46.) "That a treaty between the State and the nation of Indians is a compact which cannot be changed by either party without the ascent of the other" and "That a treaty made by the State with a part of a nation of Indians is void so far as it attempts to affect the rights of the other part of the nation, which never gave its assent to the treaty and probably such a treaty is a mere nullity from the beginning..." quote by Millard Fillmore in 1848, then Comptroller of New York State, and of course went on to be President of the United States. ( 5 min. read )

Letter taken from Volume VI of: "Arbitration of Outstanding Pecuniary Claims between Great Britain and the United States of America. re: Cayuga Indians. Supplementary Annexes to the Reply of His Britannic Majesty's Government" pp. 72-73.

I cannot state on stronger terms that everyone, needs to read the above four volumne boos.. It is that important.

(begin Reply Annex 126, vol. VI, pp.72-73.)

Comptroller Millard Fillmore to W. P. Angel, 13 June, 1848.

Comptroller's Office, Albany, June 13th, 1848.

W.P. Angel,Esq.,

Desr Sir,:----

I have yours of the 10th in answer to one written by my Deputy to Dr. Wilson of the 31st ulto. on the subject of paying the annuity to the Cayuga Indians.

It is not easy to determine the duty of this department in reference to this annuity. It seems to me, however, that certain propositions must be admitted by all.

1st. That a treaty between the State and a nation of Indians is a compact which cannot be changed by either party without the ascent of the other. All would concede, that the Indians could not change it without the ascent of the State, and it would seem to me, equally clear, that the State cannot change it without the ascent of the Indians. If therefore a law has been passed by the State without the ascent of the Indians conflicting with a previous treaty between the State and the Indians, then as but one can be valid and the other must be void, I think the treaty must prevail.

2ed. That a treaty made by the State with a part of a nation of Indians is void so far as it attempts to affect the rights of the other part of the nation, which never gave its assent to the treaty and probably [264] such a treaty is a mere nullity from the beginning, as a nation in all its negotiations with other nations is a unit and from its very nature indivisible. It is a corporation and its corporate rights are blended and united in one, and as they exist only in contemplation of law, our indivisible---the whole constitute in law but one person.

Now it appears that several treaties have been made with the Cayugas by which they are entitled to two annuities from this State amounting in all to $2,300., and that a Treaty made Sept. 8th, 1831 (3 book of Treaties, Sec'y of State's Office, page 105), the whole nation consented and agreed that $1,700. of that sum should be paid to that portion of said nation, then residing at Sandusky and about to remove beyond the Mississippi, and the remaining $600. to those residing upon the Seneca Reservation near buffalo. This treaty stands unrepealed and unchanged, and is therefore obligatory upon me as the agent of the State and the payment of this annuity.

From what I have heard, I have no doubt that the distribution is now quite unequal, and therefore unjust; and were it in my power to correct it, I would cheerfully do so; but a treaty is too sacred a thing to be changed at the will of one party only whenever such party may think it unjust or unequal. No one has the right to complain but the Indians and they cannot as we are carrying out they're expressed will by executing the treaty.

If anything were wanting to strengthen this conclusion it would be found in the fact, that this annuity has since the treaty of Sept 8, 1831, been uniformly paid in pursuance of that treaty and that in july, 1846, that portion of the Cayugas still remaining on the Seneca Reservation, a part of who were then about to emigrate west of the Mississippi, presented a memorial to the Commissioners of the Land Office, claiming only the $600. given them by the treaty of 1831, and then entered into a new treaty with the State to distribute that $600. equally among those who should remain on the Seneca Reservation and those who should emigrate. (See 3 Book of Treaties, p. 273 to 281).  [265].

But you say, a similar treaty was made with the Onondagas at the same time, and that a law passed in 1847 has been executed though conflicting with the treaty as the law of 1848 conflicts with the treaty made with the Cayugas. I found no such treaty at that time and I apprehend you refer to the treaty of February 28, 1829. But I do not consider either of these treaties as binding, especially in regard to the appointment of the annuities, as they show on their face that they were not made with the whole nation but only part. That with the Cayugas was made only with that portion" residing at Sandusky ", and that with Onondagas with that portion only" residing at Buffalo ". Hence they could have no binding effect upon the nation at large, and this being the only treaty attempting to apportion the distribution of the Onondaga annuity and being void for the reason stated, I feel that liberty, and in duty bound to distribute that annuity according to the law of 1847.

These in brief are my reasons for the distribution I have made in the two causes, and the decision of this department as to the mode of paying and distributing said annuities.

Respectfully yours

Millard Fillmore

Comptroller

( end of reply Annex 126)

As in all of these documents that I produce on this blog, each person must investigate on their own as to the accuracy of these documents. This is a must. You must get involved.