 jorities, by which men in authority, and others, have been most 
 grossly deceived ! Secondly, It manifests the turpitude of those 
 chiefs, whether bribed or not, who signed the assent to the 
 amended treaty ; because, at their inauguration, they solemnly 
 engage to represent the nation, instead of which, they undertake, 
 with a small minority on their side, cruelly to drive away sixteen- 
 seventeenths of their constituents. Thirdly, it throws out into 
 bold relief, the selfishness and obduracy of those who, having 
 stripped the Senecas of all their vast domain, except four compa- 
 ratively small lots, are still insatiate ; and, in order to take their 
 last mite, do not scruple, by means most foul, to drive them into 
 a situation wholly unsuited to their habits, their health, and their 
 inclinations. In short, it shows, by implication, what other evi- 
 dence proves directly, that the treaty was fraudulent ab initio. 
 This is what the census amounts to. And we have yet so much 
 confidence in the discernment and integrity of "the Christian 
 community," as to believe that, when truth shall be wholly un- 
 veiled, she will, with this census in her hand, carry conviction to 
 every unprejudiced mind. 
 
 Not only the census has put Nathaniel into a trying predica- 
 ment, the " affidavits," or " official documents," have scarcely 
 been less offensive to him. These " affidavits," amounting to 
 thirty-six in number, occupy more than fifty pages of our book, and 
 present to view a scene of great activity and exertion, covering a 
 space of about two years. We are not much versed in the arts 
 of treaty-making, nor in the ways of commissioners and agents in 
 
43 
 
 such business, but we are much mistaken if the annals of diplo- 
 macy, from the days of Macchiavelli,down to the present time, a 
 period of three hundred years, can furnish a better illustration of 
 the principles of that perfidious politician. A more extraordinary 
 scene of operations, to gain a favorite object, regardless of the 
 means, than these affidavits unfold, is, perhaps, not to be found in 
 history. In the" Case of the Seneca Indians illustrated," (p. 14) 
 we thus briefly noticed the subject : — 
 
 " A scene now opened, perhaps unprecedented in the annals of 
 treaty-making. Runners were hired to scour the forests, and 
 bring in every chief who could be prevailed upon, by means fair 
 or foul, to sign the assent. Day and night their wigwams were 
 invaded for this purpose. They were waked from their sleep — 
 besieged by the way, when pursuing their business — chased down, 
 in attempting to escape from importunity, or forced to stay from 
 their homes to avoid it. Spirituous liquors were employed to in- 
 toxicate them — false representations to deceive them — threats to 
 intimidate them — and vain hopes to allure them." 
 
 Nathaniel T. Strong, in his pamphlet, p. 17, says these are 
 " vague charges." What he means in this case by the term 
 " vague," as applied to those " charges," is not very clear. Does 
 he mean indefinite 7 ambiguous ? not specific ? We think few 
 will concur with him on that point. Does he mean not enough 
 in detail? If so, we shall agree with him there. We regret that 
 the limits of our concern at that time would not admit a more ex- 
 tended review of the facts and occurrences of that memorable 
 era. To supply this defect, and, as the best remedy then in our 
 power, we published the " Affidavits." And we would most ear- 
 nestly recommend to those who wish to understand the subject, 
 who would like to have a panoramic view of this wonderful scene, 
 that they read, attentively and patiently, all the official documents, 
 and particularly the " Affidavits." By these documents it ap- 
 pears that, in 1838, when commissioner Gillett was endeavoring, 
 in the way already mcn\\one6,io geixhe amended treaty exacuXed, 
 there were bribes offered to twelve Indians amounting to more 
 than $30,000 — besides great quantities of land on their reserva- 
 tions, some on lease for life, and some in fee simple. 
 
 In order to remove the effects which these documents have 
 produced, and will produce on " the Christian community," he 
 
44 
 
 seeks to destroy the character of the witnesses. Like a shrewd 
 lawyer, our opponent is aware, that such a train of evidence 
 against him, so clear, so minute, so multifarious, and all going to 
 the same point — it it remain unimpeached, viust he fatal to his 
 cause. We will now see how he goes about to accomplish this 
 end. He says : — 
 
 " Tlie parade of affidavits, procured by similar means, [that is, 
 by emissaries,] from people, fourteen-Jifteenths of whom are 
 wholly unacquainted with the nature and solemnities of an oath, 
 would seem to me to deserve no greater attention than the census, 
 except, as evincing the extraordinary means resorted to by a 
 religious society, professedly opposed, on principle, to this form 
 of appeal to the Supreme Being, and generally most uncompro- 
 mising in maintaining their scruples." 
 
 The guilt of a criminal is often most clearly perceived in his 
 anxiety to hide it ! Our opponent artfully attempts, in this case, 
 to shift the question from the evidence itself, to the mode ofpro- 
 cui'ing it, — to draw public attention from the culprit to the pro- 
 secutor ! These are some of the " arts of hiding," which a crafty 
 counsellor knows well how to use when driven into extremities. 
 To Nathaniel " it seems that these affidavits deserve no greater 
 attention than the census." Let us suppose they do not ; does it 
 therefore follow that neither of them deserve attention? To us it 
 appears that there are no points in this cause, considered 
 in connection with questions of law or equity, that are de- 
 serving of deeper attention, unless it be the " bribery contracts." 
 It is evidently his intention to slur them all over as lightly as pos- 
 sible. He calls the census a " farce," and thinks the affidavits 
 " deserve no greater attention than this farce !" We think both 
 the census and the affidavits very grave matters — very weighty 
 subjects — and intend to treat them accordingly ; perhaps our 
 opponent may think so too before the close of the concern. 
 
 In his attempt to invalidate the evidence adduced, he desperate- 
 ly oversteps the bounds of probability, by telling " the Christian 
 community," that '^\foiirteen-f ft tenths^'' of the sachems, chiefs, 
 and headmen of the Seneca nation, who have signed these affi- 
 davits, are wholly unacquainted with the nature and solemnities 
 of an oath. We will venture to assert, that there is not a respect- 
 able man in Cattaraugus, Erie, and Niagara counties, in which 
 
45 
 
 their reservations are located, who is acquainted with these chiefs, 
 that will believe assertions so untrue, and which arc calculated to 
 render all testimony, resting solely on his veracity, wholly 
 worthless. We cannot think so meanly of the capacities of these 
 chiefs as to admit that they are " unacquainted with the nature 
 and solemnities of an oath." We know better ; we know they 
 are respectable, intelligent men. But if it were true, it would not 
 necessarily follow that they are wholly unacquainted with the 
 distinctions between truth and falsehood, nor insensible to the 
 obligation of speaking truly and sincerely on all occasions. That 
 awful and degraded state is always the result of wickedness and 
 crime; of habitual indulgence in deception and fraud, whereby 
 the mental perceptions become dull and cloudy. It is then that 
 the oath loses its solemnity, and the vow its obligation : and pur- 
 suing this downward course, a man may at length be brought to 
 believe, that the perceptions of others are as obtuse as his own. 
 
 As to the mode by which the affidavits w^ere obtained, we can- 
 not see what it has to do with the business, unless it could be 
 proved that the motives were corrupt, and the means fraudulent or 
 unfair. Had our object been to possess ourselves of the Indians' 
 land, and to attain that end, had we spent thousands in the pay of 
 our emissaries, and in bribing the chiefs, then, indeed, might 
 N. T. Strong fairly enter his sentence of condemnation against 
 us. If we were to admit (which we do not) that those affidavits 
 were procured by our " emissaries," that would be no evidence 
 that our emissaries were not good, honest, upright men, nor that 
 the returns were false. We should be either blind, or recreant 
 to the cause of justice and humanity in which we are engaged, if, 
 on such a public mission, we should send low or degraded clia- 
 racters. It would have been happy for the poor Senecas, if 
 the agents and emissaries sent among them by other authorities 
 had been as disinterested and as clean-handed as ours : then all 
 their present distress, and all our present trouble, would have 
 been prevented. The truth is, that, of the thirty-six affidavits 
 published in our book, nineteen of them were obtained by the In- 
 dians themselves, before the committees of the three yearly meet- 
 ings had interfered in the treaty subject at all. The remaining 
 seventeen were taken in our absence, by the Indians themselves, 
 in defending their own cause, in their own way. 
 
46 
 
 In tlie latter part of the paragraph, just quoted from tlie " Ap- 
 peal," it is admitted by our opponent, that the affidavits, on one 
 account Amve superior claims to attention : and that is " as evinc- 
 ing the extraordinary means resorted to by a religious society, 
 professedly opposed in principle to this form of appeal to the Su- 
 preme Being, and generally most uncompromising in maintaining 
 their scruples." He insinuates, but does not say it, that in send- 
 ing emissaries to procure affidavits, we had, in some way, violated 
 our well known testimony against swearing! but how, or in what 
 way, he does not explain. An Indian chief is called upon to give 
 testimony in his own cause, and according to Ids own views of 
 propriety. He goes before a magistrate and relates the facts of 
 the case. The magistrate takes the testimony in writing, and the 
 Indian verifies it, either by oath or affirmation, as he believes 
 right. How this can involve Friends in such a charge, it is be- 
 yond our capacity to comprehend. But the real object of the 
 writer was, no doubt, as we have said, to draw the reader's at- 
 tention from the culprit to the prosecutor, and by this means to 
 save the affidavits from the close scrutiny they deserve, and 
 which their importance to the cause demands. That Friends are 
 generally uncompromising in maintaining their own scruples, is 
 very true — at the same time, they have neither the inclination nor 
 the power to dictate a course to others. If Nathaniel had shown 
 that any member of the Society of Friends, had been taking or 
 administering an oath, he would have done something to the pur- 
 pose, — as it is, we think, his arrow has fallen short of the target, 
 and exposed his own weakness. 
 
 After a fruitless effort to justify the course of the Ogden Land 
 Company, by quotations from letters of T. H. Ci'awford, Com- 
 missioner Gillett, and General H. Dearborn, all of which have 
 been effectually scrutinized and disposed of by Senator Sevier,* 
 he goes on to say : — 
 
 " I now pass to the consideration of the remaining charge im- 
 peaching the validity of the assents to the amended treaty : viz., 
 the employment of bribery to obtain them." 
 
 "I would remark preliminarily that this charge refers to trans- 
 
 * 8ee Seviei's speech, " Case," p. 87, &c. 
 
47 
 
 actions connected with the negociation of, and all prior to, the 
 original treaty."* 
 
 This is not correct, the charge of bribery did not relate exclu- 
 sively " to transactions connected with the negociation of, and all 
 prior to the original treaty.'''' It would have been evidence of 
 great] ignorance, both of facts, and our duty, to have confined 
 the charge of bribery to " the original treaty." It would have 
 been, in effect, to release the Ogden Company in some degree 
 from the charge of bribery as connected with the amended 
 treaty, the only treaty in fact icith which we have now any con- 
 troversy. 
 
 In our book, " The case of the Seneca Indians illustrated," we 
 published the ten contracts, all under the hand and seal of "He- 
 man B. Potter," who in the said contracts styles himself " of the 
 city of Buffalo," — " empowered to act on behalf of the said pro- 
 prietors of the pre-emptive title." These contracts bind the Og- 
 den Land Company, "within three months notice of the ratification 
 by the Senate of the United States, of a valid treaty, &c., to pay 
 or cause to be paid" to the said ten Indians the aggregate sum of 
 more than twenty thousand dollars ; which sum was to be in 
 payment for services to be rendered before the treaty w^as to be 
 returned to the Senate. These services were " to dispose and in- 
 duce the Seneca tribe of Indians to accept for their future and 
 permanent residence, the country west of the Mississippi ; and 
 also " on all occasions to co-operate with and aid the said H. B. 
 Potter and his associates, as from time to time advised, in talks 
 and negociations with the chiefs and other influential men of the 
 said tribe, in the active application of their whole influence, at 
 councils and confidential interviews, for the purpose of effecting 
 the treaty." 
 
 So far the charge of bribery did refer " to transactions con- 
 nected with the negociation of, and all prior to the original treaty." 
 But it was not to them, (when speaking of transactions that oc- 
 curred one year after the date of these contracts, at the time the 
 amended treaty was before the Indians,) we alluded, when we said, 
 " By reference to the course pursued by the Commissioner, c.s 
 described in the official documents, it is evident that he so un- 
 
 * Appeal, p. 20. 
 
4 
 
 der stood his instructions [to take the assent in open council] 
 and so continued to understand them, while there was a hope, 
 
 that BY LARGE BRIBES, LEASES FOR LIFE FREE OF RENT, FEE 
 
 SIMPLE TITLES, THREATS OF FORCIBLE REMOVAL, and Other means 
 noticed in the said documents, a majority of signatures could 
 be obtained in open council.'''' 
 
 These " large bribes," " leases for life free of rent," " fee sim- 
 ple titles," " threats of forcible removal," &c., all alluded to trans- 
 actions connected with the negociation, not of " the original 
 treaty" but of the " amended treaty." It was by no means 
 our intention to waive the charge of bribery, in the case of the 
 latter — such waiver would have been an abandonment of one of 
 the weightiest reasons why the amended treaty should not be car- 
 ried into effect. The amount of bribes offered in case of the 
 amended treaty, was greater, so far as yet discovered, than the 
 amount in the other. To Morris Halftown, Wm. Jones, Seneca 
 White, John Snow, and nine other chiefs* the value of the bribes 
 offered for their assent to the amended treaty, &c., amounted to 
 $32,600. Our opponent cannot, by such means, get clear of this 
 onerous allegation against that treaty. This weighty charge re- 
 mains against it, with as much force as against the original ; — 
 nay more, inasmuch as the amount of bribery in the latter case, 
 exceeds the former, about fifty per cent. 
 
