The reservation was established as a result of state legislation in 1859, which authorized an exchange of lands in the Shinnecock Hills between the proprietors of the undivided lands and the Shinnecock Indians. According to Mr. Heaney, however, it came into existence in 1703 under a lease from the colonial government, but this is by the way. He is correct at least in asserting that the Westwoods were conveyed to the Shinnecock in a different transaction.
The question is: Do the Westwoods enjoy the same sovereign status as was accorded the reservation lands at Shinnecock Neck in the 1859 legislation? If so, they are indeed as exempt from local zoning and other regulation, as are the reservation lands. Mr. Heaney thinks otherwise.
A brief review of the relevant legal documents is necessary to clarify the issue.
Sometime between 1790 and 1810, the Shinnecock took an equitable title to the Westwoods, thereby owning it in fee simple. But the land directly west of Canoe Place has always been designated as Indian Landin town records, legal proceedings, on maps, and in legislative hearings.
In 1667, at a hearing to determine the boundary between Southampton and Southold, the testimony given by two Indian women established that the land running west from Canoe Place to Apocock Creek belonged to the Shinnecock. The land west of the creek belonged to the Unkechaug.
The Westwoods were originally a part of the Canoe Place Division laid out in 1738. There is evidence that the Shinnecock continued to live in the area long after the division. In 1791 or 1792, the Shinnecock built a church at Canoe Place, clearly indicating the presence of a well-established community. The Reverend Paul Cuffee was buried near the site of the church, and his grave remains to mark the existence of a once vibrant community. The church was later moved to its present location on Canoe Place Road in the 1820s.
An important case tried in 1890 affirms that the Westwoods was in Shinnecock possession and had the same status as the land on Shinnecock Neck. This case, tried in the New York State Supreme Court, concerned a parcel of woodland approximately where the Westwoods is located today.
Miles Carpenter, who owned the tavern at Canoe Place, purchased 75 acres of land from two Shinnecock Trustees on January 12, 1885. This sale was challenged within the Shinnecock community. When Mr. Carpenter sent a team of men to harvest timber from the Westwoods in 1889, the newly elected Shinnecock Trustees brought a suit against him, charging that he had trespassed on Shinnecock land.
In 1890, the judge ruled in favor of the Shinnecock and voided the 1885 sale. The Shinnecock, said the judge had been in quiet possession of the land for upwards of sixty years.
But why did the Shinnecock win? Judge Willard Bartlett upheld the Shinnecock possession of the Westwoods and ruled that the Shinnecock Trustees who had sold Mr. Carpenter the land in 1885 had no authority to convey the lands without an enabling act of the New York State Legislature. The one and only time the Shinnecock had been authorized by the legislature to convey land had been in 1859, when it approved the partition of the Shinnecock Hills. If Judge Bartletts decision meant anything, it was that the Shinnecock had a similar sovereign title to the Westwoods as they had at Shinnecock Neck. They are all tribal lands in the fullest sense.
There are two other cases that focus on the question of ownership and, indirectly, with tribal sovereignty. The first case was an aggravated assault in 1832 on Noah Cuffee, who lived at Canoe Place and was buried there in 1852. Noah had carried a petition of protest against the various injustices at the hands of their white neighborsto the New York State Legislature in 1822.
The jury found that Israel Conklin had trespassed on Noah Cuffees property on Canoe Place in 1832 and beat him severely with a club, knocked him down and violently kicked the said Noah Cuffee.This case demonstrates clearly that the state court recognized the Shinnecocks possession of Canoe Place early in the 19th century.
The second case involved a conflict between the Shinnecock Trustees and the Town of Southampton. In March 1919, without the approval of the Shinnecock, town work crews went into the Westwoods to obtain gravel, sand and loam. The Shinnecock charged that the crews illegally cut down trees, made holes, dug pits, and excavations on said premises.
In 1922, the court-appointed referee, Robert S. Pelletreau, ruled that the Shinnecock had good title. In his findings of fact, he noted that the tract is not known to have been taxed at any time or the title of plaintiff thereto to have been disputed.In the case of taxation, therefore, the Westwoods had the same status as the reservation land at Shinnecock Neck. The town was ordered to pay for the soil, plus $290 in damages. The ruling clearly indicates that the Westwoods was part of the sovereign Shinnecock Reservation.
Another interaction with the state that also acknowledges Shinnecock ownership is the purchase by the state of a highway right-of-way through the Westwoods lands to make way for the Sunrise Highway extension.
One thing is evident: The Shinnecock Indians hold not only the equitable title to the lands at the Westwoods but also the legal title. Mr. Heaney mistakenly thinks the town holds the legal title. The conclusion is equally clear: The Shinnecock are under no requirement to comply with local regulationsimposed by the town, county or state.
Supervisor Heaneys argument, and the rather crude analogy he draws to a deli storefront in Hampton Bays, simply collapses in the face of this legal reality. It is to be hoped that the towns new legal team will come to an early recognition of this.
John A. Strong is Professor Emeritus of social science at Southampton College and is an authority on the Native American tribes of Eastern Long Island. David Goddard is a retired professor of sociology at the City University of New York is writing a book on Southampton in the 19th century.