COUNTY OF ONEIDA

RALPH J. EANNACE, JR.

Office of the County Executive

County Executive

ONEIDA COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING

800 PARK AVENUE, UTICA, NEW YORK  13501

(315) 798-5800

FAX (315) 798-2390

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS CONCERNING THE
INDIAN LAND CLAIM ACTIONS

1.) What is the history of the Oneida Indian lawsuits?

In the 1970’s, Indian tribes began federal actions alleging rights of possession to millions of acres of their ancestral lands later acquired by the states and now occupied by citizens, businesses and municipalities.

A series of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated many of the procedural hurdles which had restricted Indian land claims and made it apparent the Indians could assert these claims in federal court and might prevail on the merits. As a result, state and local defendants began settlement negotiations and many important land claims were settled throughout the country.

Generally, these negotiated settlements have involved the transfer of public money and/or land to the Indians in exchange for their extinguishing claims of possession to the land claim areas.

In 1970, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, the Oneida Indian Nation of New York and the Oneida of the Thames from Canada brought a test case against Oneida and Madison Counties seeking fair rental value over a 2 year period for certain land the defendant counties owned and used, and which was part of a large tract the original Oneida Nation had transferred to New York State in 1795. The Oneidas claimed the 1795 treaty was void, as the federal government had never ratified the transfer. The defendant counties then brought the State of New York into the action.

The District Court dismissed the action and, on appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, these decisions were reversed, and the Court ruled that the federal court had jurisdiction to consider the Oneidas’ complaint.

The case was sent back to Judge Port in District Court for trial. The Court found in favor of the Indians on the issue of liability because the federal government never ratified the 1795 treaty, and, in a separate trial, awarded damages in the amount of $16,694. The appellate court affirmed Judge Port’s ruling on liability and remanded the case for further proceedings on the issue of damages. The U. S. Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision in 1985.

On remand, the action was assigned to Judge McCurn and in 1987, on request of the parties, the Court granted a stay of the proceeding to allow negotiations to attempt to settle the action. There has been no progress in the action in the last 11 years until recently, when both sides submitted memoranda on the issue of damages.

Additionally, in 1974, the Oneidas of New York and Wisconsin started a second action for money damages against Oneida and Madison Counties concerning the remainder of what the Indian’s allege were New York State’s illegal acquisitions of the Oneidas’ lands. As in the test case, the parties and the Court agreed to stay further proceedings for purposes of negotiating a settlement.

2.) What recent developments have there been in this case?

In June 1998, the U.S. intervened in the action on behalf of the plaintiff Indians and in September, the Court lifted the stay in both of the cases.

In December 1998, the Indians and the federal government moved to amend the Complaint by adding the State of New York, three other individual defendants (NYS Thruway Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and Oneida Valley National Bank) and a "land holder class" consisting of all landowners in an area comprising approximately 250,000 acres and including approximately 20,000 property owners in northerly Madison County and westerly Oneida County.

The Amended Complaint seeks recovery of damages from each member of the landholder class, and most importantly, it seeks possession of these lands and ejectment of the property owners.

Federal Court has not yet ruled on the application to accept the Amended Complaint and a determination will not occur until the end of March 1999.

During Christmas week, 1998, in a conference call amongst the parties and Judge McCurn, the Judge proposed the appointment of a Special Master/Mediator to assist in the negotiation process. He set a date of 1/11/99 for the parties to submit proposals to the Court for the names of prospective Special Master candidates and a definition of the Special Master’s powers and duties.

3.) Can you explain what a Special Master is?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 gives the Court the authority to appoint a Special Master in a pending action. The power and duties established for the Special Master are largely in the discretion of the Court and may be very broad or very limited. Basically, the Special Master is what the Court says it is. Most likely, he would have the authority to require the parties’ attendance at negotiating sessions and to push along the negotiations.

If the Special Master is appointed and the Court has defined his powers and duties, the Special Master ordinarily sets a date for the first meeting of the parties to be held within 20 days of the Court’s Order of Reference. The Special Master has a duty under Rule 53 to proceed with his duties with all reasonable diligence.

It is our position that we will support the appointment of a Special Master if it succeeds in expediting a quick and fair resolution of the issues by:

• Establishing a schedule that would assure an expeditious resolution of the matter.
• Forcing the parties to the bargaining table to push negotiations along;
• Giving us an opportunity to negotiate a fair and quick settlement without risking ejection of property owners;

4.) How do property owners know if they’re in the land claim area?

It is not easy to provide a precise definition of the boundaries of the claim area because the boundaries are basically described in the State Treaty with the Oneida Indians in 1788. The description of the area relies upon monuments that existed at that time, such as trees, rocks, creeks, etc. Essentially, the approximate 250,000-acre area’s boundaries are vague and have not yet been precisely defined.

If the Court accepts the Amended Complaint and certifies the class of property owners, one of the first steps in the action would need to be the establishment of a clear definition of the land within the claim area.

5.) Are landowners in jeopardy of losing their homes?

We don’t think so. We feel that the proposed inclusion of these 20,000 innocent landowners and a request for ejectment are intended to force the parties to the negotiating table after years of inactivity in these actions.

In all of the recent settlements of Indian land claims around the country, not one has resulted in the ejectment of private property owners. These other land claims have been resolved by negotiated settlements involving payment of money and/or transfer of state or federally owned real property to the Indians.

Our County is taking an aggressive position to expedite a negotiated settlement that will protect our residents, rather than a resolution by litigation. Any negotiated settlement must recognize the following principles:

• No private landowners, County or governmental subdivision would be required to contribute involuntarily either land or money to the settlement and all local property owners and counties would be held harmless.
• No landowner would be ejected from his property.
• Any land designated as Indian Reservation territory must have clearly defined and understood boundaries.
• The settlement would settle all claims of the Indians.
• Any land used or owned by the Indian Nation outside the Indian Reservation must be subject to the same local, state and federal regulation, control and taxation as land owned or used by anyone else.
• Compensation from the state and/or federal governments must be made to the localities for lost revenues.

6.) How will property owners know if they’re part of the lawsuit?

The Court has yet to rule on the acceptance of the Amended Complaint and has not yet certified the approximately 20,000 property owners as defendants.

Our County has vigorously opposed these efforts to amend the Complaint and has called upon all parties not to add property owners. If the Court accepts the Amended Complaint and property owners are included as defendants in the suit, the Court’s Order will have to establish a mechanism for formal notice to all class members.

Additionally, other means have been established to keep people apprised of the status of the case, such as our new Website (www.oneidacounty.org), a new hotline telephone number 
(# 1-800-541-0151) to call with questions, and informational public forums that have been or will be conducted in the communities.

7.) Do property owners need to hire their own lawyer?

Section 10 of the State Law provides that the State will provide and pay for counsel for the property owners to defend this type of land claim action, if, in fact, the Amended Complaint is accepted and property owners become defendant parties.

However, individual property owners can always retain their own attorney for advice.