 But, says our author, " Let me ask what is the meaning of 
 the term bribery, as applied to Indians V We answer, precisely 
 the same thing as when applied to white men. We are not aware 
 that the " Christian community" have formally recognised two 
 different codes of morality, one for the Indian, and another for 
 the Anglo-Saxon race. We know at least that the author and 
 founder of Christianity did not. " Whatsoever ye would that 
 men should do to you, do ye even so to them," is a standard of 
 universal authority, attested as well by the dictates of reason, as 
 by the higher sanction of an express divine command. 
 
 Our Lexicographers explain the term bribery as " the act of 
 
 * See Affidavits, Morris Halftown, page 207, Sky Carrier, 208, John Banks, 
 212, Geo. Conjockeyla, 213, Samuel Wilson, 214, Wm. Jones, 216 and 232, 
 David White, 218, John Tallchief, 219, Wm. Cass, 223, Seneca White, 233, 
 John Snow, 241. 
 
49 
 
 giving a person money to engage him to a particular side, or a 
 particular undei'taking, accompanied by the idea of illegal prac- 
 tice in the giver, and corrup' principles in the receiver" — " to 
 bribe is to gain or corrupt by gifts," and is generally effected in 
 a dark, clandestine, or covert manner. 
 
 But the question is, "What is bribery when applied to Indians?'''' 
 This question has been answered, as it relates to Indians in gene- 
 ral — we will now endeavor to answer it as it regards the Seneca 
 Indians in particular. 
 
 The Seneca nation is one of a confederacy called " The Six 
 Nations." Each nation elects its own chiefs, which are reported 
 to a general council of the confederacy. If, in this council, such 
 chiefs are approved, the voice of the particular nation is confirmed; 
 and they are, by a long and solemn process, with great form and 
 ceremony, inaugurated. By this process they become chiefs of 
 the nation, and counsellors of the confederacy. Their duty, in 
 general, is to guard and protect the interests of the nation, as its 
 representatives ; and to act for its welfare, according to the laws, 
 customs, and usages transmitted from their ancestors, or adopted 
 by themselves, "Touching all treaties for the sale of their lands, 
 and, of course, involving their dearest rights, their law is, that 
 any proposition for such sale or transfer, and the terms on which 
 it is proposed to make it, must first be laid before the nation in 
 council. If the proposition is approved, the chiefs are authorized 
 to negociate, and thus they become the duly constituted agents of 
 the nation, /or the purpose of a sale.'" If in any point they differ 
 in judgment, a majority is supposed to express the will of the 
 nation. As the people are unacquainted with letters, and there- 
 fore subject to imposition, they have ordered, that the final rati- 
 fication of treaties for the sale of lands, shall be done in open 
 council; where all may hear, and each may sit as guardian of 
 the whole. No chief or sachem, however high his station, has 
 any power or authority in such cases, out of council, more than 
 the humblest individual. 
 
 Now, in such case, if any man or body of men, shall go to 
 such authorized agents, and propose to purchase their lands; and 
 finding, after much labor to accomplish the object, that a large 
 majority of them are hostile to the project, and decidedly unwill- 
 ing to sell — and so finding them, shall begin to tamper, first with 
 
 5 
 
50 
 
 one of the unwilling chiefs, and then with another ; and in or- 
 der to gain them over to a different mind, shall offer them money, 
 privately and clandestinely, such offer is now, and ever has been 
 called an offer of bribery ; — the acceptance of it constitutes the 
 act of bribery. 
 
 And let it be borne in mind, that, to the thirteen chiefs be- 
 fore mentioned, to whom the enormous sum of 32,600 dollars was 
 promised, it was not promised as a present to conciliate the 
 friendship of a dangerous neighbor, or to draw closer the bonds 
 that bind old friends — it was not a gratuity in acknowledgement 
 of past kindness, nor a memento of some ancient family alliance. 
 No. It was a contract for services to be rendered : it was a 
 " bargain and sale^^ ivith a quid pro quo : — it was the act of giv- 
 ing money to a chief to "engage him to a particular side," [the 
 emigration party] and to " a particular undertaking," [the exile 
 of the nation] — it was paying a price, for betraying the people 
 into measures deeply affecting their welfare, and contrary to their 
 wishes, — it was a clandestine act, " done in a corner," without 
 the knowledge of the part)'' most nearly concerned in it, — it was, 
 in fine, an act of the most criminal nature, without any allay of 
 virtue. This is what we deem a clear answer to the question, 
 "What .is the meaning of the term bribery as a/)/>7ied to In- 
 dians ?" 
 
 To the correctness of this conclusion we have the testimony of 
 the Committee on Indian affairs, in their report to the Senate of 
 the United States, dated February, 1839, in which they say, 
 " those opposed to the treaty, accuse several who have signed 
 their assent to the amended treaty, with having been bribed ; 
 and, in at least one instance, they make out the charge very 
 clearly." The " one instance," here alluded to, was the case of 
 John Snow,* the only chief that had then made a disclosure of 
 such attempts at corruption. Nine others have since come to 
 light. 
 
 " Here," says Senator Sevier, addressing the Senate, " here 
 we have a few illustrations, most liberal and honest and patriotic 
 illustrations, of the means used by the agents of this Land Com- 
 pany, and under the authority of the proprietors, to induce the 
 
 ♦"Case," p. 231. 
 
51 
 
 leading and influential chiefs to sell the lands of their unwilling 
 constituents." " By these dark and midnight transactions, the 
 order of things was to be curiously reversed. The emigrating 
 •party were to stay in New York on their leases, and the non- 
 emigrating party were to be transported beyond the Mississippi. 
 And are these contracts denied ? No sir! They are unblush- 
 ngly and shamelessly admitted and justified by Nathaniel T. 
 Strong and White Seneca, Indian chiefs, and they arc admitted 
 by Orlando Allen, a white man, and one of the active agents of 
 . the Land Company.*" 
 
 And now, after a lapse of about two years, this same Nathanie 
 T. Strong has the effrontery to come before the public in print, 
 and appeal to " the Christian community," with this mark of 
 corruption, thus publicly stamped upon him in the highest tribu- 
 nal of our country ! He comes, not to deny these palpable facts, 
 and wipe the dark stain from his own character, but to justify 
 the ignominious transaction, by an attempt to bring others down 
 to the level of his own depravity. To do this, he tries to draw a 
 parallel between the conduct of William Penn, when treating with 
 the natives of our country, and the " dark midnight transactions" 
 of the Ogden Land Company ! He tells us that " the difference 
 in practice between the pre-emptive owners of the present time, 
 and those of the time of Penn and other colonists, is, that what 
 then passed under the name of presents, is nov,- termed 
 bribery /"f 
 
 But comparisons are frequently imprudent, and sometimes dan- 
 gerous, and perhaps no case on the page of history could have 
 been selected, to show off the Ogden Company more to their dis- 
 advantage, than that of the great and honorable founder of Penn- 
 sylvania. His conduct toward the aborigines of our country, his 
 justice and his kindness to Ihcm, his parental care and affection 
 
 ♦ " Case," p. 76. 
 
 t'-'Orlando Allen, an agent of the Land Company, and directly intcreslrd in 
 the success of the treaty, assimilates these rewards promised and given to these 
 chiefs, in this underhanded and clandestine manner, to the annuity given to 
 Red Jiicket, Cornplanter, and others. Sir, there is no similitude in these 
 cases. What was given to Red Jacket, Cornplanter, and to the others he has 
 named, was given in open day, in the presence of the nation, and with the 
 knowledge and approbation of iheir tribes." — Seviku. 
 
62 
 
 for them, have been for upwards of a century, a favorite theme 
 for poets, orators, historians, and moralists. Towards the natives 
 he used no guile, he practised no frauds. His whole intercourse 
 with them was an intercourse of kindness, an exchange of good 
 offices : and the consequences were, as might have been expected, 
 uninterrupted peace and harmony between them during his whole 
 life, and, after his death, with his successors, for about forty 
 years, or until the reins of government passed into other hands. 
 
 That William Penn made presents to the natives, we have am- 
 ple proof; and those proofs, in every case on record, are so many 
 evidences of his philanthropy, his kindness, and the goodness of his 
 heart. The benevolence of his disposition, we have no doubt, 
 often led him thus to gratify them, and we have no disposition to 
 deny that frequently, in the warmth of his affection for this noble, 
 though unlettered race, 
 
 " He cheered with gifts, and greeted with a smile 
 The simple natives of the new found isle," 
 
 but he did not smile to deceive them, nor make gifts to corrupt 
 them ; he did not, under a mask of friendship, clandestinely seek 
 to defraud them out of their lands, and then to drive them, against 
 their consent, into a country, where they could see nothing but 
 present misery and speedy destruction. History and Tradition, 
 as if equally delighted to transmit to posterity the knowledge of 
 his virtues, harmonize on this point. They present to an admir- 
 ing world, one spot on the wide theatre of political action, on 
 which, as on the green oasis of the desert, the eye of the Chris- 
 tian philanthropist may rest with unmingled pleasure. 
 
 The natives, destitute of a written language to record 
 passing events, depend upon memory, for transmitting the know- 
 ledge of them to posterity. The}^ of course take great care to 
 impress the minds of their children with the knowledge of im- 
 portant transactions. For the same purpose they introduce their 
 women into their councils — and so faithfully do they chronicle 
 remarkable events, whether as eye-witnesses or as hearers, and 
 so correctly commit them to the rising generation, that, after a 
 lapse of more than a century, their traditions, even in minute par- 
 ticulars, have been found remarkably to coincide with written 
 memoranda. 
 
53 
 
 ProLid says, " It was in Uie year 1682 that Penn began to pur- 
 chase land of the natives, whom he treated with great justice and 
 sincere kindness in all his dealings and communications with 
 them, ever giving them full satisfaction for all their lands, and 
 the best advice for their real happiness ; of which their future 
 conduct shoiped they were very sensible'^ — " the lasting friend- 
 ship," thus formed, " ever afterwards continued between them."* 
 
 In another place he says, " Penn's conduct to these people 
 was so engaging, his justice, in particular, so conspicuous, his 
 counsel and advice so evidently for their advantage, that he be- 
 came very much endeared to them, the sense whereof made such 
 deep impressions on their understanding, that his name and 
 memory will scarcely ever he effaced while they continue a 
 people.'''' 
 
 At a conference held at Lancaster, in the year 1744, a chief 
 of the Six Nations mentioned, in a speech, that, on a certain oc- 
 casion, when Penn was in treaty with them for some land, he 
 told them they had already sold the Susquehanna lands to the 
 governor of New York, and that the governor, when in England, 
 had sold them to Penn. The Indians told him they had only 
 conveyed them in trust to the governor, that, therefore, the sale 
 was a deception ; upon which Penn generously paid for the lands 
 over again. f 
 
 At a treaty held with the Six Nations at Philadelphia, in 1742, 
 during the administration of governor Thomas, Canassatego, a 
 celebrated Onondaga chief, remembering the kindness of William 
 Penn, said, " We are all very sensible of the kind regard which 
 that good man, William Penn, had for all the Indians." 
 
 At a treaty held at Easton, in Pennsylvania, in 175G, under 
 trovernor Morris's administration, Tedyuscung,a noted Delaware 
 chief, made a speech, in which he said, " We rejoice to hear you 
 are willing to renew the old good understanding, and that you 
 call to mind the first treaties of friendship made by Onas, (the 
 Indian name for Penn) our great friend, with our forefathers, 
 when himself and his people first came over here." " [ wish the 
 same good spirit that possessed //;<?^oo(/ o7J man, William Penn, 
 
 * ilist. Penn. I., pp. 211, 212. 
 
 I Drake's Indian biography B. V. p. 21. 
 
54 
 
 who was a friend to the Indians, may inspire the people of this 
 province at the present day." 
 
 In 1721, very soon after the death of Penn, a treaty was held 
 with the Five Nations at Conestogo, in Pennsylvania, under 
 Keith's administration. One of the chiefs, with an air of great 
 veneration and respect, said, " they should never forget the coun- 
 sel given them by William Penn, for, though they could not write 
 as the English did, yet they could preserve in the memory what 
 was said in council." And at a treaty in the following year, 
 held at Albany, their speaker, as the highest compliment he could 
 pay the governor, addressed him by the title of " Brother Onas," 
 adding, " we esteem and love you as if you were William Penn 
 himself, and are glad to hear the former treaties made with Wil- 
 liam Penn repeated to us." " We desire that peace and tranquil- 
 lity, now established between us, may be as clear as the sun 
 shining in its lustre, without any cloud or darkness, and may en- 
 dure for ever." 
 
 " That William Penn made presents to the Indians," we very 
 willingly admit ; but he did not, " under a mask of friendship, 
 clandestinely seek to defraud them out of their lands." Happily, 
 we have authentic documents to show both the nature of the gifts 
 and the circumstances under which they were made. 
 
