People ex rel. that Portion of the Cayuga Nation of Indians Residing in Canada v. Bd. of Com'rs of the Land-Office

• Decision Date: 02 June 1885
• Citation: 99 N.Y. 648,1 N.E. 764
• Parties: PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. THAT PORTION OF THE CAYUGA NATION OF INDIANS RESIDING IN CANADA, v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF THE LAND-OFFICE.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

99 N.Y. 648

1 N.E. 764

PEOPLE, etc., ex rel. THAT PORTION OF THE CAYUGA NATION OF INDIANS RESIDING IN CANADA,

v.BOARD OF COM'RS OF THE LAND-OFFICE.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Filed June 2, 1885.

FINCH, J., dissents.

Mr. Strong, for the People.

Mr. O'Brien, atty. Gen., for appellant, Board of Commissioners, etc.

DANFORTH, J.

We think this appeal was well taken. The office of the writ of certiorari is to correct errors of inferior tribunals when exercising judicial powers, but it does not lie to review their determination upon a matter either submitted by statute to their discretion, or which is legislative in character rather than judicial, or concerning which their decision is not final. Nor can it issue except upon the application of a person aggrieved by the determination to be reviewed. Upon these points the law has been well settled by numerous decisions of the courts, and it is now, in substance, so declared by statute. Code Civil Proc. art. 7, c. 16, tit. 2.

1. The board of commissioners of the the land-office is not a court. It is composed of certain state officers declared by statute (1 Rev. St. 113) to be ‘by right of office’ commissioners of the land-office, and as such are classed among ‘administrative officers.’ Id. They are to care for and superintend the lands of the state, and execute such other duties as may be prescribed by law. 1 Rev. St. 197; Const. art. 5, § 5. In 1839 (Laws 1839, c. 58, § 1) they were authorized to direct payment in their discretion to the Oneida tribe of Indians, ‘or any party of them recognized as such party by the laws of this state,’ of certain moneys. (2) ‘To direct the payment to them, or any party or portion of them, of the principal of the annuities, or such portion thereof as the commissioners may, from time to time, deem proper, remaining under the control of this state, for the benefit of said Indians, or any party or portion of them.’ (3) * * * (4) ‘To make such treaties, contracts, and arrangements with the said Indians, or any party or portion of them, in relation to the lands of the said Indians in this state, or any moneys belonging to them under the control of this state, as the said commissioners of the land-office, or a majority of them, may deem just and proper.’ (5) ‘To hear and determine all questions which may arise in relation to any moneys under the control of this state, belonging to said Indians, or any party or portion of them, and all questions which may arise between the various parties of the said Indians in relation to any of their lands in this state, or the avails thereof.’

Subsequent sections declare that no act of the commissioners, done under or by virtue of the first section, ‘shall have any force or effect until the same shall be approved by the governor of this state;’ but when approved by him ‘shall have the same force and effect as an act of the legislature upon the parties concerned therein.’ This was followed in 1841 by ‘An act in relation to certain tribes of Indians.’ Laws 1841, c. 234. Upon this alone the learned counsel for the respondents relies as not only conferring jurisdiction upon the commissioners of the land-office to entertain the claim submitted by him, and giving the respondents a standing before the commissioners, but as so qualifying their determination as to render it the subject of review by a judicial tribunal. By the first section the commissioners are authorized ‘to direct the payment in their discretion to the Caughnawaga and St. Regis tribes, representing the seven nations of Canada Indians, or any part or portion of them, of the principal of the annuities, or such portion thereof as the said commissioners may, from time to time, deem proper, remaining under the control of this state, for the benefit of said Indians, or any part or portion of them.’ (2) To make certain payments of annuities to the Brothertown tribe of Indians. (3) To direct the payment of the principal of the annuity due to the Cayuga chief, Fish Carrier. (4) ‘To hear and determine all questions which may arise in relation to moneys under the control of this state, belonging to any Indian tribe or nation, or individual Indian, or his descendants, or any part or portion of them, and all questions which may arise between the various parties of such tribe or nation in relation to any of their lands in this state, or the avails thereof.’ (5) ‘To make such treaties, contracts, and arrangements with any tribe or nation of Indians, or with any party or portion of them, or with any individual Indian or Indians, who have any claim upon any lands in this state, or any moneys belonging to them under the control of this state, or for the purchase of any portion of such lands as the said commissioners may deem just and proper, or in relation to the expenses of laying out and keeping in repair any public road passing through any portion of the lands occupied by said Indians.’

