NewYork the 15. October 17<54.>

The patent in Compagnie with David Schuyler & others Contains 8000. acres. the Share of Philipp Livingstons heirs is 2/5 which is 3200 Acres Any person Inclined to Buy the whole may apply to the Subscriber who will sell the same at Ten Shelling per acre rady Mony.

Philipp Livingston (SWJ 3:342).

                     Of the above “Offering,”several years later, Sir William Johnson, in a crossed out section of his letter to Attorney William Smith Junior dated Johnson Hall May 11, 1763, wrote:

. . . So soon as the Indians discovered the affair they publickly disavowed it. . . & that . . . In the year 1754, at Albany the Ind^sin my presence complained to the Governor & Council of the injustice of the patent, which they had then lately heard Was taken out, when M^rAlexander, (now Lord Sterling), & M^r W^m. Livingston seemed so well convinced of the Ind^s rights to the Land that they readily & imediately offered to relinquish their Claim as Share therein, but many of the other partners being Young, or abroad prevented any thing effectual from taking place at that time. (WJP, 4:116).

            In 1760, Sir William Johnson obtained Letters Patent to what is now known as the “Royal Grant”. The south-easternmost portion of this patent adjoined the Mohawk River just to the west of the Zimmerman-Snell Patent and extended westerly along the river to the eastern bounds of Glens Purchase (Maps of the New York State Surveyor General housed in the New York State Archives in Albany, New York, Collection #AO273 Map #142). Also on May 12, 1762, Sir William purchased Lot 19 of the Francis Harrison Patent from William Brown of Salem, Massachusetts, the said tract also directly adjoining the Mohawk River and being nearly opposite Fort Hendrick (Tryon County Deeds 1:7). As a result of these two actions, Johnson had the potential to control all land based access to the Little Falls Carrying Place from the east. The shortest route to the Little Falls, by several score miles, required travelers to pass either through the Royal Grant or by taking the King’s Highway running across the width of the western portion of the Canajoharie Patent. One could pass through on the river, but with Fort Hendrick on the southern shore of the Mohawk, it could have easily aborted river passage by cannon fire. By using his Indians allies as a military force, Sir William could have had the ability to govern all trade with the western settlements and the British Garrisons at Oswego and Niagara. Thus, it is possible that the reason that Sir William was so desperately trying to have the Canajoharie Patent annulled, was that such a revocation would place ownership back in the hands of the Canajoharie Indians and they in turn would be free to sell him the lands previously patented to Philip Livingston and Company.

            Johnson having already made it nearly impossible for Klock to purchase any “new” lands from the Indians, on January 18, 1761, Sir William was openly preparing to defraud Klock of any ownership in the John Brachan Patent lying between the Petrus Van Driesen Patent, the East Canada Creek, and the George Klock/William Nellis Patent on the north-side of the Mohawk River (SWJ 3:307; 3:573, 3:616, 3:747; respectively).

Klock has a Lycense to purchase a small Tract of about 6 or 700 acres on the N side the Mohawks River near the Van drissens and the Tract he him self lives on. I see no difficulty in excluding him from any Share, if your proposal takes Effect. [From Goldsbrow Banyar] To SIR WILLIAM JOHNSON Baronet [November 23, 1761].

______

The charge will be very little more and as the same Difficulty occurs with respect to the 800 acres, (or 500 acres as M'. Dubois says it contains) if you approve of it, these two small Tracts may be included in the same Petition, the first for yourself and the other for M'. DuBois and myself, as the Gentlemen concerned in the 30000 have no interest in this. Klock you know was to have been concerned in it, but if you insist on excluding him from this, as the Condition upon which only, you will agree to this proposal, or suffer M'. DuBois and myself to purchase and patent it, we shall acquiesce. Klock first mentioned it to DuBois, who for this reason is desirous he should partake; as to myself I owe him no Favour, nor can he expect it from his conduct in Magin's affair. It is included I observe within Klock's purchase made in Council at Albany when Magin's affair was settled, but they did not think proper to take it in, it being left out of the survey. However if you think it better to purchase it, we shall proceed in that way, tho I had rather proceed as if it was vested in the Crown even tho we paid the Indians a farther consideration for it. [From Goldsbrow Banyar. To Sir William Johnson Baronet. February 1, 1762].

______

I cant understand what you mean regarding the 500 acres as You are pleased to call it, (which I am assured is above double that Quantity) You say you believe it already purchased, and yet would have me give the Indians in a private way something for disclaiming any Title or claim thereto, I think I can get it from the Indians for about £40, and not less, owing to Klocks tampering with, and offering money for it last year. I would have it included in the Patent if Possible and be Jointly concerned with you & M'. Dubois therein. It will be worth more to us than twice that Quantity of the other Land. As I don’t look upon His Majestys instructions to prevent obtaining a Pattent for Land purchased, & paid for previous to the Governours receiving it, I would be glad to have the survey made as soon as maybe, least I may be obliged to leave home, and that would prevent the proceedings in it [To Goldsbrow Banyar. From Sir William Johnson Baronet. March 13, 1762].