 In his first letter, addressed to the Indians, dated London, the 
 18th of the Eighth month, 1681, about one year before he em- 
 barked for the colony, he says, " I shall shortly come to you 
 myself, at which time we may more largely and freely confer and 
 discourse of these matters. In the mean time, I have sent my 
 commissioners to treat with you about land, and a firm league of 
 peace. Let me desire you to be kind to them and the people, 
 and receive these presents and tokens, which I have sent you, as 
 a testimony of my good will to you, and my resolution to live 
 justly, peaceably, and friendly with you." 
 
 In another letter, in his own hand writing, dated England, 21st 
 of Second month, 1682, written six months before his arrival in 
 America, and read to the Indians on the spot where Philadelphia 
 now stands, by Thomas Holme, Penn's surveyor general ; he 
 says, " When God brings me among you, I intend to order all 
 things in such manner that we may all live in love and peace, 
 one with another, which I hope the great God will incline both 
 
55 
 
 me and you to do" — " I have already taken care that none of my 
 people ivrong you, — by good laws I have provided for that pur- 
 pose ; nor will I ever allow any of my people to sell rum, to 
 make your people drunk. If any thing should be out of order, 
 expect, when I come, it shall be mended, and / tvill bring you 
 some things of our counli'y that are useful and pleasing to 
 you:' 
 
 In the Second month, according to the old style, called April, 
 in the year 1701 , at the time Penn \vas on his second visit to 
 America, he held a treaty of peace, friendship, and trade or com- 
 merce (and also for the confirmation of former grants of land 
 " upon and about the Susquehanna,") with Connoo-dah-toh, king 
 of the Indians about that river, and other chiefs — and Wopatha, 
 king, and other chiefs of the Shawanese, — and Ahoo-kas-songh 
 brother to the Emperor of the Five Nations — and Wee-whin-jou 
 and other chiefs of the Potomac Indians. This treaty was ratified 
 in Philadelphia, in the presence of the proprietor and his council 
 on the one part, and forty Indians, kings, chiefs, and warriors, on 
 the other ; the closing article of which is in the following words : 
 
 " In witness whereof, the said parties have, as a confirmation, 
 made mutual presents to each other : the Indians in five parcels 
 of skins, and the said William Penn in several English goods 
 and merchandises, as a binding pledge of the premises, never to 
 be broken or violated." 
 
 Here we see, in a very clear light, the nature of the gifts or 
 presents which William Penn made to the natives. We also see 
 the purposes for which they were made, and the circumstances 
 under which they were presented. Here we find no " dark mid- 
 night transactions," — no private " contracts" for the payment of 
 from one thousand to six thousand dollars a piece to individual 
 chiefs for their services, in corrupting their fellows — no lure held 
 out to the cupidity or avarice of the ignorant or weak, to induce 
 them to apply " their whole influence at councils and confidential 
 interviews [mark, confidential interviews,'] for the purpose of ef- 
 fecting a treaty" merely to benefit what Senator Sevier calls " an 
 overgrown grasping Land Company." No, we discover nothino- 
 like this in the conduct of William Penn — nor ever shall, for 
 this plain reason, that he was incapable of such dishonesty ! 
 Neither his motives nor his actions were such as to need 
 
56 
 
 concealment. They were open and honorable. His pre- 
 sents were made in the face of the day, under the meridian 
 brightness of the noontide sun ; and will for ever stand in 
 striking and honorable contrast, to " the dark midnight transac- 
 tions" now dragged from concealment by irrefutable testimony. 
 
 Our opponent repeats, with great triumph, the assertions of Se- 
 nator Lumpkin, in his speech on the treaty question. In that 
 speech the Senator took occasion to say, " Yes, sir, even under 
 the government of that good man, William Penn, we find the 
 same statute, which made it a crime for any citizen to furnish the 
 Indians with intoxicating drink, of any kind, nevertheless, al- 
 lowed the commissioners of the government to administer a pru' 
 dent portion of intoxicating drink, to Indians with whom they 
 wished to form a treaty." See Appeal, p. 39. 
 
 We will not suppose that the Senator, by this statement, meant 
 to deceive his audience, or to injure the character or memory of 
 William Penn, of whom he otherwise speaks with much respect. 
 But, in his zeal to procure the ratification of this most unrighteous 
 treaty, he has fallen into several capital errors, which we are 
 willing to attribute to misrepresentation and mistake, rather than 
 to a disposition to cover over, or palliate the artifice of those who 
 would make the Indians dnink, in order to defraud them. "The 
 statute" to which the Senatar refers, in order to screen the Ogden 
 Land Company from pecidiarity in this crime, was not passed 
 " under the government of that good man, William Penn." It 
 was the work of his successors, who, unhappily for themselves 
 and the colony, abandoned the principles and profession of their 
 venerable ancestor, slighted his counsel, and to this day are re- 
 membered, if remembered by the Indians at all, for their depart- 
 ure from his noble example. Whilst the memory of the father is 
 cherished with respect and veneration — whilst his character is 
 continually brightening with the lapse of time, the memory of 
 his sons has sunk into oblivion, and is only called up by the recol- 
 lection of their infirmities. 
 
 The last personal interview William Penn ever had with the 
 Indians of Pennsylvania, was just before his final departure from 
 the province, in 1701. On that occasion, in a council held with 
 the chiefs, sachems, and others of the Susquehanna and Shawanese 
 tribes, he told them " that the assembly was then enacting a law. 
 
57 
 
 according to their desire, to prevent their being abused by selling 
 of ru7n amongst them ; that he requested them to unite all their 
 endeavors, and their utmost exertions, in conjunction with those 
 of the government, to put the said law in execution." 
 
 If Senator Lumpkin had been aware of all the frauds practised 
 upon the Seneca Indians, in the different stages of the concern, 
 for the procurement of the Seneca treaty, we cannot believe he 
 would have said, "that the treaty, now under consideration, is 
 amongst the most fair and honorable transactions of the kind, 
 which is to be found on our recorded history as a people." For, 
 if this be true, then is our country one of the most dishonorable 
 to be found on the " recorded history" of any " people," — and 
 then has the Senator, in the highest legislative department of the 
 Union, made himself the instrument of proclaiming her dishonor 
 to the world. But we are inclined to believe that, in common with 
 many other members of the national Legislature, he has been 
 influenced by statements void of truth, and artfully calculated to 
 deceive : for, the " recoi'ded history" of our own, or any other 
 country, may safely be challenged to show a " transaction of the 
 kind," more distinguishable for its atrocity. 
 
 To protect these Indians in the peaceable possession of their 
 lands, the government of the United States is bound, not only by 
 the obligations of truth and justice, but by its express contracts 
 with them, to the performance of which its faith has been solemn- 
 ly pledged. In the treaty sanctioned by Washington, during his 
 administration as President of the United States, when the power 
 of the northern Indians was such as to make it of great import- 
 ance to be at peace with them, this pledge was given. That treaty 
 was concluded with the Six Nations, at Canandaigua, Nov. 11th, 
 1794, Timothy Pickering acting as commissioner on behalf of the 
 United States. It stipulated that, "with the view to remove from 
 th;^ir minds all causes of complaint, and for the establishing a firm 
 and permanent friendship with them, the United States will never 
 claim their lands, nor disturb them, nor their Indian friends [the 
 Tuscaroras] residing thereon and united with them, in the free 
 use and enjoyment thereof; but the said reservations sAaZZ renmi/i 
 theirs, until they choose to sell the same to the people of the 
 United States, who have the right to purchase." 
 
 Under the administration of Thomas Jeflcrson, the Seneca and 
 
58 
 
 Onondaga Indians appealed to our government for its protection, 
 in fulfilment of its contracts. This appeal was honorably met, and 
 promptly attended to, and a proclamation, under the hand of 
 General Henry Dearborn, and seal of the war office, bearing date 
 March 17th, 1802, was issued, in which, among other things, it 
 was declared, " that all lands claimed by and secured to the Se- 
 neca and Onondaga Indians, by treaty, convention, deed of con- 
 veyance, or reservation, lying and being within the said United 
 States, shall he and remain the property of the said Seneca and 
 Onondaga Indians forever, unless they shall voluntarily relinquish 
 the same. And all persons, citizens of the United States, are 
 hereby strictly forbidden to disturb the said Indians in the quiet 
 possession of these lands." 
 
 From all that has been said, and from the statements, and au- 
 thentic documents, published in " the Case of the Seneca Indians 
 illustrated," it appears 
 
 First. — That in the year 1837, with " the ostensible object" of 
 purchasing " the Green Bay lands," (whilst " the real object," as 
 Senator Sevier affirms, was, " to assist a dozen or so of land 
 speculators to purchase of the New York Indians their New York 
 lands,") the government was induced to appoint a commissioner, 
 to make a treaty with those Indians. 
 
 Secondly. — That in pursuance of this appointment, a treaty 
 was made, and laid before the Senate, purporting to have been 
 executed in council " at Buffalo Creek, January 15, 1838, by 
 Ransom H. Gillett, on the part of the United States, and the 
 chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the several tribes of New York 
 Indians." Appended to it were two deeds of conveyance, one 
 from the Senecas, and one from the Tuscaroras, to the Ogden 
 Land Company. 
 
 Thirdly. — That this treaty was obtained by bribery, and other 
 unfair means, and was unanimously rejected by the Senate, and 
 of course never was binding on either party. 
 
 Fourthly. — That the Senate, ex parte, formed another treaty, 
 called " the amended treaty," which, with the two deeds of con- 
 veyance, was sent to the Indians, for their consideration ; with a 
 resolution, dated June 11th, 1838, providing, that the treaty 
 should have no force or effect whatever, nor should it be under- 
 stood that the Senate had assented to any of the contracts, or 
 
59 
 
 deeds of conveyance, connected with it, until tlic same, with the 
 amendments, was fully and iairly explained to each of the tribes 
 or bands in council; nor until ''frcdij and voluntarily'' assented 
 to by them " when thus consulted." 
 
 Fifthly. — That the conditions prescribed by the Senate, on 
 which the treaty could alone have any " force or effect," were 
 never complied with. Only 16 out of 81, ever signed it in coun- 
 cil, — the Seneca " trihe" never assented to it, " when consulted 
 as aforesaid." More than one-half that did sign it in council, 
 were corrupted by bribes. All the other signatures were either 
 obtained clandestinely, oi- forged; or, they were the names of 
 persons who were not, and never had been chiefs. Sixty-four 
 chiefs and warriors in the same council, signed a protest against 
 it ; being a large majority of the whole. Thus this treaty was 
 fairly rejected by the Senecas, and, of course, could have " no 
 force or effect whatever." 
 
 Sixthly. — That under these circumstances, on the 21st January, 
 1839, the President returned the treaty to the Senate, " for its 
 advice in relation to the sufficiency of the assent of the Se- 
 necas." 
 
 Seventhly. — That the treaty, being thus thrown back upon the 
 Senate; after a full investigation, it was found not to have been 
 sufficiently signed ; and it was resolved to return it to the Presi- 
 dent, for further action in the case. It was accompanied with the 
 following resolution, dated March 2d, 1839. "Resolved, that 
 whenever the President of the United States, shall be satisfied that 
 the assent of the Seneca tribe of Indians, has been given to ' the 
 amended treaty,' of June Ilth, 1838; with the New York In- 
 dians, according to the true intent and meaning of the resolution, 
 of the Senate, of the 11th June, 1838, the Senate recommend, 
 that the President make proclamation of the said treaty, and carry 
 the same into effect." 
 
 Eighthly. — That, in the Eighth month (August) of that year, 
 the President despatched the Secretary of War to the Seneca na- 
 tion, where a council was held on the Cattaraugus reservation ; 
 but no further assent to the treaty was obtained, nor was there 
 any thing done to advance the object of the Senate ; on the con- 
 trary, a more decided opposition to the treaty was manifest, more 
 
60 
 
 than sixteen-seventeenths of the whole nation beuig decidedly 
 hostile to it. 
 
 Ninthly. — That, the President of the United States never was 
 satisfied, that the assent of the Seneca nation had been obtained, 
 according to the provision of the Senate ; for, on the 13th of the 
 First month, (January,) 1840, he again remitted the treaty to the 
 Senate ; and in his message on that occasion, explicitly declared, 
 that the resolution of the Senate, of June 11th, 1838, did require 
 that the assent of each of the tribes of Indians should be given in 
 council, — that such assent had not been so given, — that no ad- 
 vance towards obtaining the assent of the Seneca Indians, to the 
 amended treaty, in council, had been made ; — and that such as- 
 sent cannot now be obtained. As it regards the charge of bri- 
 bery, he says, — " that improper means have been employed, to 
 obtain the assent of the Seneca chiefs, there is every reason to 
 believe ; and I have not been able to satisfy myself, that I can, 
 consistently with the resolution of the Senate, of the 2d of March, 
 
 1839, cause the treaty to be carried into effect, in respect to the 
 Seneca tribey 
 
 Tenthly. — That, it thus is evident, " the amended treaty, made 
 ex parte by the Senate, was rejected by the Senecas, the other 
 contracting party, — was not satisfactory to the body which 
 formed it, and finally, in an official communication, was con- 
 demned by the President of the United States, who is one of the 
 branches of the treaty-making power, under the Constitution. 
 
