Issue of Mohawk land claim lawsuit resurrected

CANTON — The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe's land claim lawsuit is again appearing on St. Lawrence County's radar, three years after lawmakers abandoned a settlement to resolve it.

The St. Lawrence County Legislature's Finance Committee will hold a special meeting at 6 p.m. June 1 to hear an update from its attorney in the land claim suit, Judith M. Sayles of Hiscock & Barclay LLP, Syracuse.

"We have urged them to come back to the settlement," said James W. Ransom, tribal chief. "We have the only settlement in the entire state that has the signature of all the parties. We continue to believe it's in everyone's best interest to return to the settlement terms."

The tribe in its land claim lawsuit is seeking the return of 13,463 acres it claims the state purchased without necessary federal approval in the 1800s. For 27 years, the Mohawks have been trying to get back land the state bought in violation of the Indian Non-Intercourse Act of 1790, as well as property transferred to the state after the War of 1812.

In the 2005 settlement, the state would have given the Mohawks 1,314 acres in St. Lawrence and Franklin counties and $100 million to buy up to 13,463 more acres. The tribe also would have received 9 megawatts of low-cost power from the St. Lawrence-FDR Power Project, and the pact would have allowed Mohawks to attend state universities tuition-free. The counties and their affected towns — Massena, Brasher, Bombay and Fort Covington — were to receive $4 million annually from the state.

All parties involved had signed the agreement, but the counties in 2006 withdrew support for it after a series of federal court decisions against other tribes' land claims and the state Legislature's failure enact the settlement.

The St. Lawrence County Legislature's membership changed and a Democratic majority took over at the end of that year, and little discussion about the issue has taken place since.

"It's been in limbo," said Legislator Sallie A. Brothers, D-Norfolk, Land Claims Committee chairwoman. "Time has gone by. Different cases have been settled and different orders have come out, so we're going to find out the current conditions June 1. Where we go next hinges on what our attorney tells us."

Ms. Sayles could not be reached Friday.

Mr. Ransom said the tribe wants to work with the county to resolve the decades-old land claim.

"We saw it as a miscalculation on the state's part the first time in that the local involvement was very minimal. We think that affected the ability of the counties to stay with the settlement terms," he said. "It's hard to ask them to buy into a process they're not part of."

Legislators opposing the settlement in 2005 said they were upset that the state reached a settlement with the tribe without county involvement.

"We didn't even know about it. It all of a sudden got dropped on us," Mrs. Brothers said. "If proper procedure were followed, it probably wouldn't have been as acrimonious. I hope we can work it out as neighbors."