______

            Abraham Van Horne died circa 1761, freeing the heirs of Philip Livingston and Van Horne to collectively place their patentee’s shares in the Canajoharie Patent upon the sale block. As a result Livingston’s heirs: Peter Van Burgh Livingston; John Livingston; Philip Livingston; Henry Livingston (by his attorney John Livingston); William Livingston; William Alexander & Sarah his wife (the said Alexander by attorney, his wife); Alida Hansen late Alida Livingston; & John Lawrence and Catharine his wife, sold by Quit Claim their one-half interest,excepting 1000 acres which had previously been sold unto David Schuyler, in the 8000 acre the Canajoharie Patent to Jellis Fonda and George Klock for £2400 on February 3, 1761 (Montgomery County Deed, 9:589). And, also on February 3, 1761, David Van Horne and Samuel Van Horne of New York City, heirs of Abraham Van Horne, sold by quit claim deed to Jellis Fonda & George Klock their one-fourth interest in the said Patent for £1200, excepting 500 acres which had previously been sold unto David Schuyler, (Montgomery County Deed, 9:637).¹¹

            In purchasing ownership of four-fifths of the Canajoharie Patent, George Klock and Jellis Fonda, put into motion a series of events which would for ever prevent the Canajoharie Indians from selling these patented lands to anyone else.

            As the Indians had continued in possession of the upper or western portion of the Canajoharie Patent from 1731 to 1761, the Indians could, under English Common Law, claim adverse possession of that portion of the patent (SCJ 3:376). Thus, to protect themselves from a “ruling of adverse possession” and Sir William’s active campaign against him; Klock in company with his partner, Fonda, took action to protect the titles they had received from the Livingstons and Van Hornes and to render their title inviolable under English Common Law. On December 12, 1761, Klock & Fonda, obtained a deed to the entire Canajoharie Patent from Jacob Onhaetoroeand nineteen other members of the native Canajoharie community;¹² and, then on February 23, 1762, Klock and Fonda obtained an additional deed to the entire patent from Rod Doroguimle, Laures Nacorunta, Abraham Jiognoa, Jacob Catereugdha, Harhemies Jegneghta, Knelus Darigiori, Sara Tiragoiga, Markril Gejinths, Anna Quarihunini, Janige Gajegrackko, Lisabeth Diogari Onie, Susana Tiregrigo, Paulus Tarigious, Anganitge Ganigonogka, and Adam Sachuradr all of the Wolfe, Bear, and Turtle Clans of the Mohawk Nation for£565, currency of the Province of New York. This later deed was witnessed by the signatures of [Casper Keller?] by his mark (the original deed being torn through the witness’ name)], Jein Daniel Múller, Justice Wilhelmus Dillenbach and Johan Nicolaus Haffner (original deed found in the Margaret Raney Library of Saint Johnsville, New York on 16 Oct 2008).¹³ An examination of the totem marks upon the 1762 deed again reveals no signs of ataxia on the part of its Indian endorsers.

            Further aware of Sir William’s attempts to prevent him from sharing in the ownership of the Canajoharie Patent with Fonda, Schuyler, and others; Klock obtained an affidavit from eight Canajoharie Indians stating that they believed the deeds of December 12, 1761& February 23, 1762 to be not only legal, but binding (WJP, 4:51). On March1, 1762, both Wilhelmus Dillenback and Jacob G. Klock swore under penalty of oath before Justice Peter Coyn, that they had witnessed the signing of the deeds by the Indians . . . & that they [the Indians] were all sober satisfied and well contented when the[y] signed the deed [of February 23, 1762] for the said land. Additional affidavits with statements similar to the foregoing were signed by Elisabeth Homein (by her mark) on March 12, 1762; Casper Keller (by his mark) on March 13, 1762; and, Severenus Deygard, Hannikel Havener,¹⁴ & Jean Daniel Müller on March 17, 1762. All of the aforesaid depositions were signed before Justice Wilhelmus Dillenbach (William Alexander Papers, Box 19A),¹⁵an avowed enemy of Sir William Johnson.¹⁶

            Stating that they had been presented with evidence in favor of Klock & Fonda, Governor Goldsbrow Banyar and the New York Council on January 19, 1763, upheld the legality of aforesaid deeds and the Canajoharie Patent. In response, Sir William immediately set to work on having the Colonial Council’s action reversed by having it examined in England(WJP, 4:51) and by assassinating the characters of the said eight Indians who signed the aforesaid declaration, claiming they were but two men, their wives, two small children, and two lads under aged (WJP, 4:145).