 Eleventhly. — That, the treaty thus refused by the Indians, — 
 rejected by the Senate, — and condemned by the President, was, 
 notwithstanding, on the 25th day of the Third month, (March,) 
 
 1840, declared by the Senate to have been " satisfactorily ac- 
 ceded to, and approved by the said tribes ; the Seneca tribe in- 
 cluded /" 
 
 Ticelfthly. — That this decision was made in the Senate, when 
 only thirty-eight members were present, nineteen of whom voted 
 against it ; the question having been decided by the casting vote 
 of the Vice President. 
 
 And lastly. — That this decision was not in accordance with 
 the express provision of the Constitution of the United States, 
 which declares the powers of the Senate, in relation to treaties, 
 in the following words : " The President of the United States shall 
 
6i 
 
 liave power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
 to make treaties ; provided, two-thirds of the Senators present 
 concur.'''' 
 
 And now, for the maintenance of the national faith, by the per- 
 formance of our solemn contracts ; for the sake of our good 
 name, as an upright, honorable nation ; for the love of mer- 
 cy, in its exercise towards a weak and defenceless people, and 
 that the blessing of Heaven, " to which no sorrow is added," 
 may descend and rest on our beloved country ; we cannot but 
 hope, that when the true charajtcr of this treaty, as it regards 
 its origin, its object, the means by which it has been obtained, 
 and its cruel tendency, shall be fully understood, it may be 
 promptly annulled by the authorities of the government. 
 
 We do not wish for such result because we have any desire to 
 interfere with the just objects of the parties interested in the re- 
 moval of the Indians. We have no interest in the concern op- 
 posed to the rights of any party. If the Senecas in the free ex- 
 ercise of their judgment were now prepared for a change of resi- 
 dence, we should not be found opposing their inclination. Until 
 so prepared, we think they ought to be protected in their rights, 
 and left at full liberty to pursue such measures as they may deem 
 essential to their own happiness. 
 
 Of latter time much has been said of the general poZiry of remov- 
 ing the Indians beyond the Mississippi. On this point it is no part 
 of our present business to express a sentiment. It is a subject 
 upon which good men differ. But when either nations or indi- 
 viduals on that ground pursue any scheme violating the immu- 
 table principle of justice, the policy of the movement may well 
 be doubted. The past history of our own country at various pe- 
 riods, and the experience of the present day emphatically teach 
 us, that in the end honesty is the best, — the cheapest, — the most 
 economical rule of action. If, in all our dealings with the abo- 
 ri"-ines, we had, as a nation, been governed and limited by this 
 rule, we cannot doubt that thousands of valuable lives, and mil- 
 lions of the public treasure would have been saved to our country. 
 
I 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 Some valuable documents in our possession, it is deemed proper to lay be- 
 fore the public, in an Appendix. By this means, also, some further illustra- 
 tion of facts, and of the positions taken up by us in our Review, will be 
 presented to the reader, in the form of Notes. 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 Page 8. " One of the means used by the Land Company to veil from 
 public view the true state of the case, is the use of ambiguous terms, or the 
 false application of others, when they speak of what they call their title to the 
 Indians' land." 
 
 "Ambiguous terms." — In the Letter dated New York, April 4, 1839,* from 
 Tho. L. Ogden, Joseph Fellows, and others, begging the President of the 
 United States to proclaim the treaty, they frequently style themselves the 
 ^-pre-emptive owners" of the Seneca's land. The word " pre-emptive" ap- 
 pears to be newly coined to suit the purpose, as we do not find it in any 
 English or American dictionary. " Pre-emption," a noun, occurs in them all ; 
 and is explained, " a right of buying before another," " a claim to buy or 
 purchase before others." Now, a person having a right of pre-emption 
 in relation to land, has a claim to purchase such land, in preference to others ; 
 and this is called a " pre-emption right," not a " pre-emptive title." He can 
 have no title but by exercising his " right to buy or purchase." 
 
 An " owner" of land is one who has already bought it, or by other means 
 lias a title in it. The phrase, " pre-emptive owner" is therefore ambiguous, 
 and absurd, as implying that a person has a right to purchase land which he 
 already owns ! 
 
 " The false application of others," occurs very frequently in the Company's 
 writings. The mere right to buy,thej term a "legal estate in fee simple." 
 In other places they term that right « a title ;" calling themselves " proprietors 
 of the pre-emptive title !" See Bribery Contracts " Case," p. 189, &c. 
 
 A title, says Coke, is "the means whereby the oiviier of lands hath the 
 just possession of his property." 1 Inst. 354. Blackstone says, " A right 
 to property," or even " a right of possession" constitutes « a title." Com- 
 ment., vol. 2, p. 195, &c. But the Ogden Company have neither the one 
 nor the other. That the Indians have the "possessory right," is admitted by 
 
 ♦ See 
 
 Senate's DocumenlS, 18 10, page 289, et leq. 
 
64 
 
 the Company ; — that the "property" is theirs, until they choose to rehnquish 
 the same, is beyond dispute. 
 
 Page 17. '' It is believed that these lands when divided woukl sell for 
 two, or perhaps three millions of dollars." Maris B. Pierce, the Seneca 
 Chief, in his address, quoted p. 40, &c., says : " It is well known that those 
 who are anxious to purchase our Reservations, calculate safely on fifteen 
 dollars per acre, for the jioorest, and up io fifty and more for the other 
 qualities." Taking the medium between fifteen and fifty dollars per acre, 
 and estimating the quantity at 19,000 acres, the value would be three millions, 
 eight hundred and sixty-seven thousand dollars ! But estimating the whole, 
 at the price oitlie poorest, the value is one million, seven hundred and eighty- 
 five thousand dollars! The consideration fraudulently put into the deed by the 
 Ogden Company's agent, as before stated, is $202,000, which taken from the 
 value of the whole, at the lowest rate, shows that the Indians were to receive 
 one million, Jive hundred and eighty-three thousand dollars, less than the 
 value at which the poorest of their land is estimated ! 
 
 Page 20. " Every art has been tried to torture this document ; it has been 
 racked, and stretched, and twisted into every shape, out of its original one, 
 to make it speak a language that would sanction the dark schemes of those 
 whose object it was to remove the Indians." For a specimen of this stretch- 
 ing and twisting, see a letter from Commissioner Gillett to T. H. Crawford, 
 dated Washington, Oct. 25, 1838, Senate's Documents, p. 34, 35, &c. to p. 
 40. And also a_ letter from E. H. Gillett, dated Dec. 25, 1838, to Gen. 
 Dearborn, " Case" p. 110. These documents deserve particular attention, 
 as showing the character of an agent of the government, who ought to have 
 no other motive than to represent his government, justly and impartially. 
 
 Page 24. " Yet we have evidence that the commissioner threatened the 
 Indians with the execution of the contracts, although the treaty should not be 
 ratified." 
 
 " Threatened the Indians." In a letter from Big Kettle, and fifteen other 
 chiefs, to Senator Prentiss, dated February 28, 1838, they say of Commis- 
 sioner Gillett, " Once, during the council, one of us inquired, what will our 
 father, the President, do tj us if we refuse to make the treaty 1 His answer 
 was, ' He will punish you as a father punishes his disobedient child, unless 
 you do as he desires : he will turn your face where he wishes you to go, be- 
 fore he stops punishing you.' Then went on to threaten us that the laws of 
 the state should be extended over us in punishment ; and that the privileges 
 which we now enjoy should be taken away from us : that we should lose our 
 annuities, and lose our agent, and that these things should be given to the 
 party which might consent to emigrate. Some of the less firm in mind among 
 our chiefs and people believed and were intimidated. 
 
 "He said, also, that Congress were seeking to prevent any one from assisting 
 us ; and that, if any white person should give us advice, or in any way help 
 us to retain our land in opposition to the will of the government, he should 
 be punished with a fine of from one to two thousand dollars. Thus it seemed 
 that we had no help left for us. Some of our chiefs were intimidated by this 
 also, and thought we might as well submit: for he told us that (Congress had 
 
65 
 
 passed a law to this effect, and all the good people were agreed to it." "Case," 
 p. 117. Much more of this nature will be found in the official documents, 
 
 Page 25. " They had also to stem the powerful torrent of government in- 
 fluence." See President's Message to the Senate, Documents 1840, page 1, 
 et. seq. See also letter from T. H. Crawford to the Secretary of War, and 
 one to R. H. Gillett, Idem. pp. 55, 67, 68. See also Sevier's speech, "Case," 
 pp. 87, 88. 
 
 Page 33. " They have good farms, and are rapidly advancing in agricultu- 
 ral science." See Friends' Memorial to the President, "Case," p. 27. 
 
 As the Report to the Governor and Council of Massachusetts, several times 
 referred to in this work, may not be in the possession of many of our readers, 
 the following extracts from that Report are here inserted for reference, and 
 further information. 
 
 Page 10, &c. " The deed of conveyance of the Seneca Reservations hears date 
 .lanuary 15, 1838. It commences with a recital, that, at a treaty held under the 
 authority of the United States, at Buffalo Creek in the County of Erie and 
 State of New York, between the chiefs and headmen of the Seneca nation of 
 Indians, duly assembled in council, and representing and acting for the 
 said natio?i, on the one part, and Messrs. Ogden and Fellows on the other 
 part, concerning the purchase of the right and claim of the said nation of In- 
 dians, in and to the land? within the State of New York remaining in their 
 possession, Ransom H. Gillett, Esq., the Commissioner appointed by the 
 President of the United States to attend and hold the said treaty, and also 
 Josiah Trowbridge, Esq., the Superintendent on behalf of Massachusetts, were 
 severally present at the said treaty, and that said chiefs and headmen, in be. 
 half of said Seneca nation, agreed to sell and release to said Ogden and Fel- 
 lows, all the right, title, and claim of said nation, of, in, and to said lands ; it 
 also avers that this deed of conveyance, or release, was read and explained to 
 said parties, and mutually agreed to ; after this recital follows the deed. It 
 purports to be an indenture made between the chiefs and headmen of the 
 Seneca nation " duly assembled in council," and acting for and in behalf of 
 said nation, of the first part, and Messrs. Ogden and Fellows, of the second 
 part : — The indenture witnesseth that the said chiefs and headmen of the 
 Seneca nation of Indians, in consideration of §202,000 " to them in hand paid 
 by the said Ogden and Fellows," the receipt whereof is acknowledged, grant, 
 bargain, sell, release, and confirm to said Ogden and Fellows, their heirs, and 
 assigns, the said four Reservations, giving the name and contents of each, as 
 stated in said memorial of Ogden and Fellows, with the qualification of "more 
 or less" to each, giving no boundaries, but adding to the desi-ription the 
 words, " as the said several tracts of land have been heretofore reserved and 
 are held and occupied by the said Seneca nation of Indians, or by individuals 
 thereof," — togHher with all and singular the rights, privileges, hereditaments, 
 and appurtenances to each and every of the said tracts or parcels of land be- 
 longing or appertaining — and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim, and 
 
 6* 
 
66 
 
 demand of the said party of the first part, and of the said Seneca nation of 
 Indians, of, in, and to the same, and to each and every part and parcel there- 
 of ; to hold the said premises to said Ogden and Fellows, their heirs and 
 assigns, but as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common. This conveyance, 
 at its close, purports to be an instrument of four parts, viz. : — one to be kept 
 by the United States, one by the State of Massachusetts, one by the Seneca 
 nation, and one by Messrs. Ogden and Fellows. The part held by Massa- 
 chusetts, is not executed by Messrs. Ogden and Fellows, or either of them. 
 It purports to be signed, sealed, and executed, by forty.five warriors and 
 headmen, of whom nine subscribe their full names, thirty-four make their 
 marks, and two have their marks made by others, as their agents. 
 
 This deed of conveyance bears even date with the treaty of Buffalo Creek, 
 made between the United States and the Senecas, &c. viz. January 15, 1838. 
 The deed and treaty are so intimately connected, that we must nove state 
 some of the contents, and a part of the history of the treaty. By the deed it 
 would appear merely that the Seneca nation sold and conveyed their lands, 
 and received $202,000 for them. But much more appears by the treaty. In 
 that, the nations of New York Indians release all their interest in certain land 
 at Green Bay, secured to or for them, by the Menominee treaty of 1832, ex- 
 cepting one tract thereof, occupied by certain New York Indians. This (to 
 siy tlie least) was immaterial so far as the Senecas were concerned, as they 
 never accepted the lands at Green Bay. 
 
 By this treaty of Buffalo Creek, (January 15, 1838,) the United States set 
 apart for the New York Indians a tract of country, situate directly west of 
 the state of Missouri, as a permanent home for said Indians. The treaty con- 
 tains general provisions for all the New York Indians, and special articles 
 applicable to the several tribes. The 15th section applies to the Senecas. 
 That article states that Ogden and Fellows, the assignees of the state of Mas- 
 sachusetts, have purchased of the Seneca nation their interest in certain lands, 
 <■' by a deed of conveyance, a duplicate oftvhich is hereto annexed," and pro- 
 vides that the consideration for that purpose, viz. the $202,000 shall be paid 
 to the United States ,■ that $100,000 of it shall be invested in safe stocks for 
 their use, " the income of which is to be paid to them at their new homes 
 annually," and that the balance, ($102,000) should be paid to the owners of 
 improvements on the Seneca lands sold to Ogden and Fellows, according to 
 an appraisement to be made of those improvements ; the owners of those 
 improvements to receive their proportions of said appraisement, " on their 
 severally relinquishing their respective possessions to Ogden and Fellows." 
 