All the foregoing provisions are contained in the first section of the statute, and it is declared that ‘no act of the commissioners of the landoffice,’ ‘done under or by virtue of’ it, ‘shall have any force or effect until the same shall be approved by the governor.’ In 1850 (Laws 1850, c. 37, § 7) it was enacted that ‘the commissioners of the land-office shall report annually to the legislature all their proceedings under that act, and all other acts which confer upon them powers in reference to Indians affairs.’ These provisions seem to continue the general policy of the law which in 1783 (6 Sess. Laws, 290) vested in three commissioners power to superintend and conduct the affairs of the Indians, but whose acts were to be submitted to the legislature for confirmation before they could become valid, and in 1784 (7 Sess. Laws 27) authorized the governor and the three commissioners to enter into such compacts and agreements with the Indians within the state as might be for the interest of the public. These statutes relate to the same subject,-to the same class of persons and transactions. They are therefore in pari materia, and, although made at different times and not referring to each other, must be taken and construed together as forming one system, and as explanatory of each other; for it is to be implied that they are intended to be harmonious and consistent. Rex v. Loxdale, 1 Burr. 445; Smith v. People, 47 N. Y. 330. It is obvious that the only part of the statute of 1841 which gives any color of support to the petitioners' contention is sub. 4, § 1, supra. The relators are described as ‘That portion of the Cayuga nation of Indians residing in Canada.’ The commissioners may deal with a part or portion or party of a nation of Indians in respect to certain matters, (Laws 1841, § 1, supra,) but the relators are in error in supposing that they are such part or portion within the meaning or intent of the statute. The act of 1839 (section 1, sub. 1, supra) shows the contrary. There, as we have seen, the commissioners are directed to pay certain money to a certain ‘tribe of Indians, or any party of them, recognized as such party by the laws of this state.’ The phrase ‘any party or portion’ is repeated in subsequent subdivisions of the same section, and in all cases it is to be construed as so limited or explained. The same phrase is carried into the act of 1841, which confers, in substantially the same language, power upon the commissioners to direct the payment of money to and transact the same affairs with other tribes of Indians. The later act is to be construed in light of the earlier, and, so construed, requires ‘the part’ or ‘portion’ or ‘party’ who comes to the commissioners to be a part, portion, or party of Indians ‘recognized as such by the laws of this state.’ There are parts or portions of the Cayuga nation so recognized, but the relators are not. The treaties of 1789, 1790, and 1795 were with the nation of Indians called the Cayugas. So was the treaty of 1829, although the Cayugas were described as residing at Sandusky, in the state of Ohio. The treaty of 1831 described one portion of the Cayuga nation as residing at Sandusky, and another portion as residing on the Seneca reservation, near Buffalo, and the annuities agreed upon in 1789 and 1795 were then to be in the future divided between them in certain proportions. The treaties of May and July, 1846, are described as being between ‘that portion of the tribe or nation of Indians called the Cayuga Indians residing in the western part of the state of New York, of one part, and the state of New York, of the other. The commissioners acted for the state, and referred to the act of 1841, § 1, sub. 5, as authorizing them to do so. In various statutes, also, (Laws 1848, c. 122; Laws 1849, c. 355; Laws 1873, c. 760,) the two portions have been recognized as distinct bodies, but together constituting the Cayuga nation. The relators seem unknown to the state, and I do not find that they have in any manner or at any time been recognized as a ‘part’ or ‘portion’ of the Cayuga nation of Indians. If this is so, they had no standing before the commissioners of the land-office.

2. The action of the commissioners in the premises was entirely legislative. Both the act of 1839 and that of 1841, supra, declare that no act by virtue of the section invoked by the respondent shall have any effect until approved by the governor; and the act of 1839 declares that the proceedings of the commissioners, when approved by him, shall have the same force and effect as an act of the...