             In June of 1763, Sir William Johnson, set into motion yet another attempt to have the Canajoharie Patent annulled, by gathering together a series of affidavits to have Edward Collins’ Survey of1731 found fraudulent by producing unsigned and unwitnessed affidavits from David Schuyler, the only living “witness” to the survey (SWJ 3:613); Peter Davitse Schuyler (SWJ 4:140); William Wormwood (SWJ 4:141); and, Eve Pickard (SWJ 13:276). With these “testimonies” in mind, it would seem that if any question would exist as to the legality of the survey, it would reside in the term “easterly ten English miles.” However, the southern leg of the Canajoharie Patent ran 390 chains to the southern leg of the Windecker Patent, thence 220 chains along the southern edge of the Windecker Patent to the western edge of the Bleecker Patent and, thence roughly 168 chains to the Mohawk River. Added together the aforesaid distances total 789 chains, eleven chains short of ten miles. That said, one might argue that the westernmost line of the lands the Indians intended to sell was to run at a different angle of the compass than that taken by Collins in 1731, but the compass course taken by the surveyor placed the south-westernmost corner at a position roughly 789 chains west of the Mohawk River. In defense of the surveyor, one must note that no compass bearing was designated by the Indians for the westernmost line for the Canajoharie Patent and that the said patent’s westernmost dimensions were never, in a perpendicular plane to the Mohawk River, greater in depth than 2.75 miles from the Mohawk River versus the ten miles allowed by the deeds. Thus, together, the two deeds clearly grant title to Mister Livingston & Company ALLof the “vacant Indian lands” which later became known as the “Abraham Van Horne” or “Canajoharie Patent. It would consequently seem that the Indians had unknowinglysold their own homes and farms.

            In addition to the fact that the aforesaid survey seems to conform to the terms of the deeds, the testimony of David Schuyler, the only known living witness to the survey, was suspect:

         We ought also by all means to strengthen our proof with relation to the Fraud in the first purchase, and the surreptitious survey by Collins, for there I think our proof is weak, or unless we have more than I know of will be so on the Tryal, it being all hearsay, David Schuyler who was on the survey is dead and I fear his affid^t will not be proof. The Affid^t of Eve Pickard and  Will^m. Wormwood contains no knowledge of their own with Regard to that Fact, but only what they heard David Schuyler, Collins, & Peter Wagoner say. However they will be corroborating witnesses as Collins & Schuyler are dead, but should be supported if possible by more witnesses to the same purpose. If that Peter Wagoner is liveing we should subpoena him by all means. He was on the survey, as was also a servant of Collins's, his name I know not, who if liveing and a white man should be also subpoenaed. We ought also have proof of the death of Schuyler, Collins (& Wagoner if dead) that we may be enabled with propriety to give in Evidence what they have declared about the matter. Schuyler is said to have been mad. We should have proof that he was not so, or had a lucid Interval when the declaration was made to Mrs. Eve Pickard & Will^m. Wormwood, and when his affid^t was taken by yourself. (SWJ 4:113).

            Even though it is adequately clear that the “1731 Survey” would be defendable in a court of law, a careful examination of the affidavits suggests they themselves were fraudulent:

AFFIDAVIT REGARDING COLLINS'S SURVEY.

D.

 [June 13, 1763?]

About eighteen or nineteen years ago M^r Collins Survey [or ] [David Schyler,] & Peter Waggoner told the Dep^t. at y^e. House that they [ ] been up to survey the land at Conajoharee for M^r Livingston [ ] that they had proceeded up the river during the night which was moonlight, to a Creek called Onónadóga on the West Shore, that whilst Dav^d. Schyler, & Peter Waggoner were asleep the said Collins fixed his Compass at the Mouth of said Creek, & took a Course up into the woods, that before day next morning said Collins waked Dav^d. Schyler, & Peter Waggoner, who were surprized to see the Compass fixed, that thereupon said Collins bid them make haste, & embark in their Canoe for fear the Ind^sshould discover them as they would knock them on the head — that on embarking in a hurry a Bag with Waggoners name on & an axe were left behind which Waggoner was desirous to go fetch, but Collins prevented it saying, that those who had got the Land could easily afford to pay for them. That they then proceeded [to the house down the River,] near to [the where David Schyler now lives,] said Collins having his Compass fixed in the Canoe all the way, and took the severa[l] Courses of the shore, that he desired said Schyler & Waggon[er] to make haste, & paddle briskly without touching y^eCanoe [making a noise] least the Indians should hear them, and that on coming to the place aforementioned they landed & said Collins, & Waggoner proceeded to the house of said Waggoner where the Dep^t. then was,& when they informed him [ ] particulars [ ] has heard the said Waggoner [] the [ ] affair in the same manner adding [ ] been discovered the Indians would certainly have killed [ ] & that he expected to have been very well payed for atten[ ] said Collins, but never received more than two Rix Dol[lars][at which he was greatly] That during the last war the Indians of Conajoharee occasioned a great alarm in that Neighbourhood, threatning to murder the Inhabitants, and the Dep^t. was informed that the Cause thereof was their having been cheated of their land by the before mentioned Survey and further the Dep^t says not. (SWJ 4:143).