 But this treaty (with which the conveyance to Ogden and Fellows was 
 thus incorporated) secured to the Senecas other and valuable considerations 
 for the sale of their land and for their emigration, many of which considera- 
 tions were afterwards annulled or commuted for others, by the Senate of the 
 United States, as will hereinafter be shown. 
 
 This treaty of the 15th January, 1838, pui-ports to be signed on the part of 
 the Senecas, by the same persons who signed the said deed of conveyance, in 
 the same manner, anr] in the same order. 
 
 A supplementary article to this treaty of 15th January, 1838, was made 
 with the St. Regis Indians, 13th February, 1838, which relates to those In- 
 
67 
 
 (lians only, but which is one of the subjects mentioned in tlic resolution of 
 the Senate of the United States, to be referred to in a subsequent part of this 
 report. 
 
 The treaty of 15th January, 1838, (in the form in which it was submitted 
 by the President to the Senate,) has never been approved or ratified on the 
 part of the United States. By that treaty sundry provisions were made in 
 favor of the Indians, which were annulled, or commuted for others by the 
 Senate of the United States (as we have before stated) when the treaty was 
 under their consideration in June, 1838, viz.: — 1st, the provision that the 
 United States should give to the New York Indians a part of the Cherokee 
 territory, (if the United States should acquire it,) in exchange for part of the 
 
 land assigned to the New York Indians west of the state of Missouri • 2d 
 
 the provision that the United States should remove the New York Indians to 
 their new homes ; — 3d, the provision that the United States should erect for 
 the use of the respective tribes of New York Indians, at their new homes 
 
 Council-houses, Churches, School-houses, pay suitable teachers, &c., &c. • 
 
 4th, the provision that the United States, " taking a deep interest in the im- 
 provement of the Indians in useful knowledge," would set apart a permanent 
 fund of §30,000, the income of which should be applied to maintain a literary 
 institution among the Indians ; — 5th, the provision that the United States 
 would indemnify the New York Indians against the depredations of other 
 Indians at their " new homes ;" — 6th, the provision that the United States 
 should have one of its agents to reside among the New York Indians at the 
 west. All these provisions for the Indians, contained in the treaty, were an- 
 nulled by the Senate of the United States. 
 
 The Senate (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring) having thus 
 altered and amended the treaty of 15tli January, 1838, introduced into it the 
 following as the loth article, viz.: "the United States hereby agree that they 
 will appropriate the sum of $400,000, to be applied from time to time, under 
 the direction of the President of the United States, in such proportions as may 
 be most for the interest of said Indians, parties to said treaty, for the follow- 
 ing purposes, to wit : — to aid them in removing to their new homes, and sup- 
 porting themselves the first year after their removal ; to encourage and assist 
 them in education, and being taught to cultivate their lands; in erecting mills, 
 and other necessary houses ; in purchasing domestic animals, and farming 
 utensils, and acquiring a knowledge of mechanic arts." 
 
 The Senate further resolved, (two-thirds of the Senators present concur- 
 ring,) " that the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the supple- 
 mental article to the treaty, (concluded at BufTalo Creek in the state of New 
 York, January 15, 1838,) which was made at the Council-house of St. Ref^is, 
 on the 13th day of February, 1838, provided the chiefs and headmen of the 
 St. Regis Indians, — residing in New York, inll, in general council, accept 
 of, and adopt the aforesaid treaty, — as modified by the preceding resolution of 
 ratification. Provided always, and be it further resolved, that this treaty shall 
 have no force or effect whatever, as it relates to any of said tribes, nations, or 
 bands of New York Indians, nor shall it be understood that the Senate have 
 assented to any of the contracts connected with it, until the .same, with the 
 amendments herein proposed, is submitted and fully and fnirlv explained, by 
 
6S 
 
 a Commissioner of the United States, to each of said tribes, or bands, sej :i- 
 rately assembled in council, and they have given their free and voluntary as- 
 sent thereto. And if one or more of said tribes or bands, when consulted as 
 aforesaid, shall freely assent to said treaty as amended, and to their contract 
 connected therewith, it shall be binding and obligatory upon those so assent- 
 ing, although other or others of said bands or tribes may not give their assent, 
 and thereby cease to be parties thereto. Provided further, if any portion or 
 part of said Indians do not emigrate, the President shall retain a proper pro- 
 portion of said sum of $400,000, and shall also deduct from the quantity of 
 land allowed west of the Mississippi, such number of acres as will leave to 
 each emigrant 320 acres only." 
 
 The fact that the United States did 7iot ratify the treaty of 15th January, 
 1838, but materially altered it, and the views of the Senate as expressed in the 
 last cited resolution, show that the Senate held any assent given by the Sc- 
 necas to that treaty, to be wholly void, — and the deed of conveyance (or con- 
 tract) connected therewith, to be also void, — unless that deed, and the treaty 
 as amended, should be afterwards freely assented to by the Senecas. The 
 same resolution shows that that assent was not to be asked until after a full 
 and fair explanation of the amendments, &c., to the several tribes assembled 
 in council. And the expressions used in the resolution in regard to the St. 
 Regis Indians, as well as the other tribes, show that the Senate intended the 
 assent of the Indians should be given in council, and not out of council. 
 
 The United States Commissioner, Mr. Gillett, submitted the amended treaty 
 to the New York Indians, all of whom, excepting the Senecas, assented to it. 
 In August, 1838, he submitted it to the Senecas assembled in council. Gen. 
 H. A. S. Dearborn was present, as the agent of Massachusetts. To induce 
 the chiefs and headmen to sign the amended treaty, Mr. Gillett assured them 
 that the United States oflicer presiding over the Indian Department considered 
 the contract for the sale of their lands to Ogden and Fellows complete, and 
 that it might be carried into effect, whether the Senecas assented to the amended 
 treaty or not. Gen. Dearborn very properly stated in reply, that the governor 
 of Massachusetts considered that contract void, unless the treaty, as amended, 
 received the assent of the Senecas. As a new inducement to sign the amended 
 treaty, the Ogden Company (whom Messrs. Ogden and Fellows represent) 
 offered, on 28th September, 1838, life leases, free of rent, to those Senecas 
 who should wish to remain on their New York lands, "and who should assent 
 to the treaty to the lands respectively held and occupied by them as farming 
 lands." One of the chiefs proposed in the council, that those opposed to the 
 treaty should sign a protest against it, in presence of Messrs. Gillett and Dear- 
 born. Mr. Gillett, the United States Commissioner, refused to authenticate 
 such protest, or to keep the council open for its reception. The protest was 
 signed in presence of Gen. Dearborn, by 63 chiefs and headmen, of whom 48 
 are said to be admitted chiefs, being more than half of the whole number of 
 chiefs, whether we assume the v/holc number to be as stated by the friends or 
 opponents of the treaty. Only sixteen chiefs signed the amended treaty in 
 open council. Mr. Gillett, after the adjournment of the council, and at his 
 own room and at private houses, (out of council,) obtained fifteen more sig- 
 natures to the amended treaty, — making, in all, thirty-one signatures. No 
 
69 
 
 more being disposed to sign, tlie council was adjourned to November 15, 1838. 
 Five more signatures were sent to Washington, but the Department rejected 
 them. A printed copy of the amended treaty, bearing the signatures of thirty- 
 live chiefs and one hundred and seventeen warriors, had been received by the 
 United States Commissioner; but the Department rejected it, because it bears 
 date before the assent in council, and before the amended treaty had been ex- 
 plained in council, pursuant to the resolution of the United States Senate. 
 This is shown by the letter of T. H. Crawford to the Secretary of War, dated 
 October 29, 1838, saying that on that day only sixteen chiefs and headmen 
 had assented to the amended treaty in council, and fifteen out of council, — 
 being, in the whole, only thirty-one. 
 
 On 30th October, 1838, Mr. Gillett, the United States Commissioner, was 
 directed to return to the Senecas, and procure the assent of a majority of all 
 their chiefs. He returned accordingly, but the council, (adjourned to 15th 
 November, 1838,) was never held. Mr. Gillett obtained the signatures of ten 
 more chiefs and headmen, wherever he could find them out of council, mak- 
 ing, in the whole, forty-one. By Mr. Crawford's letter of 15th January, 1839, 
 it appears that two other signatures were obtained afterwards, one of which 
 he rejected ; and the other was made by attorney, after the amended treaty 
 was returned to Washington. And such is all the assent that has ever been 
 obtained from the Senecas to the amended treaty, viz., sixteen signatures in 
 council, and tvvcnty-five or twenty-six oat of council. In a letter of 11th Ja- 
 nuary, 1839, Mr. Gillett (on the authority of Judge Stryker,) fixes the whole 
 number of Seneca chiefs at eighty-one, on the 29th of March, 1838. Three 
 of them dying afterwards, their places were filled (as the Senecas say, illegal- 
 ly,) by three persons friendly to emigration. 
 
 The amended treaty, in this state, was submitted to the President, but he 
 (by advice of the Secretary of War) submitted it to the Senate, on the 21st 
 of January, 1839, for their advice. Therefore it could not have been plain 
 t() the President or Secretary, that the amended treaty had received the assent 
 of the Senecas, pursuant to the Senate's resolution of June, 1838. And it 
 does seem that the Senate did not consider that any such assent had been 
 given; — for the Senate resolved, March 2, 1839, "that whenever the Presi. 
 dent of the United States shall be satisfied that the assent of the Seneca 
 tribe of Indians has been given to the amended treaty of June 11, 1838, 
 with the New York Indians, according to the true intent and meaning of 
 the resolution of the Senate of the 11th June, 1838, the Senate recommends 
 that the President make proclamation of said treaty, and carry the same into 
 effect." 
 
 In August, 1839, the Secretary of War, with Gen. Dearborn, met the 
 Senecas in Council. What progress was then made in obtaining the assent 
 of the Senecas to the amended treaty is shown by the President's Message to 
 the Senate of the 14th of January, 1840, again transmitting the amended 
 treaty ; — in which message he says, " no advance towards obtaining the 
 assent of the Senecas to the amended treaty, in Council, was made, — nor 
 can a majority of them in Council, be now obtained." 
 
 Still this amended treaty has been ratified on the part of the United States, 
 as shown by a Resolve of the Senate of the United States, passed March 25, 
 
70 
 
 1840, and by the proclamation of the PresiJent, bearing the date April 4, 
 1840. We are informed that this Resolve of the Senate was adopted by a 
 majority of only one, and contrary to the above intimation of the opinion of 
 the President, and notwithstanding the report of the Committee on Indian 
 Affairs, that the amended treaty had not received the assent of the Seneca 
 nation. 
 
 The documents shown to us, represent the amended treaty to be signed by 
 only 41 Senccas, — though we find the printed copy of it purports to be 
 signed by 43. Of them, 9 write their names at length, — 34 make their 
 marks, — and 2 make their marks by agents. The rejected signature, and 
 the signature given by attorney at Washington, account for the difference 
 between 41 and 43. 
 
 The memorialists and the delegations who have appeared before the Com- 
 mittee, now object both to the treaty and to the alleged conveyance, for the 
 following reasons : 
 
 1st, — They say there are 91 lawful chiefs in the Seneca nation, and that 
 the amended treaty and the deed, whether signed by 41 or 43, have not been 
 assented to in any form by a majority of 91, viz., 46 chiefs and headmen. 
 
 2d, — Of those whose names are on that treaty and deed, the Senecas 
 object that 6 of them are not lawful chiefs, — and that at least eleven of their 
 chiefs were bribed by the agents of the Ogden Company, — that the contracts of 
 bribery are in writing, and tbey exhibit the contracts, by which it appears 
 that at least 8 chiefs, (who had been bribed before the date of the deed and 
 first treaty,) signed the deed and amended treaty. If this be true, and the 
 signatures of the bribed chiefs be rejected, the deed and amended treaty, 
 would each have less than a majority of the chiefs, whether their whole 
 number be 91, or 81, or 76. In addition to these cases, other instances of 
 bribery are alleged, in proof of which, the affidavits of the persons bribed 
 are exhibited. On this point, the Senecas also urge the declaration of the 
 President of the United States, who said in his com.nunication to the Seriate, 
 dated January 13, 1840, — "That improper means have been employed to 
 obtain the assent of the Seneca chiets, there is every reason to believe ; and 
 I have not been able to satisfy myself, that I can, consistently with the reso- 
 lution of the Senate of the 2d March, 1839, cause the treaty to be carried 
 into effect, with regard to the Seneca tribe." 
 
 3d, — It is said that six others of those alleged to have signed, make oath 
 that they never signed their names or made their marks to the amended treaty, 
 knowing what they did at the time. 
 
