An evidence-first research index
Tracing overlooked records, correcting persistent conflations, and marking the boundary between what the archive shows and what it does not.
These selected investigations link to the underlying documents, quotations, and reasoning. A recommendation is not an award; a judgment is not a payment; a later account is not the missing original.
950 numbered findings published by October 16, 2026 (Friday afternoon, Pacific time). The count describes research notes, not independently adjudicated mysteries.
New York’s 1890 session law expressly repealed the 1888 Bissell commission act on May 24, with immediate effect. An earlier committee recommendation was not itself enactment; the repeal did not adjudicate annuity shares.
Read the photographed law →The supplement provided a $50 payment route with duplicate receipts, but its separate power to commute Fish Carrier’s annual rent was subject to legislative approval. A £2,500 agent advance is not his personal payout.
Read the photographed statute and caveats →The 1793 law invited separate Oneida, Onondaga and Cayuga agreements but barred new locations and Land Office sales of any acquired reservation without further legislation. It does not itself prove a cession, payment or completed trust.
Read the photographed statute and limits →Bissell told Governor Black’s counsel that the 1888 law was repealed while he prepared his report, so no formal report was filed. His printed hearing testimony and later private view of Canadian Cayuga descent are different records.
Read the 1898 correspondence →The revised $100,000 proposal replaced a three-commissioner descendant inquiry with a comptroller count from 1894 New York annuity and Canadian census records, and broadened proposed releases. Its final legislative disposition is not established here.
Compare the proposals and limits →One Senate bill sought Canadian annuity arrears since 1809; another addressed land-sale proceeds for Cayugas in New York, Canada and Missouri. A later memorandum says both passed the Senate but neither became law.
Compare the bill texts and outcome caveat →Vedder’s proposed bill would have treated the Cayuga Nation as legally dissolved and distributed a $100,000 substitute for annuities and arrears to descendants, including Canadian residents. A 1911 memorandum says both versions passed the Senate but failed in the Assembly; no payout follows from the printed bill.
Read the proposed text and outcome caveat →A 1911 memorandum quotes the 1807 agreement and Senate messages calling the purchase “two reservations”; the photographed 1807 act calls the same 3,200-acre, $4,800 object one “reservation.” The original agreement and parcel survey remain uninspected.
Read the source-graded comparison →A $4,800 contract for 3,200 acres required a duly executed deed ready for delivery. Resale money was assigned to the state treasury pending future legislative disposition, not automatically distributed to individuals.
Read the 1807 and 1813 acts →The Council of Revision said a four-shilling annuity base and sixteen-shilling sale floor conflicted with a “sole benefit” assurance. Both houses overrode it; the objection was not a judicial judgment or audited profit calculation.
Read the objection and overrides →A three-officer committee recommended denying the New York-resident Cayugas’ land-profit claim. The printed report does not show full-Board adoption, and a later record describes a 1913 allowance—not proof of individual principal payments.
Read the recommendation and later record →Henry Phillip recalled a prewar council and neutrality, but did not testify to the exclusive annuity bargain later attributed to Peter Wilson. Counsel’s stronger formulation is not the witness’s answer.
Read the witness and ruling →Bissell first sustained an objection to the offered 1795 treaty paper, then later admitted it as Exhibit A. His willingness to hear tradition was not authentication or a ruling on annuity beneficiaries.
Read the hearing and limits →Jamison had heard that Canadian Cayugas sided with Britain but not of a prewar council waiving opposite annuity claims. His lack of knowledge is not proof that no council occurred.
Read the testimony and limits →The original Canadian census book was admitted after an initial copy was refused; a later certified US list was excluded. Neither ruling decides the individual annuity share.
Compare exhibit rulings →Bissell confined the inquiry to Canadian Cayuga descent, numbers and shares. An 1850 Assembly document was admitted, but the reprinted transcript does not supply its text.
Inspect the scope ruling →A Canadian Cayuga petition conditionally pleaded arrears from 1810, 1849 or 1877, then future installments; its $448,000 estimate was not an audited award.
Read the petition analysis →The photographed Tecumseh enclosure reads 134 men, 25 women and 8 children. A reported belt, request and forecast are not a general confederacy or British war order.
Check the address and copy chain →The Hurons’ substance of council speeches reports Red Jacket’s proposed break with the English Father and its rejection by his own nation; it is no unanimous alliance.
Read the enclosure carefully →A reprint heads an October letter as Cameron’s although Elliott signs it and Cameron certifies a true copy. The caption cannot override the document.
Inspect the attribution →After Butler’s death, a Grand River council including Cayuga chiefs asked for an Indian Department successor and suggested two possibilities; neither is shown appointed.
Read the council request →Butler reportedly advised about 150 Buffalo Creek and Grand River chiefs and people against a planned Cayuga land sale. The June warning is not a treaty attendance roll.
Read the warning →Interpreter George Martin listed nine principal-chief and five war-chief entries to check a prospective Jones paper; the record neither produces the paper nor proves a forgery.
Inspect the list and limits →Cayugas are named among nations meeting across the border after the war. Ceremonial peace and travel arrangements are not an annuity release or a list of individual Cayuga attendees.
Examine the proceedings →Elliott asked about sustaining resistance without overt action; Craig later advised officers to dissuade projected hostilities. Neither page proves a covert order to Elliott.
Compare the correspondence →The 1803 council found only one security behind five absolute land grants; a sixth numbered block was never granted. An 1809 surrender total differs from the five-patent acreage without revealing why.
Examine the council report →Echo appealed to British officials over lost American payments. Claus’s 1805 cutoff conflicts with later printed Cayuga agent receipts; his Buffalo-withholding explanation was conjecture, not a ledger.
Compare the council and receipts →Two 1811 figures repeat earlier counts while the printed source says no return was given. A reconstructed total is not an independently measured population change.
Inspect the table and caveat →The tribunal awarded $100,000, not a declared permanent share or evidence of individual disbursement. Its illustrations of annual shares are not the operative judgment.
Read the award analysis →The Cayuga certiorari appeal was reversed, but the extended reasoning was not a majority opinion. The 1886 Senate packet preserves its text.
Read the investigation →Original Senate Document 86 separates the Attorney-General’s advice, two different appeals, and the commissioners’ committee report. None is an annuity payment voucher.
Inspect the source map →A contemporaneous favorable 1849 recommendation clashes with retrospective narratives of an adverse decision. The supposed 1850 hearing needs its own original record.
Follow the documentary conflict →Docket 343 settled claims in a tribal judgment; it does not itself establish individual checks or a Canadian Cayuga annuity distribution.
Read the sourced investigation →A federal judgment for New York Indians must not be conflated with a later certified roll or proof that each claimant received money.
Read the Supreme Court opinion (PDF) →The 1887 New York law arranged conditional disposal of an Indian boarding-school building and equipment. The law alone does not prove execution of each sale or transfer.
Read the original statute (PDF) →These are open questions, not solved findings.
Page images outrank OCR and search snippets. Testimony and retrospective reports identify claims to investigate, not necessarily facts established. An authorization, proposal, judicial disposition, tribal award, treasury receipt, and individual payment are different events.