In 1815, The Seneca Native American Tribe sold islands along the Niagara River to the New York State government. One of these Islands was Grand Island. Right now, the state of New York and the six thousand Grand Island residents are still in control of the area. However, the Seneca Nation has sued to take back the land, claiming it was illegally purchased by the state of New York. In June of 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that states can not be sued by Native American groups over land. However, the Justice Department (a branch of the federal government) has stepped in to join suit with the Seneca tribe. This would allow the case to go to court, because the previous ruling does not exclude the federal government from suing individual states. The Justice Department clearly sides with the Seneca Tribe. In late September, the Justice Department released a statement saying that the State of New York originally deprived the Native Americans of their land illegally. It is the Justice Department’s position that the state, not the landowners, should be held responsible. Early negotiations would award the Seneca Tribe several million dollars—the state offering $25 million, and the Seneca Tribe asking for $176 million. The approximate value of the land is estimated by the Justice Department to be $500 million. They have encouraged both sides to settle at $90 million.
If $90 million seems like a small amount, considering that the land is valued at more than five times that, keep in mind that in 1990 congress passed the Salamanca Land Settlement Act in which the Seneca Tribe was given $65 million from state and federal governments. This act served to compensate the Seneca Tribe for the miniscule amount of the original purchase, in which New York paid $1,000 initially, and $500 annually thereafter. The position of the state is that too much time has passed since the initial purchase for the Seneca nation to react now. Also, the state believes that the lawsuit is unfairly putting the residents of Grand Island in a difficult situation. The possibility of ultimate property loss has caused land values on Grand Island to drop. Selling a home in the area will be difficult, pending the outcome of a federal trial. Although Town Supervisor Peter McMahon states, “in the entire history of Indian law claims, no property owner has ever involuntarily lost property,” the threat to the landowners still remains.
The basis for the Seneca Tribe’s argument spurs from a law passed by Congress in 1790. The law stipulates that no state may purchase land from Native Americans without a federal representative present to approve the transaction. The Seneca claim that at the sale, there was no federal representative, nor did Congress ever actually ratify the deal. The Supreme Court has also ruled that, although several hundred years have passed, time has no bearing on land purchase cases.
In a late September statement, Republican Governor George Pataki said, in reference to the Justice Department’s decision to support the Seneca’s suit against the state, “The Clinton administration has arrogantly refused to end its outrageous lawsuit against the people of New York State, choosing instead to use homeowners in Western New York, Central New York, and Northern New York like pawns in its legal strategy.” He also added, “The Clinton administration should not wait for another federal judge to say their actions amount to bad faith before dropping these outrageous claims that threaten the private property rights of thousands of innocent New York State citizens.”
Assemblyman Sam Hoyt supported Pataki’s claim by stating that, “while [the Justice Department’s] decision legally allows the United States Government to intervene against New York State and Grand Island, it still does not justify that intervention.”
The state is not entirely the innocent victim in these dealings. Not only does New York State want to settle with the Senecas for millions of dollars less than what they are asking, the state also wants to collect tax on the tobacco and gas that are sold on the reservation to non-residents. The Senecas dismissed this effort, since it would raise the prices of these products, hurting sales figures on the reservations, which thrive on the low prices that residents can’t get elsewhere. Tyler Heron, a tribal councilor for the Seneca Tribe, sees the Republican stance that the problem is entirely the federal government as mere political posturing. He said, “Lazio is losing his battle against Hillary Clinton, and instead of telling the truth about the state’s demand that we collect taxes for the state, he blames President Clinton, hoping the voters in all the land claim areas will vote for Lazio.”
Grand Island homeowners have the utmost confidence that the outcome of the lawsuit will not result in them having to give up their land. When I spoke to them, it was apparent that they find it to be something so unlikely, no one has thought about what they would actually do. When questioned about it, no answer had a ring of desperation. Many residents, such as Betty Lou Trantor, believe that the Seneca Tribe should not have sued in the first place, and that a settlement is out of the question. “[The Seneca Nation] has been collecting money for years in good faith,” said Trantor.
Grand Island landowner Jeanette Curry, however, expressed desire for a settlement. “I think they should settle, so they can start selling houses again. I’m more concerned about the effect this is going to have on the younger people who live here.”
The Seneca’s argument is fairly simple. They feel that the land is legally theirs, and they want it back, or at the very least a fair compensation. On the other hand, the residents of Grand Island feel they have paid enough for their property. Should they be held responsible for misdeeds of over two hundred years ago and be forced to leave, despite doing nothing wrong? Or should they have to continue to pay? The courts will soon decide.