 4th, — Only 16 signatures to the amended treaty were obtained in open 
 Council ; and the Senecas declare that no treaty with them can be valid 
 unless made and signed in open Council; — that the resolution of the Senate 
 required their assent to the amended treaty, to be given in open Council ; 
 — that this intention and requisition of the Senate, is express as to the St. 
 Regis Indians, and equally clear in regard to the Senecas; — that only 16 
 Seneca chiefs having so assented, the treaty has not received the assent of 
 tlie Seneca nation ; — that the chiefs can act, (like all other legislators,) only, 
 in Legislative Council, — and that out of such Council, they are powerless. 
 To show that they are correct in these opinions and conclusions, they refer 
 
 I 
 
71 
 
 to the letter of Mr. Crawford to the Secretary of War, dated 29th October, 
 1838, in which he says, "Perhaps too, it was intended by the Senate, that 
 they," (the Senecas,) " should assent in Council." They also refer to Gov. 
 Everett's opinion, viz. — " The treaty making power is granted by the consti- 
 tution, in general terms. No modification of its exercise in reference to 
 Indian triltes are recognized. As it would certainly be unconstitutional for 
 the President of the United Stats to attempt to treat with individual members 
 of any foreign State or Government, (not duly authorised to represent the 
 entire body.) or to attempt to obtain the ratification of a treaty, by means of 
 the assent of the individuals of the Senate, not duly assembled and acting 
 as such, — I remain of opinion, that the constitutionality of attempting to 
 obtain the assent of individual Indian chiefs to the amended treaty, in the 
 manner in question, is doubtful." The Senecas also refer to the message of 
 the President to the Senate, on 13th January, 1840, in which he says, "the 
 provision of the Resolution of tlie Senate of 11th June, 1838, requiring the 
 assent of each of said tribes to the amended treaty to be given in Council, 
 and which was also made a condition precedent to the recommendation to 
 me of the 2d March, 1839, to carry the same into effect, has not been com- 
 plied with, as it respects the Seneca tribe." They also refer to the same opi- 
 nion as expressed by the Committee on Indian Affairs. And to all this they 
 add, that both the treaty and deed falsely purport to have been made in Coun- 
 cil. And the Senecas, and the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Af- 
 fairs, agree ia the declaration, that all treaties ever made with the Indian 
 tribes, have been made in open Council, or by delegates duly authorized. 
 
 5th, — The Senecas contend, that the amended treaty has not received the 
 requisite assent of the Senate, viz., two-thirds of the Senators present concur- 
 ring, — but was assented to by a majority of only one. 
 
 6th, — That the deed and first treaty constituted one contract, and that tlie 
 first treaty being nugatory, the deed thereby became void, and must remain 
 so until both the deed and amended treaty shall be confirmed and assented to 
 by the Seneca nation, in a fair and legal manner. The Senecas say the Og- 
 deu Company admitted that the deed required confirmation after the Senate 
 amended the treaty, as shown by the Ogden Company's offer of life-leases to 
 all those who should prefer not to emigrate, and " who assent to the treaty 
 to the lands respectively held and occupied by them as farming lands." 
 
 7th, — That the deed and amended treaty are, in fact, connected together. 
 and are to be considered as one contract, — both equally needing ratification 
 on the part of the Seneca nation ; — that all the considerations coming to the 
 Senecas, are dependent on the treaty; — that the 10th article of the amended 
 treaty expressly treats the deed as part of that treaty, and as being annexed 
 thereto; — that the said 10th article would not be intelligible without the 
 ,li>eJ ; — and that the $202,000 purchase money is not to be paid to the Seneca 
 nation, except as provided in that article ; — that the amended treaty, not liav. 
 ing received the assent of a majority of their chiefs and headmen in council, 
 nor the constitutional assent of the Senate, is void, and that the deed, as part 
 of it, is also void. 
 
 8th, — The Senecas also refer to a part of the above cited resolution of the 
 Senate, viz., — " if one or more of said tribes or bands, when consulted as afore- 
 
72 
 
 said, (viz., in general council,) shall freely assent to said treaty as amended, 
 and to their conti-act connected therewith, it shall be binding and obligatory 
 upon them so assenting." Now the Senecas saj' the only contract here re- 
 ferred to, is the said deed of convej'ance to Ogden and Fellows ; — that since 
 this resolution of the Senate, the Senecas have never assented to that deed or 
 contract ; and that for this reason also, the deed is void. 
 
 9th, — The Senecas also contend, that the deed and treaty, forming but one 
 contract or instrument, both of them required the assent of Massachi;setts. 
 
 10th, — The Senecas also say, that several of those whose names appear on 
 these instruments, are not chiefs, nor entitled to represent their nation. 
 
 These are the principal objections urged against the deed and treaty, — and, 
 as probably three-fourths of the whole Seneca nation are opposed to emigra- 
 tion, and to the sale of their lands, these objections are pressed with great feel- 
 ing and bitterness. 
 
 Indeed, we have no doubt that very " improper means" have been used to 
 obtain the assent of the Senecas to the deed and treaty. And this opinion has 
 also been expressed by the President of the United States, — by the Chairman 
 of the Committee on Indian Affairs, — and by the Society of Friends. Neither 
 can be supposed to have any interest to mislead their judgment, — and each 
 has had every opportunity for examining and understanding this subject tho- 
 roughly. 
 
 If the governor and council of Massachusetts, in 183P, had known all that 
 had occurred in this unhappy business, even when the deed was presented for 
 their approbation, we are confident they would not have approved it. But 
 they did not know then that a very large majority of the Seneca nation was 
 strongly opposed to a sale of their lands, nor that the signatures of several of 
 their chiefs had been obtained by bribery. Mr. Trowbridge was entrusted 
 with the duties of agent of this commonwealth ; but it does not appear that 
 he ever reported to this department a copy of the treaty, nor any information 
 of its provisions. Had he done so, or had this department known the state of 
 feeling among the Senecas, or could they have known that a treaty, forming 
 an essential part of the contract for the purchase and sale of the lands, had 
 been made, but would not be ratified by the United States, they would not 
 have approved the deed, — certainly not unconditionally. And if they had 
 known the provisions of the treaty, and their essential connection with the 
 deed, they never could have imagined it possible that the Ogden Company 
 would insist on the sufficiency of the deed, if the United States government 
 should reject the treaty, or if the treaty should be found not to have received 
 the assent of the Seneca nation. 
 
 With all the information we possess at this time, Massachusetts would not 
 now approve that deed. 
 
 It is also stated, that Congress has made no appropriation for carrying into 
 effect this treaty ; and it may well refuse to do so, if satisfied that the deed and 
 treaty have been obtained by deception practised on the United States, on this 
 commonwealth, and on the Senecas. Whichever course may be pursued, we 
 may expect that those who represent this state, the duly constituted friend 
 and protector of the Seneca nation, will strenuously endeavor to cause justice 
 to be done to them. 
 
73 
 
 The committee will give no opinion whether it is, or is not for the interest 
 and happiness of the Senecas to abandon their lands and improvements in 
 New York, and retire to the west of the Mississippi. A very large majority 
 of them believe it is not for their interest and happiness to do so ; and, in a 
 matter affecting themselves only, they should be permitted to decide for 
 themselves. 
 
 By order of the Committee, 
 
 JOHN R. AD AN, CJiairman. 
 Council Chamber, Nov. 21, 1840. 
 
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 November 21, 1840. 
 This Report is accepted by the Executive Council, and is approved by His 
 Excellency, the Governor. 
 
 JOHN P. BIGELOW, 
 
 Secretary of the Commonwealth. 
 
 As a further illustration of the case of the Seneca Indians in the state of 
 New York, we insert the following memorials, presented to the President of 
 the United States in the Sixth month (June) of the present year. 
 
 A Memorial of the Seneca Indians to the President of the United States. 
 
 The undersigned chiefs of the Seneca nation of Indians residing in the 
 western parts of New York, would respectfully call your attention to the pe- 
 culiar circumstances of our relation to the government and people of the 
 United States. It is well known that, by former treaties, and by Presidents 
 Washington and Jefferson, the full enjoyment of our rights and privileges, 
 within the territories of the United States, the protection of the government 
 over our persons and property, and the right of our soil, within certain defined 
 limits, was guaranteed to us for ever. We have strictly and, so far as we are 
 able to judge, honorably fulfilled, on our part, the conditions of those treaties. 
 But an attempt has been made to deprive us of the advantages therein secured 
 to us, by forcing upon us, against our will, a new treaty, requiring us to emi- 
 grate beyond the Mississippi, 
 
 From the beginning of the negociations, a very large majority, at least 
 fourteea-Jifteenths of the Seneca nation, have been opposed to this new 
 treaty, and still remain so. We have, however, sought to carry on our oppo- 
 sition simply by making known to the government of the United States the 
 facts in the case, relying on the justice and integrity of the government to de- 
 liver us from the evil sought to be inflicted on us. This we were enabled to 
 do so effectually that the Senate's Committee on Indian affairs, after a patient 
 and thorough investigation, pronounced the treaty fraudulent, and recommend- 
 ed its rejection. The President also distinctly informed the Senate that « no 
 inducement could prevail on the majority of our chiefs to give their assent to 
 
74 
 
 it in council, and that there was too much reason for bclievmg " that improper 
 measures had been employed to eflect it." Still, notwithstanding these things, 
 the question of ratification having been taken in the absence of many of the 
 Senators, was decided by the casting vote of the Vice President, Johnson, in 
 the atfirmative ; and President Van Buren, although he had a little before in- 
 formed the Senate of its injustice, immediately proclaimed it as the law of the 
 land, notwithstanding the constitution of the United States requires the vote 
 of two-thirds of the Senators present for the ratification of any treaty during 
 the session of Congress. 
 
 We have the opinion of many distinguished jurists, and some of them emi- 
 nent Senators, that the ratification was in direct violation of the constitution, 
 as well as of the principles established by the government for treating with 
 Indian nations. Besides, the Governor and Council of Massachusetts, a sort 
 of third party, if not to the treaty, at least to the deed of sale of our lands, 
 connected with it, have, after a minute investigation, unanimously reported 
 the whole proceeding to be unjust and fraudulent. 
 
 Many members of the House of Eepresentatives have also expressed similar 
 opinions, and assured us of their desire that the whole subject might undergo 
 a thorough and careful revision, and that the vote authorizing the President to 
 proclaim the treaty, might be reconsidered in the Senate. 
 
 A large number of citizens of western New York, and many of our friends 
 in other places, impelled by regard for justice, have petitioned Congress not 
 to make any appropriation to carry the treaty into effect, until a re-investiga- 
 tion should be made by the Senate ; and we are encouraged by the fact, that 
 wherever our wrongs are understood by the people of the United States, the 
 kindest sympathy is manifested in our behalf. 
 
 At the opening of the last session of Congress, a memorial wa« presented to 
 Mr. Van Buren, requesting him to bring the subject before the Senate for 
 reconsideration, but he utterly refused to comply with our request. A dele- 
 gation of our chiefs waited on your lamented predecessor soon after his inau- 
 guration, and others of our friends recommended our case to his notice ; and 
 we received from him assurances that, at the proper time, the subject should 
 come up for reconsideration. God, in his inscrutable but righteous provi- 
 dence, has removed him, at the very commencement of those efibrts at reform 
 which lay near his heart, and which the voice of your great nation so impera- 
 tively demanded, and now our hopes of redress hang, under God, upon him 
 on whom devolve the arduous duties and responsibilities from which he was 
 so early and so suddenly released. 
 
 We are ignorant of your views respecting our case. Indeed, we know not 
 that it has ever been properly presented to your notice ; we have, therefore, 
 assembled in council, and resolved to address you this memorial, which we 
 have requested the agent of the War Department, Griflith M. Cooper, to pre- 
 sent to you, with the respects of the Seneca nation. 
 
 We most earnestly and respectfully request you to present the subject to 
 the Senate, at the earliest opportunity, for the purpose of obtaining a reconsi- 
 deration of the resolution authorizing the President to proclaim the treaty. 
 We ask this for the following, among other reasons : — 
 1st. As already stated, we are informed by some of the most distinguished 
 
75 
 
 men in the country, and believe that that act of the Senate v.as unconstitu- 
 tional, 
 
 2d. The amended treaty has never been lawfully ratified by the constituted 
 authorities of the Seneca nation, only sixteen out of more than eighty chiefs 
 having signed their assent in open council, while more than sixty signed their 
 dissent and protest before they left the council house. 
 
 3d. More than fourteen-fifteenths of our people are, and always have been, 
 opposed to the sale of our lands. 
 
 4th. Improper and very corrupt means have been employed to obtain the 
 assent of our chiefs. Clandestine manoeuvering, threats, liquor, bribes, mis- 
 representations, the withholding our annuities, or appropriating them without 
 our consent or knowledge to the purposes of the emigi'ating party, were some 
 of the means used for affecting their designs against us. 
 
 5th. When, by the use of such means, it was found impossible to eke out 
 a majority, even though those operated on were allowed to sign in taverns, 
 and in the darkness of midnight, our people, and the government of the United 
 States, were imposed upon by the clandestine attempt to create new chiefs, at 
 a private house in Buffalo city, and, on the strength of this mock election, 
 the signatures of these men were appended to the assent to the amended trea- 
 ty, and constituted the pretence for a majority, on which the Senate voted the 
 proclamation of the treaty. 
 
 6th. Because it will be the destruction of our people if forced upon us; not- 
 withstanding the liberality of its provisions, it will throw us back again into a 
 state of barbarism from which we have but too lately emerged. It will pre- 
 vent us for a generation at least from taking the rank of citizens of the United 
 States. It will exchange the influences of civilization and Christianity by 
 which we are now surrounded for the contagious example of those more bar- 
 barous than ourselves, and of the border settlers among the whites. It will 
 place us in a country which, without great previous expense, cannot be made 
 to maintain a civilized people, and in a climate which has heretofore proved fa- 
 tal to a large proportion of those Indians with whom we have been acquainted, 
 who have emigrated there. 
 
