United States v. Franklin County

Decision Date28 January 1943
Citation50 F. Supp. 152
PartiesUNITED STATES v. FRANKLIN COUNTY et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

Ralph L. Emmons, U. S. Atty., of Binghamton, N. Y. (B. Fitch Tompkins, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel), C. C. Daniels, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Aubrey Lawrence, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty. Gen., for the United States.

John J. Bennett, Jr., Atty. Gen. of State of New York, and Henry A. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen. of State of New York, for State of New York.

Ralph Levy, Co. Atty. of Malone, N. Y., for Board of Supervisors of Franklin County, Franklin County, and William H. Moore, County Treasurer.

George J. Moore, of Malone, N. Y., for Mabel Croke, Collector of Town of Bombay, Tp. No. 7, of Franklin County.

BRENNAN, District Judge.

This action is brought by the United States of America on its own behalf and as guardian and trustee of the St. Regis tribe or band of Indians, who occupy certain lands in Franklin County, New York, known as the St. Regis Indian Reservation, and has for its purpose the enjoining of the defendants and their successors from proceeding in any manner with the assessment, levy and collection of taxes upon certain lands described in the complaint, the cancellation of any tax liens now existing against such lands, and that same be declared to be free and exempt from all taxation.

The defendants are intended to include all officials of the County of Franklin, State of New York, or any subdivision thereof, having duties or powers concerning the levying or collection of taxes.

The People of the State of New York were granted permission by the Court to intervene as a defendant, and they take an active part in the trial of this action.

It is the claim of the plaintiff that the ten parcels of land referred to in the complaint are in fact a part of the tribal lands of the St. Regis Indians, and are, therefore, exempt from taxation.

The defendants admit most of the material allegations of the complaint, but deny the allegations that the assessment and levy of any taxes by the defendants are unlawful and without legal authority, and affirmatively allege that by reason of a treaty or conveyance dated December 14, 1824, the St. Regis Indians released and conveyed to the People of the State of New York all of their interest in and to certain parcels of land, including the premises described in the complaint.

Prior to the trial of this action a motion was made by the plaintiff for a summary judgment and appropriate relief under the provisions of Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. In denying the motion for summary judgment and in accordance with the provisions of the rule, the Court specified certain facts as existing or established and limited the proof to be received at the trial.

The factual background of this action is contained in the following resume.

The St. Regis tribe of Indians were in occupation and possession of certain lands located in northern New York which include the lands which are the subject of this action, and as one of the Seven Nations of Canada entered into a treaty on May 31, 1796, 7 Stat. 55, with certain agents for the State of New York, whereby they ceded, released and quitclaimed to the People of the State of New York all of their lands within the State, "* * * Provided, nevertheless, That the tract equal to six miles square, reserved in the sale made by the commissioners of the land-office of the said state, to Alexander Macomb, to be applied to the use of the Indians of the village of St. Regis, shall still remain so reserved * * *."

The lands in question are within the six-mile square area so reserved.

On March 15, 1802, the Chiefs of the St. Regis Indian tribe submitted to the New York State Assembly certain papers which included a petition asking in substance that the State take one hundred acres of said land and construct a ferry across the Chateaugay River. The New York State Legislature on March 26, 1802, appointed three members of the tribe to act as trustees to consummate the requested transaction.

No action was taken until October 20 and 23, 1817, when the surviving trustee, appointed as above set forth, and three subscribing chiefs of the St. Regis tribe executed two leases with one Michael Hogan, lessee, covering tracts of land of 100 acres and 44 acres respectively, and it is conceded that the lands described in the bill of complaint are included within the leased property. These leases were ratified and confirmed by the enactment by the New York State Legislature of Chapter 185 of the Laws of 1819.

On March 8, 1824, the twelve chief warriors of the St. Regis tribe executed a power of attorney to four persons: "* * * to go to Albany and sell souch * a quantity of our lands to the people of this state as they may think proper and to transact all other business which shall be thought best for the welfare of our Nation * * *."

On December 14, 1824, in consideration of the enacting of legislation providing for the payment of an annuity of $305, the St. Regis Indians, through their attorneys appointed as above, quitclaimed to the State of New York their right, title and interest in and to the lands described in the leases theretofore made to Hogan.

The Legislature of the State of New York passed an Act on April 20, 1825, Laws 1825, c. 253, permitting Michael Hogan, or his assigns, to convey to the State of New York his interest in the lands described in the leases of 1817, and providing that when he shall have paid into the treasury of the State of New York a sum of money sufficient to produce annually the amount payable to the Indians, according to the terms of the leases, then letters-patent, covering such lands, should be issued to him by the proper officers of the State, and thereafter the State to pay to the St. Regis Indians the annuity due them in the same manner as other annuities were then payable.

On September 13, 1825, William Hogan, Sarah Hogan, his wife, and John Glendenning, Jr., to whom Michael Hogan had assigned the leases on March 9, 1821, granted to the State their interest in the premises covered by the Hogan leases.

On September 14, 1825, upon the deposit of an agreed consideration with the State of New York, the State issued letters-patent to William Hogan and John Glendenning, Jr., covering the 144 acre tract described in the Hogan leases of 1817.

It appears that the Village of Hogansburg has been built within the 144 acre tract; that that tract has been subdivided and sold to different owners, among which subdivisions are the ten parcels of land referred to in the complaint, which for a long period of time have been subject to taxation and taxes so levied have been paid.

The Village has a white population of about two hundred fifty persons; there are two churches, one Indian public school, five stores, one hotel, and the United States government has leased structures therein for use as a post office and a custom house or immigration building.

The annuity payable under the provisions of the grant of December 14, 1824, has been paid.

The record title of the ten parcels of land referred to in the complaint is held by the ten members of the St. Regis tribe by reason of conveyances based upon the patent issued to Hogan and Glendenning. They do not hold the lands either by allotment or under any authority of the St. Regis tribe.

It is the plaintiff's contention that the two leases of 1817 made to Hogan, and the subsequent transfer to the State of New York in 1824, are invalid by reason of the provisions of the Indian Intercourse Act of March 30, 1802, 2 Stat. 139, which provides that no purchase, grant, lease or other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Mohegan Tribe v. State of Conn.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 11 Enero 1982
    ...of the 1793 amendment to the Nonintercourse Act is a 38-year-old opinion of the Northern District of New York, United States v. Franklin County, 50 F.Supp. 152 (W.D.N.Y.1943). This case held that because the State of New York held the right of preemption as to Indian lands as one of the ori......
  • Thompson v. County of Franklin
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 20 Enero 1994
    ...grounds. Specifically, the County contended the action was barred by the preclusive or res judicata effect of United States v. Franklin County, 50 F.Supp. 152 (N.D.N.Y.1943). In the alternative, the County argued that Thompson lacked standing as an individual member of the Tribe to assert a......
  • Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. Cty. of Oneida
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 12 Julio 1977
    ...§ 177, has been established. Two additional points urged by the defendants should be noted. In reliance on United States v. Franklin County, 50 F.Supp. 152 (N.D.N.Y.1943), defendant County of Oneida construes the Nonintercourse Act as exempting from its coverage states "having a right of pr......
  • Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Cuomo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 19 Septiembre 1983
    ..."placed purchases of Indian lands within the states upon a different footing than other purchases," and from United States v. Franklin, 50 F.Supp. 152 (N.D.N. Y.1943) in which the district court found that "the omission is significant when viewed in the light of the practical construction g......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT