George Washington Papers
Documents filtered by: Author="Pickering, Timothy"
sorted by: author
Permanent link for this document:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-18-02-0280

To George Washington from Timothy Pickering, 21 July 1795

From Timothy Pickering

War-Office July 21. 1795.

Sir,

On the 16th instant I received from Governor Jay, an answer to my letter of the 3d relative to the intended negociations with the Onondagas, Cayugas & Oneidas for the purchase of their lands. In my letter was inclosed the opinion of the Attorney General, that those negociations could not lawfully be had without the intervention of the government of the United States. A copy of the Governor’s answer I have now the honour to inclose.1

This day I have received a letter dated the [ ] from Governor Jay, covering the copy of a conference between the St Regis Indians and the Agents of New-York, relative to the claims of those Indians to lands in the northern part of that State, and an extract from an act of the legislature, providing for a negociatiation with those Indians, to adjust and compensate their claims. Of this Extract, and of the Governor’s letter inclosing it, copies are herewith transmitted.2 The conference is uninteresting. The amount of it is merely a claim on the part of those Indians to the lands mentioned, and an agreement, on the part of New-York, to meet them at a convenient time & place, to settle those claims: the time “not to be later in the next fall than while the travelling is good.”

By the Act of the legislature of which an extract is inclosed, & the Governor’s letter referring to the subject of it, a distinction seems to have been taken between the lands in the northern parts of the state, claimed by the St Regis Indians, and those of the Oneidas Onondagas & Cayugas. With respect to the latter, the intervention of the General Government has not been thought requisite: but in regard to the former, Governor Jay has resorted to it; as the act of the legislature of New-York authorized him to do.

Beside that no objection occurs to me to the proposed negociation with the St Regis Indians, it would seem desirable to give facility to every measure of a state government which conforms to the regulations prescribed by the laws of the Union.

Mr Elsworth & Mr Sedgwick being members of Congress, & the former a Senator, seem ineligible. It may be agreeable to Coll Wadsworth to take a journey to Lake George at the season of the year proposed by the Governor for the treaty: but should you think proper to name him, his willingness to serve as a commissioner may be previously ascertained. I take leave to mention Mr Boudinot, late member of Congress from New Jersey, as probably disposed to undertake such a mission. One commissioner would seem sufficient; and of the gentlemen whom you would think fit to appoint, the assent of some one may be previously obtained. They may be enquired of in succession, in the order you shall be pleased to designate.3

Yesterday I received a letter from Mr Stephen Higginson, a well informed merchant of Boston, & formerly a member of Congress, describing the proceedings of the late Boston townmeeting, upon the treaty with Great-Britain. The information it contains was evidently designed to be communicated to the President of the United States: I therefore inclose a copy of Mr Higginson’s letter.4 With the greatest respect, I am sir, your most obedt servant

Timothy Pickering

ALS, DLC:GW; LB, DLC:GW.

1Pickering’s 3 July letter to John Jay, new governor of New York, and the opinion of the attorney general have not been identified. A copy of Jay’s letter to Pickering of 13 July is in DLC:GW. The governor explained: “My information relative to the Indian affairs of this State being imperfect, it has not been in my power to answer your letter with sufficient accuracy at a more early day.” In considering whether the New York negotiations with the Indians were consistent with the federal Constitution and the congressional act of 1 March 1793 regulating intercourse with Indian tribes (1 Stat. description begins Richard Peters, ed. The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, from the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845 . . .. 8 vols. Boston, 1845-67. description ends 329–32), Jay wrote, “I think I should forbear officially to consider and decide.

“It appears to me from the 37th article of the New York Cons[t]itution that every Convention or Contract with Indian Tribes meditated by this State, must be directed and provided for by Legislative Acts; and consequently that the Governor can take no measures relative thereto, but such as those acts may indicate or permit.”

An act passed by the New York legislature on 9 April placed the negotiations in the hands of five agents, but remained “silent” about “intervention or concurrence of the United States.” Jay did not “observe any thing in it which by implication directs or authorizes the Governor to apply for such intervention or which implies that the Legislature conceived it to be either necessary or expedient.”

Jay noted that he had learned from Philip Schuyler of a meeting to be held on 15 July with the tribes at Onondaga. While Schuyler’s letter to Jay was dated 9 June, Jay said it did not reach him until 26 June. The Indians already had received notice, and most of the commissioners were to meet in Albany on 1 July to make their way to Onondaga. In closing, Jay expressed both his support for the peace effort and his confidence in GW’s “Disposition to promote it” (DLC:GW).

2Jay wrote Pickering again on 18 July: “the St Regis Indians, residing partly in this State and partly within the British dominions, and also some other Tribes who distinguish themselves by the name of the Seven Nations of Canada have set up a Claim to lands in the Northern part of this State. Whether this Claim is a joint one, whether the St Regis tribe is one of those Seven, or a distinct one I cannot as yet ascertain. The extent of the Claim or Claims in question is also uncertain, but it is suggested to comprehend all the lands between Lake Champlain and Lake George on the East, the river St Lawrence on the West, and almost as far South as Fort Edward. Although this Claim can have no just foundation (the Indian Title to that Country, if any remains, being in the Mohawks) yet it will probably be expedient from considerations of peace and prudence to endeavour to extinguish it unless their demands should be extravagant” (DLC:GW).

A deputation from the St Regis Indians came to Albany while the legislature met in 1794 and again during its most recent session, when a conference took place between the deputation and the state-appointed agents. Jay enclosed copies of the speeches given by the agents and the Indians during the conference. He also included a copy of the clause placed by the legislature in the annual support bill of 9 March to guarantee the future negotiations with the natives. Since the War Department handled Indian affairs, Jay thought it proper to request GW to appoint one or more commissioners to hold a treaty with the Indians, no later than the middle of September, at Fort George on the south end of Lake George. Jay would appoint three state agents. Since all proceedings must remain suspended until Pickering gave an answer, Jay requested a speedy reply and offered to pay the expense of an express message to GW at Mount Vernon, if Pickering thought such action would expedite the matter (DLC:GW).

The extract from “An Act for the payment of certain Officers of Government, and other contingent expenses,” passed 9 April, is found in DLC:GW. The conference papers have not been identified.

3Jay had recommended these men for GW’s appointment of a commissioner to attend the conference in his letter to Pickering of 18 July. On 31 July Pickering informed Jeremiah Wadsworth of his appointment as the federal commissioner (CtHi: Jeremiah Wadsworth Papers).

4Stephen Higginson wrote Pickering on 14 July about the “high doings” in Boston relative to the resolutions against the Jay Treaty approved at a recent town meeting. The resolutions “were sent off by express, in hope that the President may not have signed it and if not that he will be deterred. These are their reasons and such their expectations.”

Higginson then suggested that “it may be consoling to the President to know that this has been a Jacobin measure, disapproved by all good men and not countenanced by any Merchant of eminence—not by ten in all—you will perceive this to have been the case, when informed, that the general vote of disapprobation was taken without hearing or reading the treaty; even at the adjournment after three days time to reflect, it was read only for forms sake, but not discussed previous to adopting 20 long objections to it. The objections will prove, that even the Committee who reported them knew nothing of the subject, for most of them are grounded in ignorance of the relative situation of the two Countries, of their rights and their present privileges held only by sufferance and dependent wholly upon the present state of things.

“Men of reputation would not attend the meeting being opposed to the Towns taking up the subject and believing it would end without any direct interference. They were left wholly to themselves, no attempt was made to counteract them though nine Merchants out of ten reprobated the procedure and a large majority of the whole Body Citizens were averse to it.”

Higginson wrote that Benjamin Franklin Bache had arrived in Boston with “a large Collection of lies of riots in Phila. in New York &c. to create a flame here and to urge on our common people to excesses. all he could affect with the aid of our prime incendiaries you see in the resolutions which exhibit more of folly and absurdity than of dangerous influence. In one week we shall be cool and composed here and those who made and recommended the Treaty to the President will be called Patriots” (DLC:GW). For the meeting of the Boston citizens, see their petition to GW, 13 July.

Index Entries