 7th. Because we have a claim upon the government, by virtue of former 
 treaties, for protection from such evils, and that claim we have never forfeited 
 by unfriendly or injurious conduct. We have fought in common with your 
 own soldiers, and shed our blood for the United States ; and, from our youth, 
 have loved the free republican institutions of your country. We were born 
 within your limits, and, though called savages by those who would dispossess 
 us, we feel this moment a vastly deeper interest in every thing which concerns 
 the welfare of the country than the hosts of foreigners, who, with all their 
 imported notions of government and religion, have so easily become natural- 
 ized and obtained the rank and appellation of citizens. From our intercourse 
 with such men, we fear they bear the name in many instances without the 
 feeling of citizens. We imbibed that feeling with our earliest breath, and yet 
 we must be driven off beyond the limits of civilization, because we lack the 
 name. 
 
 We deprecate such a doom. We have compared our own condition with 
 that of our kindred, in some cases the members of our families, residing in a 
 
76 
 
 neighboring province. Tlie land is fertile there. Our friends there are nu- 
 merous. Our language is correctly spoken there, and it would seem that by 
 casting our lot amongst them we might be happy. But the spirit of improve- 
 ment, the genius of your free institutions, the energy of your republican go- 
 vernment are wanting there, and we should deplore the stern necessity which 
 would compel us to seek a home across the river. Still, it would be far pre- 
 ferable to emigrating bcj-ond that distant river, where, habituated as we are 
 to a more northern climate, death or ills which would embitter the richest in- 
 heritance, would be our certain portion. While the rights guaranteed to us 
 by solemn treaties would secure us from both these alternatives, we look re- 
 spectfully but confidently to the head of the United States for the strict fulfil- 
 ment of the terms of those treaties. 
 
 8th. Because we never owned the lands in Ouisconsin pretended to be con- 
 veyed in that treaty to the United States, but have always told the govern- 
 ment we have no interest or concern in it whatever ; and we believe it unjust 
 to the people of the United States to pay for that land twice, and devote so 
 large a sum of money, and so much of the public domain,' when we have in 
 fact no claim upon government for any thing at all on the score of these 
 lands. 
 
 9th. We ask for the speedy reconsideration of the subject, because the com- 
 pany who pretend to claim under the treaty, by their agents and commission- 
 ers, are constantly committing trespasses upon our lands, and carry ofl" our 
 timber, stone, wood, &c., and converting them to their own use, notwith- 
 standing they were expressly forbidden by a special messenger from the War 
 Department to take any such action under the treaty till the expiration of five 
 years, in which we were to remove, should give them possession. Their con- 
 duct is in many cases exceedingly vexatious, and could not be borne, did wc 
 not wait with confidence for the redress which we expect from the hands of 
 government. If that redress should be long delayed, they will rob us of the 
 most valuable part of our timbci-, and we exceedingly fear that we should not 
 be able, by legal process, even though it should terminate in our favor, to re- 
 cover the value of the property they are destroying. 
 
 For these and other reasons which would protract our communication to an 
 unwarrantable length, we earnestly and respectiully pray you to lay our case 
 before the Senate without delay. We ask you to do this at the extra session, 
 although there may not be time to act upon it, because we suppose that if the 
 treaty shall be returned to the Senate, the company will be under the neces- 
 sity of suspending their depredations upon us until th% question is decided, so 
 that the sooner you shall be pleased to comply with our request, the sooner 
 and the more eifectually will you extend to us the protection promised by the 
 former treaties, to which we have alluded. 
 
 We will only add that we have heard a rumor that the Ogden Company 
 have recently made arrangements with the government for the payment of the 
 consideration money of the treaty, and the money for our improvements. We 
 hope it will prove that this report is without foundation, and we most sincere- 
 ly entreat your Excellency not to make any arrangement which will in any 
 way sanction or give validity to the pretended treaty, or any of the contracts 
 connected with it, until the Senate shall have had an opportunity for acting 
 
77 
 
 again upon the subject. Meanwhile we shall be obliged by your communi- 
 cating to us as much information as you may deem proper respecting the course 
 you will pursue, as we wish to send a delegation to Washington city when- 
 ever any disposal is to be made of the subject, or any action taken upon our 
 case. 
 
 With very great respect. 
 
 Your obedient servants. 
 
 The foregoing memorial was signed by eighty-six chiefs and headmen of 
 the several Seneca Reservations, and was, on their behalf, presented to the 
 President of the United States on the 8th day of the Sixth month, (June,) 
 1841. 
 
 To the President of the United States. 
 
 The memorial of the Committees of the four yearly meetings of Friends of 
 Genesee, New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, appointed by those meet- 
 ings on Indian concerns, respectfully represents, — 
 
 That during the last session of Congress, the said committees appealed to 
 the President of the United States, and to both branches of the National 
 Legislature on behalf of the Seneca Indians in the State of New York. The 
 distressed situation of that people induces us again to appeal to the Govern- 
 ment of our country for their relief. 
 
 A treaty with these Indians, said to have been concluded at Buffalo Creek, 
 on the 15th of January, 1838, by Ransom H. Gillett, a commissioner on the 
 part of the United States, and the chiefs, headmen, and warriors of the several 
 tribes of New York Indians, assembled in Council, was laid before the Senate 
 in the early part of that year, and by that body referred to its Committee on 
 Indian affairs. It was thoroughly examined by that committee, and unani- 
 mously rejected. 
 
 The Committee then modelled another treaty, since called « the amended 
 treaty ;" and the Senate, to guard against future frauds, adopted a resolution, 
 dated June 11, 1838, in which they say, « the treaty shall have no force or 
 effect whatever, as it relates to any of the said tribes, nations, or bands of 
 New York Indians, nor shall it be understood that the Senate have assented 
 to any of the contracts, (meaning the Deeds of Conveyance,) connected 
 with it, until the same, with the amendments herein proposed, is submitted, 
 aud fully, and fairly explained by a Commissioner of the United States, to 
 each of said tribes or bands, separately assembled in Council, and they have 
 given their free and voluntary assent thereto. And if one or more of said 
 tribes or bands, when consulted as aforesaid, shall freely assent to said treaty 
 as amended, and to their contract (or Deed of Conveyance) connected there- 
 with, it shall be binding and obligatory, &c. 
 
 With the conditions thus plainly expressed by the Senate, the commis- 
 
 7* 
 
78 
 
 sioner appointed on this occasion, did but partially comply : those of the 
 most importance to the Indians were wholly disregarded. 
 
 In the summer of 1838, the connnissioner held a Council with the Seneca 
 Indians, at Buffalo Creek; the treaty was explained, and after a long and 
 protracted session of more than forty days, giving full time for deliberation, 
 the treaty was rejected by an overwhelming majority of the chiefs ; sixteen 
 only, being in favor of it, and more than sixty against it. 
 
 We will not, on the present occasion, describe the clandestine manner in 
 which the commissioner afterwards proceeded to obtain signatures to the 
 treaty, in wigwams, taverns, and private houses ; nor go into an exposition 
 of the bribery, threats, misrepreientations, and other corrupt means used to 
 procure tlie assent of the Seneca Chiefs to that instrument. Documents of 
 an authentic character in the Indian Department at Washington, or in pos- 
 session of the undersigned, will ampl}' illustrate these charges, and prove 
 their truth. It will suffice at present, to say, that with all these means, a 
 majority of the chiefs never were induced to sign it. Out of eighty-one 
 chiefs, acknowledged as such, by both parties, only sixteen put their names 
 to it in Council, and thirteen afterwards ; making in the whole, twenty-nine. 
 The other signatures were the names of Indians, who either were not chiefs, 
 or who never signed the assent, or authorised others to sign on their 
 behalf. 
 
 The treaty thus executed, was again sent to the Senate. That body, after 
 hearing testimony on both sides of the question, and not being satisfied of 
 the validity of its execution, returned it to the President, with a Resolution 
 dated March 2d, 1839, stating, that whenever the President should be satisfied 
 that the assent of the Seneca tribe of Indians had been given to the amended 
 treaty, according to the true intent and meaning of the Resolution of the 
 Senate of June 11, 1838, "the Senate recommends that the President make 
 proclamation of said treaty, and carry the same into effect." 
 
 In the summer of 1839, the President, in order to obtain satisfaction on 
 the subject, despatched the Secretary of War to the Seneca nation. A 
 Council was called, and held at Cattaraugus, but nothing was done calcu- 
 lated to satisfy the President, or remove his doubts. On the contrary, a 
 more decided opposition to the treaty and its objects, was manifested by the 
 Indians, in consequence of which, the President declined to use the power 
 conferred on him, to proclaim the treaty, and on the 13th of the First month, 
 (January,) 1840, returned it to the Senate. In his message on that occasion, 
 he very distinctly declared that the Resolution of the Senate of the 11th of 
 June, 1838, did require that tlie assent of the Indians to the amended treaty, 
 should be given in Council, — that such assent had not been so given, — that 
 no advance towards obtaining it in Council had been made, and that the 
 assent of a majority of them in Council could not be obtained. As it regards 
 the charge of buihert, the President says "that improper means have 
 been employed to obtain the assent of the Seneca chiefs, tlieo-e is every 
 reason to believe, and I have not been able to satisfy myself that I can, con- 
 sistently with the Resolution of the Senate of the 2d of March, 1839, caDse 
 the treaty to be carried into effect." 
 
 Under this impression, the President returned the amended treaty to the 
 
79 
 
 Senate. It was sent back because it had not been executed according to the 
 Conditions which had been presented by the Senate itself. Notwithstanding 
 these circumstances, that body, by a Resolution dated March 25, 1840, de- 
 clared that " in the opinion of the Senate, the treaty with the Seneca Indians 
 had been satisfactorily acceded to," and that " the President is authorised to 
 proclaim it as in full force and operation." The vote on this resolution was 
 taken when many of the members were absent. On the final question being 
 put, it appeared that the Senate was equally divided, nineteen voting in 
 favor, and nineteen ag.iinst the ratification. The question was settled by 
 the casting vote of the Vice President in its favor. 
 
 Since this act of the Senate, circumstances have occurred, confirming the 
 unfavorable views we had taken of that treaty, and the means by which the 
 parties interested in driving the Indians from their lands, had taken to secure 
 their object. The Government of Massachusetts, in the compact between 
 that state, and the State of New York, made in the year 1786, relating to 
 the pre-emptive right to Indian lands, in the latter state, was vested with a 
 supervisory control over ail future sales of these lands, to be made by the 
 Six Nations. During the past year, the Governor and Council of Massa- 
 chusetts by Memorials from the Seneca Indians, and from the bodies we 
 represent, were induced to take up the subject. A committee of the Council 
 was appointed, who after a close and searching investigation of the circum- 
 stances relating to the origin, progress, and alleged execution of the treaty, 
 and " the Contracts" or Deeds of Conveyance connected with it, made a de- 
 tailed and able Report on the subject, which has been adopted by the 
 Council, and approved bj' the Governor. In that Report they say : " If the 
 Governor and Council of Massachusetts, in 1839, had known all that had 
 occurred in this xinhappy business, even when the Deed was presented for 
 their approbation, we are confident they ivould not have approved it. But 
 they did not then know that a very large majority of the Seneca nation 
 was stro72gly opposed to a sale of their lands ,- nor that the signatures of 
 several of the chiefs had been obtained by BKiiiEnT." Wc herewith present 
 to the President a copy of that Report. 
 
 We do solemnly believe that a just regard to the honor and good faith of 
 the country requires a reconsideration of this treaty, by the constituted au- 
 thorities of the government. In them we hope there is a power to prevent 
 future injuries, and to redress the wrongs already inflicted on an inolfensive 
 and suffering people. And although for the performance of a plain act of 
 justice, a precedent ought not to be deemed requisite, yet, for the course 
 we now respectfully suggest, a very clear precedent is, as we under- 
 stand, to be found in the recent acts of our own government. Du- 
 ring tlic administration of President Monroe a treaty with the Creek na- 
 tion, said to have been made at " the Indian Springs," was submitted to the 
 Senate, professing to have been duly and fairly executed. Under this aspect 
 of the concern it was ratitied by that branch of the treaty making power, and 
 duly proclaimed by the President as the law of the land. Subsequently it 
 was discovered to have been obtained by fraud and executed by only a minor- 
 ity of the chiefs ; in both these respects resembling the treaty, to which wc 
 would now draw the attention of the government. Upon being satisfied of 
 
80 
 
 these facts, President Adams, at the succeeding session of the Legislature, re- 
 turned it to the Senate with his views of its character, whereupon it was de- 
 clared null and void. 
 
 In addition to the reasons already suggested for pursuing a similar course 
 on the present occasion, it is deemed proper to state to the President, that in 
 the opinion of many distinguished legal characters, the ratification of the Se- 
 neca treaty by the Senate, in manner aforesaid, was not in conformity with 
 the requisitions of the Constitution, which seems expressly to require the con- 
 currence of two-thirds of the members present to make a treaty valid. In 
 case of the Seneca treaty, as we have before stated, the Senate was equally 
 divided, and it required the casting vote of the Vice President to decide the 
 question. 
 
 We, therefore, cannot but hope that under the present administration of the 
 government, coming to the consideration of the question free from any former 
 bias, the Seneca nation may find that justice, which has hitherto been with- 
 held from them, and our beloved country preserved from a stain on its charac- 
 ter which every upright and honorable citizen must sincerely deprecate. 
 Signed on behalf of said Committees, 
 
 BENJ. FERRIS, Clerk. 
 
 Washington, Sixth mo. 8th, 1841. 
 
 In pages 32, 33 of this Review we have said, " The state of New York has 
 treated them [the New York Indians] with a liberality and kindness which 
 history will record to her lasting honor." In illustration of this fact, 
 we here present the reader with a letter from Governor Seward, the pre- 
 sent Executive, of the state of New York to one of his correspondents. Com- 
 ing from the head of the state, in which those Indians are located, and more 
 interested in the case than any other in the Union, it claims the highest regard, 
 not only on account of the official character of the writer, but of the just and 
 truly Christian sentiments it inculcates — sentiments worthy of our best states- 
 men in the most palmy days of the republic. 
 
 Albany, June 15th, 1841. 
 
 Dbau Sir : — Your letter of May 20th has been received. You ask my 
 opinion concerning the treaty which has been made by the United States with 
 the Seneca Indians, and you observe that it is important for those Indians to 
 show that their removal is against the decided wishes of fifteen-sixteenths of 
 the nation, and that it is not called for by the executive of this state, by the le- 
 gislature, or by the well disposed and humane people of the western 
 counties. 
 
 The history of the several Indian nations which have dwelt within our bor- 
 ders shows many coincidences of painful interest. Each nation has, in its 
 turn, been surrounded and crowded by white men. White men have always 
 wanted more roo;n while an Indian Reservation remained ; and the Indians 
 
81 
 
 have therefore been obliged to contract their hunting grounds. Indians have 
 been ignorant and confiding, and white men shrewd and sagacious; Indians 
 have been recklesss of the value of property, and have always found avaricious 
 white men among their neighbors. White men have sold intoxicating liquors, 
 and Indians have too often surrendered themselves to drunkenness. Indians 
 have generally neglected, if they have not always despised agriculture, and 
 white men have suflered inconvenience from the neglected condition of the 
 Indian lands. White men have coveted those neglected lands, and the com- 
 munity has been benefited in consequence of the acquisition. The effect is, 
 that we have now amongst us only some wasting remnants of half a dozen of 
 the Indian nations. Yet each of these nations resisted, for a time, propo- 
 sitions for their removal strenuously, and with apparent unanimity. Each 
 has in Its turn divided upon the question of removal. The weak and impro- 
 vident have been wrought upon to increase the numbers of those disposed to 
 sell their lands, while philanthropic efforts have seldom been wanting to for- 
 tify the domestic party in their resistance. 
 
 I do not know that the disproportion of the two parties among the Scnecas 
 is so great as you have stated. I must refer you on that head to other sources 
 of mtormation. Neitlier should I speak candidly if I said that the people of 
 t.ie western counties did not desire such a change in the condition of the Se- 
 necas, as would bring their lands into cultivation, and render them tributary 
 to the aggregate wealth and general improvement of the state. Such I must 
 add IS my own wish. The legislature has not spoken on the subject, but its 
 concurrence in the same vein might be inferred from tlie general policy which 
 the state has pursued. Nevertheless there is nothing which would be more 
 gratifying to the people of this state, and certainly there is, on my own part, 
 no desire affecting the Indians, more sincere than to see the remnants of the 
 Indian tribes forsake entirely the manners and customs of their forefathers, 
 and adopt those of civilized life. The signal disappointment of such philan- 
 thropic hopes in regard to the other tribes of Indians, has produced a general 
 distrust of any better fate for the Senecas, while the contiguity of that people 
 to a great city, exposes them, in an especial degree, to the frauds, and introduces 
 among them the vices, of the depraved men of our own race. Very many 
 who entertain this distrust, and deplore the wretchedness and degradation of 
 a portion of the Scnecas, are of opinion that it would be wise and prudent for 
 them to relinquish their lands at a fair valuation and seek a new home in the 
 far west. 
 
 ^ But no humane or cnliglitcned citizen can wish to see the expulsion of the 
 Senecas by force or fraud. It is a fearful thing to uproot a whole people, 
 and send them, regardless of their own views of their rights, interests and wel- 
 fare, their feelings and affections, into a distant and desolate region. It is 
 peculiarly so, when a large portion of them, relying upon the protection of 
 the laws, and the justice of their white brethren, have become cultivators of 
 the soil, and of the affections and habits of civilized life. Such is the condi- 
 tion of a large portion of the Senecas. 
 
 Injustice to the Indians is repugnant ahke to the settled policv of this 
 state, and the feelings and sentiments of its people. This state has endeavored 
 steadily to pursue a benign policy towards them. We have suffered every 
 
82 
 
 tribe to remain unmolested, and have ever discouraged the desire of small 
 factions among them to eftect a sale of their lands, without the general con- 
 sent of the tribe. We have left the Indians to debate and consider the subject 
 without our interference. When a portion of a tribe has made arrangements 
 to purchase lands elsewhere, and obtained the consent of the whole nation to 
 a partition, we have bought that portion of the lands equitably belonging to 
 those who had determined to emigrate, requiring, in all cases, the consent of 
 the whole tribe to such partial sales. During the last few years, the state, 
 instead of purchasing for its own advantage, has taken the title of the In- 
 dians, sold the lands as their trustee, and accounted to them for the whole 
 proceeds of the subsequent sales in fee to actual settlers. We have paid 
 interest upon the purchase monies tQ the emigrating Indians in their new 
 settlements, and have paid them the principal when they have provided a 
 proper and safe investment. At the same time, we have endeavored, through 
 the agency of peace-makers and superintendants, to exercise a guardian care 
 over those who preferred to remain amongst us. No bribe, gratuity, or other 
 improper appliance has been used, or with knowledge permitted by the state 
 to obtain a relinquishment of Indian lands. We take, in all cases, a census 
 of the tribe, and of each family. We regard all their members with perfect 
 equality, and we take care that the monies paid to the nation are fairly and 
 justly distributed among them. 
 
 Such is the course which it may be assumed the people of this state would 
 desire to see prevail in regard to the Senecas. In this way we might hope to 
 accomplish, if it be at all practicable, the civilization of a remnant of the Six 
 Nations, once the proprietors of more than half the state. On the other hand, 
 if the humane experiment must fail, we should enjoy, under such circum- 
 stances, the consoling reflection, that the effort failed because a higher than 
 any human power had forbidden its success. But, my dear sir, I cannot he- 
 sitate to declare my full conviction, derived from history now open to the 
 world, that the treaty which has been made by the United States with the 
 Senecas, was made in open violation of the policy I have described. I am 
 fully satisfied that the consent of the Senecas was obtained by fraud, cor- 
 ruption, and violence, and that it is therefore false, and ought to be held 
 void. 
 
 The removal of the Indians, under a treaty thus made,ioould be a great 
 crime against an unoffending and injuredpeople ,- and leariiestly hope that 
 before any further proceedings are taken to accomplish that object, the whole 
 subject may be reconsidered by the United States. 
 
 I am, with sincere respect, your obedient servant, 
 
 William H. Seward. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 Since the foregoing pages were in the press, "The New York Review, No. 
 XVII., July, 1841," has made its appearance. In that number, article 9, 
 page 209, &c., there is an essay, purporting to be a review of our book, 
 
83 
 
 entitled, " The case of the Seneca Indians in the State of New York, illustrated 
 by facts." 
 
 This essay is a labored attempt, not to disprove the truth of our statements, 
 —not to show that in attributing bribery, fraud, &c. to the agents and princi- 
 pal actors in getting up the late Seneca treaty, we were mistaken,— but to 
 justify their unprincipled conduct in the face of a « Christian community !" 
 " Drunkenness, bribery, rum allowed, personal inducements offered, to per- 
 suade individual chiefs to sign" the treaty,—" an amount of bribery going 
 beyond all former precedent," are unhlushingly admitted ! But while the 
 Reviewer admits the facts, he thinks, or at least asserts, that ^4he blame should 
 lie any where but on the pre-emption party !"— any where but on the most 
 guilty! In his opinion, those who drank the "rum," and accepted the 
 " presents," are, in this case, the culprits ! His doctrine is, that the « corrupt 
 principles in the receiver," not the " illegal practice in the giver," are to 
 "blame;" — that he who "corrupts by gifts," is to be deemed innocent, while 
 he who is corrupted by them, is to be made the " scape-goat to bear away all 
 the sin /" See page 218 of the Review. 
 
 " By the laws of Athens, the offerer, as well as the receiver of a bribe, 
 were prosecuted." In England, the offence of taking a bribe, is punished 
 with Hue and imprisonment, and the offence of offering a bribe, even if it be 
 not accepted, receives the same punishment. (3 Ins. 147.) In elections, he 
 that offers a bribe, forfeits £500. Dr. Rees defines a bribe to be " a reward 
 given to pervert the judgment, or corrupt the conduct." 
 
 The defence of bribery, fraud, and artifice, set up by the Reviewer, will 
 hardly avail with a " Christian community," who are taught from the highest 
 authority, that it is the " tvicked man who taketh a gift out of his bosom, to 
 pervert the ways of judgment," and that he alone is justified in the sight of 
 heaven, who "despiscth the gain of oppression, and who shaketh his hands 
 from holding o/ bribes." It is much to be regretted, that any public writer, 
 especially a Reviewer, whose office ought to be, to explain and enforce the 
 principles of morality, should prostitute that office to pervert them. In the 
 present instance, however, the friends of justice and humanity have cause to 
 congratulate each other, that error and crime have found so weak an advo- 
 cate. His doctrines are calculated more to disgust than to convince. No 
 mind, not callous to all sense of moral obligation, can entertain them for a 
 moment. They are too monstrous to do much harm. Their poison and its 
 antidote go together. 
 
 " Nam ego ilium periisse duco, cui qiiidam peiiit piulor." 
 
 « We have never knoivn," says the Reviewer, " an Indian treaty carried 
 without drunkenness and bribery, — rum allowed, and personal inducements 
 offered, to persuade Indian Chiefs to sign, even by the Quakers themselves.'" 
 The former part of this sentence may be true, if he speaks of personal know- 
 ledge ,- and this may account for the morbid state of his moral feelings, which 
 permit him, publicly, to palliate the most degrading vices, and to hold out the 
 idea, that the frequency of crime removes the offtnce ! 
 
 In the latter part of the sentence, his insinuation against the Quakers, would 
 have been more easily answered, if he had condescended to inform us ivhen 
 
84 
 
 and where they had been guilty of such depravity. He ought to know that 
 with the " Christian community," in&lnuatioJi will not pass for j^roof. We 
 suppose it is founded on the declaration of Senator Lumpkin, in his speech 
 on the treaty question, when he asserted, that " even under the government of 
 that good man, William Penn," a statute was passed, allowing his commis- 
 sioners " to administer a prudent portion of intoxicating drink to the Indians, 
 with whom they wished to form a treaty." 
 
 We have briefly reviewed and refuted this assertion of the Senator, in the 
 work to which this is appended. See pages 56, 57. We will here add, that 
 the statute, so unjustly charged on the government of William Penn, was not 
 made until four or five years after his death. It was passed, not by a Quaker, 
 but " under the government" of Sm William Keith, a member of the church 
 of England; the same individual that Dr. Franklin, in his autobiography, has 
 condemned to lasting and unenviable notoriety, as the gratuitous and cruel 
 betrayer of his juvenile confidence. The Quakers are not accountable for any 
 violation of their principles, during the administration of those governors who 
 succeeded William Penn, none of whsm were Quakers. As a society, 
 Friends had no control over the government. Not only the governors, but the 
 proprietors, after his decease, were opposed to the principles of the Quakers. 
 The history of Pennsylvania, and the private letters of the Penn family, am- 
 ply prove this fact. That cause must be essentially had, that owes its sup- 
 port to vicious example ! 
 
 By what we have said in relation to the Governors of Pennsylvania, after 
 Penn's death, we do not mean to admit that any abuses, under the aforesaid 
 « statute," were committed upon the Indians. We read of no case in which 
 chiefs were solicited to drink ardent spirits, to deprive them of their reason ; 
 and when unconscious of their own actions, made to sign a treaty.* Such 
 refinement of wickedness belongs to an age that boasts of greater refinement 
 of taste and manners, than prevailed in the days of Governor Keith. 
 
 The doctrines taught by the learned reviewer, — his arguments — his style — 
 his phraseology — his peculiar terms, in short, all the characteristics of his es- 
 say, as a literary production, point out its origin. Its mis-statements are 
 repetitions, and its bitterness flows from an old and well-known fountain. No 
 disinterested, candid writer could be its author. 
 Seventh mo. I6th, 1841. 
 
 * See the affidavits of Morris Halftown," Case," p. 207. Little Joe, 210j 211, and espe- 
 cially that of John General, p. 225. 
 
 Erratum. — An error occurred on page 64, ninth line from the top, in part 
 of the edition of this work— instead of 19,000 acres, it should read 119,000.