            The above draft affidavit, nearly identical to the one said to have sworn out by William Wormwood, is damning enough (SWJ 4:141). It seems odd that the statements of the other three survey“witnesses” are all nearly identical to that of David Schuyler’s. Unless one takes into account that the “other witnesses” were testifying to what they “heard” David Schuyler say about the survey over the course of a number of years: Unadulterated hearsay! Thus, it should come as no surprise that none of the aforesaid affidavits ever made their way into court.

            On June 13, 1763, Sir William prepared a bill outlining the crimes which he wished to have Klock found guilty of:                         

CHARGES AGAINST GEORGE KLOCK

A. D.

1      It is unprecedented to make 2^d. purchases [ ] Ind^s for Lands Pattented formerly, as also to run lines [ ] & that unknown to the Indians, & they after doing [ ]

2      Klock never paid y^e. Consideration money mentioned [ ]¹⁷

3      Deeds, notwithstanding w^h. Tillebagh then Justice ( [ ] with Klock) was an Evidence to them — Here I think Tillebagh was wrong In signing w^t. he must know to be false.¹⁸

4^th.   The Deeds had no certificates or other Proof on y^e. B [ ]

5^th.   Deeds Signed by Several who have no right to sign them Such as Shawanese, Oneidaes, Lower Mohawks, & Children w^h. I can prove, as can also y^e. Sachims, & Klock must own it.

6^th.   Ury Klock was y^e Person who helped to Settle the Rent w^h. the Tenants pay to the Ind^sthese many Years, this can be proved by the Tenants.

7^th.   Not one Principal Sachim of Conojohare Signed y^e. first Deed, as can be proved by y^e. Ind^s and Eve Pickard,

8^th.   the Deed on w^h. the Pattent is founded does not Comprehend half the Land now claimed, as P^r said Deed will appear, neither are the bounds by S^d. Deed, either clear or ascertained¹⁹

9^th.   if M^r . Livingston & aknew their Title to be good, why would they not give Klock & Fonda a Warrantee, y^e. Deeds will shew that they have only given a quit Claim — or why not divided as yet in 33 years.

10^th. Jacob G. Klock is Son to George Klock,& not qualified to Interpret. Jacob Forbes another of their Interpreters declared to me he did not understand enough of y^e. language to interpret between Klocks Party, & the Ind^son y^e. 9^thof December as P^r his Affidavit, will appear & y^t. y^e. Ind^s all but one were unwilling to sign s^d. DeclarationJustice Klock says s^d. Ind^s except one Cobus alias Negroe a Creature of Klocks were unwilling to sign s^d. Declara[tion][written in the hand of Sir William Johnson] (SWJ 4:145).

11^th. also the Declaration of y^e. 9^th. Decb^r on w^h. much Stress is layed was Signed by 2 Men, their Wives, 2 of their small Children & two Lads under Age, and those are called in S^d. Declaration the Majority of the Indians of y^e. Conojohare Tribe, these Indians who are in S^d. Declaration Said to [] y^e. general Meeting of y^t. Castle y^e 10^th of last [March ] word to say, as will appear by the Minutes of S^d. [ ] by order of the Gov^r. & Council in mine & the presence [ ] of his Majestys Justices of the Peace.

11^th. M^r Duncan one of the Party acknowledged in y^e presence [ ] the Justices y^e. 10^th. of March that Klock was a great Roug [ ] that he plainly saw there had been a great deal of dirty work made use of in the Affair, & was sorry he was concerned in it his Letter of y^e 1 March may also shew a good deal, but do not choose to make use of it if I can avoid it, nor of M^r. Rutherfords dated 21^st. Feb^ry 1763.

Concerning the pending trial where the “crimes” alledged to have been committed by Klock were to be examined, Johnson specified that he preferred a jury from Albany County over a jury from New York City, as he feared a New York City jury would be more likely to acquit Klock (WJP, 4:3). Obviously, Sir William preferred a jury which he could conceivably control, as his “Bill of Charges” were, in the opinion of this writer, ludicrous. The only charges, of the eleven brought against Klock, that seem even remotely sensible were that the Letters Patent included more land than what was described in the original deeds of 1729/30 & 1730, and that Jacob G. Klock, a son of George Klock, was not a “vetted” Indian Interpreter. Of the first reasonable charge, no mention is made of the deed of July 1, 1730,which extended the northwestern corner of the patent to the Nowadaga Creek, and from thence ten miles into the woods, before turning and running ten miles easterly to the Mohawk River. And, there is no credible evidence that Klock was in any way involved with the 1731 Survey. Of the second charge: How can one determine who is and who is not qualified to serve as a interpreter, without a personal & comprehensive knowledge of the language in question? In the end, an Albany County Jury found Klock innocent.

            On January 26, 1763, Klock sold unto John Duncan and Walter Rutherford one-half of his interest in the Canajoharie Patent at the same price per acre and with the same warranty as he had received the acreage from the previous proprietors, but no record of the actual deed has been found to date (SCJ 13:369).

            Thus in order to understand the rights of the owners of the Canajoharie Patent as of January 26,1763, the patent must be divided into 128 equal shares of 62.5 acres each. Jelles Fonda owned 36 shares, George Klock owned 18 shares, John Duncan owned 9shares, Walter Rutherford owned 9 shares, David Schuyler owned 24 shares, and William Burnett Brown owned 32 shares. In short, Klock held only a minor proprietorship.

            Following the acquittal of Klock; Philip Livingston & William Livingston (heirs of Philip Livingston), Walter Rutherford, John Duncan, & William Burnet Brown, under pressure from the Crown, on November 22, 1763, deeded the entire patent back to Johannes Garetroga, Kayinguerego, and Rakeridigha, in trust for the entire Mohawk Nation.²⁰ The name of George Klock was inserted upon this deed as a grantee, but Klock would forever refuse to endorse the deed, which further escalated the ire of Sir William Johnson and Guy Johnson who had endorsed the deed as witnesses. However, the Livingstons having extinguished any claim to the patent in their release to Klock & Fonda, could not legally sell any of the patent’s lands 1 and some young Canajoharie Indians accompanied by Joseph Brant forced him to move the line, ordered by Sir William, to thirty degrees west of south leaving a gore of twenty degrees in favor of the Indians (WJP, 4:233).

            In September of 1764, Isaac Vrooman, Rynier Mynderse, and Joseph R. Yates were appointed commissioners to partition the Canajoharie Patent equally between its multiple owners as directed by theQuit Rent Act of January 3, 1762. The commissioners, acting accordingly, filed a map²² and a field-book with New York Secretary of State’s Office on October 9^th, 1764.²³ In this resulting partition, a Sixth Allotment of four lots of 850 acres each was set aside for the usage of the Canajoharie Indians in recognition of their ownership of 50 of the 128 shares of the patent (SCJ, Volume XIII, page 369).

            The commissioners divided the first four allotments into eight lots of 100 acres each, the Fifth Allotment into four lots of 200 acres each and the Sixth into four lots of 200 acres each (SCJ, Volume XIII, page 368). The patent and its allotments being apportioned, the European owners and/or their legal representatives met in New York City on November 27, 1764 to draw their respective portions of the patent. In the resulting lottery: . . . lots No. 1 and 2 of the first allotment, lots No. 7and 8 of the second allotment, No. 1 and 5 in the third allotment, No. 1 and 3in the fourth allotment, No. 3 in the fifth allotment, and No. 1 in the sixth allotment, fell to the share of Philip Livingston. Lots No. 3 and 7 in the first allotment, No. 3 and 4 in the second allotment, No. 2 and 3 in the third allotment, No. 2 and 6 in the fourth allotment, No. 2 in the fifth allotment, and No. 4 in the sixth allotment, fell to the share of William Prevost. Lots No. 4 and 8 in the first allotment, lots No. 1 and 2 in the second allotment, No. 6 and 8 in the third allotment, No. 4 and 7 in the fourth allotment, and No. 2 in the sixth allotment, fell to the share of Abraham Van Home. Lots No. 5and 6 in the first allotment, No. 5 and 6 in the second allotment, No. 4 and 7in the third allotment, No. 5 and 8 in the fourth allotment, No. 4 in the 5thallotment, and No. 3 in the sixth allotment, fell to the share of Mary Burnet (The Van Vechten Family Papers, NYSL #LZ15213, Box 1 Folder 118; SCJ, Volume XIII, page 368).²⁴

            Apparently, some of the Indians,based upon a belief in the validity of the November 22, 1763 deed, began to make some improvements within the bounds of the patent by 1766, raising the ire of George Klock:²⁵

July5^th. [1766] — Sir W^m. was told that a great many of the Conojhare Indians had left their Country greatly enraged at the threats of Ury Klock, who told them they had no Right to a foot of land whereon they lived, and forbid their improving the same, and that he was then preparing to lay it out into Lots, altho' released by four of the Proprietors. — that this had determined those who were gone never to return, and the rest to follow. —

            If any question now existed as to the “legality” of Klock’s proprietorship in the Canajoharie Patent, it was vacated on May 27, 1766, when George Klock & Jacob G. Klock of Canajohary, Hendrick Remsen of New York [City], and John Van Sice of Schenectady obtained a 9,900 year lease to all Indian lands:

.. . Beginning at a certain place at a Mounting called Antonis Nose Running with a Straight Line to the northermost Branch of a River Called Sacondaga River then Westerly with a straight Corse to the furthermost Branch of a Creek called Canada Creek at Burnets Field and the then Westerly seven Miles and then Southerly kiping seven Miles from the said Canada Creek till that Corse stricks the Mohawks River then down the stream of the said River to the aforesaid Antonis Nose or place where first began, and also one other piece or parsil of of [sic] Land on the south side of the Mohawks River in the County of Albany Beginning at a Creek Nowodago at Canajohary Runing thence along Philip Livingstons Patent & Company and along Lansings David Young and others also along Depeysters also along Conrath Franks & others so down by or near Herkimers to the Mohawks River thence down y^e stream to the place first began so as to include all the vacant Land within the Limits and bounds set forth . . . (New York States Secretary of State Deeds 21:346).

            This above lease was signed by no less than forty-four of the Indian inhabitants of the Canajoharie Castle. This said lease or deed was witnessed by Adam Klock,²⁶ an Indian Interpreter; Thomas Adis; and, Wilhemus Dillenbach.²⁷

            Despite Justice Dillenbach’s affidavit attesting to the soberness of the aforesaid Indians, thirty-fours days later a journalist in the employ of Sir William recorded:

9^th.[July, 1766] — “June the 30^th. Sir — agreeable to your desire I this day set out for Oneida, & arrived at Conojahare where I found the Mohawks waiting, who informed me that they had waited three days for the Indians of that Castle, who were kept drunk during that time by George Klock with design to purchase some lands from them in that State, we waited until the5^th. day, but finding they got Rum so plenty, we proceeded in our Journey with two of that Castle, who were the only sober ones at that time, and who expressed their disatisfaction at the State of the rest. — . . . (WJP12:139)

            George Klock must have been fairly well educated or informed as he was aware of the invalidity of the 1763 transfer by the former proprietors of the patent and refused to sign a release which would negate his ownership in the Canajoharie Patent:

Guy-park October 1^st. 1767 —

DEAR SIR —

Your Letter to Sir William Johnson of August last came here during his absence at the Springs in N. England; since his return his time has been so occupied that he could not Answer it fully, and is now gone to Onondaga on some Indian affairs, from whence he will return in about ten days; — He has therefore desired me to acknowledge the receipt of your favor, and to acquaint you that it shall be fully answered at his return. In the mean time I can inform you, that the Proprietors (Klock excepted) executed a proper Instrument of Release to the Indians, and I believe it is amongst S^r William's papers, but Klock refuses to sign it, and tells the Indians that the whole Transaction is of no effect & only calculated to deceive them. [Guy Johnson to John Tabor Kempe] (SWJP 12:139).

            In following year, Klock continued to hold out, warning the Indians of the invalidity of the 1763 release they had received from the other patentees’ heirs:

[June10, 1768]

Brothers— The occasion of my calling you together now, is, that I have heard you have entered into agreements with some persons for the Sale of Lands, and that the same might be concluded in my presence; being willing to save you the trouble of a Journey to New-York for that purpose — I likewise desire to know whether your disputes with George Klock, are still depending, and whether he has executed the deed of release which you shewd me, when I was last here, and was the Subject of one of your Complaints —

Then Cayenquizagoe stood up with the Deed in his hand, and said Brother — When your Excellency [Sir Henry Moore, Governor of the Colony of New York] was last here we unanimously requested, that George Klock might be obliged to sign the Deed, as the rest had done, and, you then was so kind as to give us a favorable answer, — He has not yet executed it, and we now request that he may, if possible, be compelled to sign it, before we proceed to any business — His Excellency then called Klock, and desired him to attend to what the Indians then said, and added, — " you told me a few days agoe, that when the Indians should be assembled, I should find that they were so far from desiring you to execute the release. that on the contrary you would be requested to keep it in your own hands — It is very plain, that you have attempted to Impose on me, by an Assertion, which is now contradicted by them, and I desire therefore that you will now declare, whether you will subscribe to the release, or not. —To this Klock hesitated, alledged that they had given him the Land, — that it had cost him £45. — that they took out his Sons to Survey it — that the Chiefs got 50 of Com, that it would ruin him, for that he had sold it, & hoped that his Excellency would not ruin him, and desired to have some Evidences he had brought, examined — His Excellency answered, that the only Question he had to ask at this Juncture, was whether he would sign the Release, or not; and that if he still persisted in his refusal, he should direct the proper Officer to proceed against him, and compell him to do it by a due course of Law. —Klock still refused, and said that the Act of Assembly had rendered it unnecessary — The Indians accused him of falsehoods, of breeding disturbances, and after denying his assertions, insisted on his signing it, before they proceeded to any other business. — M^r Duncan had declared that his own party had stopped the Survey of it, and had broke his Chain. — and M^rButler said, that two days after the pretended Sale to Klock, the Conajoharee Indians complained to him, that Klock had been breeding disturbance, and had been seducing their young men. — Klock was again called upon to sign the release, which he still declined, and made use of every rude expression to the Speaker of the Indians, after which he desired to withdraw a few minutes, to consider whether he should sign it, or not — after being long out, he returned, and said he could not sign it till he could consult his Lawyers, and that M^rPhilip Livingston told him at New-York in the presence of his brother William Livingston, that he Should not Sign it, because his (P: Livⁿ)signing it was nothing, as Klock had the Deed — for the truth of this he appealed to M^r Duncan, who denied the knowledge of it, — being againdesired by his Excellency to Sign it, he refused, and was dismissed, after which his Excellency accquainted the Indians with what he had said, and told them, that a prosecution was now on foot against him, and that, he (the Governor) would use his utmost endeavors to compell him to execute the Release, and do them all possible Justice; — that as it was late, he advised them to goe, and settle with the Land Purchasers, so as to be prepared the next morning to execute the Sales intended — The Indians then thanked his Excellency for what he had promised, and said that, after taking some refreshm^t. they would return, and settle the Land affairs with the Gentⁿ, as was recommended to them — (SWJ 12:538).²⁸

            What would seem to have been a logical end to the dispute between Sir William, the Canajoharies, and Klock came on November 5, 1768 when the Treaty of Fort Stanwix was ratified by the mid-Atlantic Native Americans:

 . . . That as the Mohocks are now within the Line [of the lands] which we give to the King, and that these people are the true old heads of the whole confederacy their several villages . .. the Lands occupied by the Mohocks around their villages as well as by any other Nation affected by this our Cession may effectually remain to them and to their Posterity and that any engagements regarding Property which they may now be under may be prosecuted and our present Grants deemed valid on our parts. . . (The Treaty of Fort Stanwix).

            However, Sir William and his minions kept the natives in constant angst over the lands which they had legally transferred to the ownership of George Klock and Jellis Fonda; and in their earlier deeds of 1729/30 and 1731, to the British Crown. Even though these transfers may have been made in complete in ignorance by the Canajoharies, the deeds were valid. As long as Klock could hold his wits, he could hold title to his lands within the Canajoharie Patent.

            In 1772, multiple concerns about Indian land transactions were laid before the Crown:

Caseof the Mohawks of Conajohare respecting the Lands around their Village

The Conajohares consider themselves as within the Same Predicament as the Mohawks with regard to the large Sales they formerly made for very Slender Considerations and to the mere trifle of Property remaining in their hands.

         They acknowledge that they sold above forty Years ago a Tract of land to Mess^rs.Livingston, and Van Horne, but they positively deney that they ever Sold any of the upper part that was claimed under the Patent, those Persons afterwards obtained, besides the Absurdity of the Supposition that they shou'd sell the very Planting Grounds, and Village they lived on, at a time when they were much more numerous then they are at present. There are very Strong proofs to the contrary appearing on Sundry Examinations, as well as at a Trial at Bar in 1763that the survey [ ] [followed by several lines destroyed by the 1911 Fire]

That the present Claimants and [ ] believe of the Premisses, did afterwards agree to[ ] part, which was perfected by all present except a certain [ ] Some Man, who has often created much uneasiness in [ ] Still continues to refuse to execute the Same, and has [ ] Part thereof, alledging as a reason, ”that he had been well [“ ] which the Indians can give no Credit. That although [ ] are willing to Judge honorably of the Intention of the present Proprietors [ ] Yet they cannot help being greatly alarmed at the Conduct of Klock [ ] that a Discontent arising therefrom, may operate on the rest of [ ] same Effect as is Set forth in the Case of the Mohawks. [ ] their fidelity, and Attachment to the English intitles them to strict Just[ice      ]Protection of Government, & that for the Considerations before mentioned their [ ] Slender Remains of their Property, is reasonable, and their Desire moderate.

         They therefore request that Klock may be compelled to [ ] the Release and that M'.Burnet Brown who was then absent may [ ] the same according to his Promise, or that such other Measures may be [taken] for their Relief, as may secure these Lands to them their Heirs, or Assigns for ever.

Pro Sir William Johnson

GJOHNSON D Agent

forInd". Affairs

INDORSED:

[] Mohawk Indians

[] ing the lands around their

Village— 1772 (SWJ 8:686)

            By 1773, a more thorough inspection of the facts in this case revealed that Klock’s statements to the Canajoharies concerning the legality of the 1763 release were in fact correct. However, the Johnson associates were not ready to give up the ship and instead decided to once again attempt to thrall Klock through the introduction of new legislation:

DEAR SIR WILLIAM,

This Moment I had the great pleasu[re ] favor of the 27 ult°. which was the only letter [ ] self from our Friends by this post: — As I must [ ] ready the Post going off early in the morning, the [ ] sev^l Friends who will not write to me, I shall first [ ] Matters of business as they happen to occurr hoping that [ ] impute the want of method to the continual hurry in which I am[ ] arily involved, and of which I am fully persuaded few can have [any] conception.— In the first place, the Act I suggested a hint of for qu[ieting] Antient Possessions is impracticable, and on more mature reflection I am satisfied in this particular. — As for the Indian Affair, it is thus: the Gov', having spoke to the parties, they have all resigned & re-acknowledged the Conajoharee Release, as on Inspection, there was a long (unnotticed) erazure, which rendered it invalid. This being done & Brown having Executed it [the] Gov', says that he will think of some farther measures for compelling [[Klock]] The Mohock Affair is likely to be soonest determined, the Gov', will in a few days send a Message to the House recommending a bill, which some one of the Members will Move for, & then I shall speak to it elaborately. — But, how it will go, I can not Determine & some of our Members have been instructed by their Constituents to Oppose it. — [Guy Johnson to Sir William Johnson, New York February 2, 1773] (SWJ 8:702).

______

[NewYork February 16, 1773]  [ ] not to be settled at [ ] [ ] You have heard that the P [ ] [ ap]proved & Sworn to,(myself being one of] [ Go]vernor says that a Minute in their favor [ ] on the Council books, & an Ord'. to the Rec'. Gen^l. [ ] part of Van Homes Patent off the Quit rent List. [ ] as Klock stands single & we must see what to do with him [betwee]n this & next Winter; as also what you have done with the [Cana]joharees about the Exchange that Cockburne was to make,— [] Settled, should Klock still be obstinate, an Act of the Legislature [or some] other measure must be fallen upon. — . . . (SWJ 8:714)

______

            The last word on the dispute over the Canajoharie Patent came in 1774, when Klock in a matter totally unrelated to the dispute over the patent, sailed to Old England with a Mohawk Indian in tow. The Mohawks took the opportunity of a perceived injustice to one of their tribal members to not only accost Klock, but to once again attempt to force him to sign a release to the lands which he had legally purchased from the Canajoharie Indians:

Guy Park, Aug. 2d 1774

Having been much indisposed for some days past it Was not sooner in my power to write you on a matter complained of by the Indians at the last Congress [July 11,1774] respecting the conduct of their old Antagonist, GEO: KLOCK. It would take up too much of your time to enter at present into the relation of his repeated Offences; these were highly aggravated by the circumstance of his seducing one of their People to accompany him last Winter to England and Exhibiting him as a Show, but LORD DARTMOUTH having sent in quest of KLOCK he returned hastily to America & defrauded the Indian of his money on the passage, of this the Indian complained & went (with some others) to his House, where they took part of that Cash away and insisted on his signing a Release for part of the Lands of their Village, included in the patent of Van Horne and Livingston, which all the other Proprietors had long since done. He at length promised to comply & appointed a time, but when their Chiefs attended for that purpose with a Justice of the Peace, they were refused admittance & shortly after he went to Albany, from whence he transmitted an affidavit of his danger with a View to have the Canajoharee Indians Indicted by the Grand Jury, tho' SIR W'^M. JOHNSON had given them a strict Caution against offering him any Insult, promising that the Affair should be laid before Government as it had been before, tho' without effect, he having refused to Execute the Release. KLOCK has since returned to his House, where he keeps close so that the Indians have nothing to expect from his Justice & thro' repeated disappointsments are in doubt of relief from Government; this has induced some of their People to throw out threats, which I have hitherto prevented them from putting into execution, but the Neighbours are much alarmed & have lately proposed to Petition your Honour, requesting that he may be compelled to satisfy the Indians or that some steps be taken for freeing the Neighborhood from the apprehensions occasioned by his quarrel. —The Copy of the Speech made by the Canajoharees, which I now inclose, will explain their sentiments; but I am concerned least some accident should happen, as I can't see how they can be relieved & he now gives out that he has mortgaged or sold the Lands in dispute. I could, however, wish I was enabled to promiset hem some relief, whilst I am endeavoring to prevent mischief, as their public complaint to the rest has made it a matter of serious concern. (SWJ8:1192).

            Fortunately, for Klock, the American Revolution intervened. The 1776 departure of the Johnson Family to Canada brought an end to the feuding over the patent. Any improvements made by the Canajoharies within the Sixth Allotment of the patent, including the “Indian Castle Church,”  were vacated with the departure of Joseph Brant in 1775 and his sister, Molly Brant Johnson, in 1778.²⁹Thus, the Johnsons were unsuccessful in their quest & Klock was free to retain his lands within the patent.

            The final verdict in this case seems to have came in the August of 1808 Session of the “the Supreme Court of Judicature and in the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and the Correction of Errors, in the State of New York” in “Jackson, ex dem. J. G. Klock andG. G. Klock and others, against Hudson”, which found that the deed transferring title to the Sixth Allotment of the patent was unsustainable as Philip Livingston & William Livingston (as heirs of Philip Livingston),Walter Rutherford, John Duncan, & William Burnet Brown was invalid as only a portion of those named upon the instrument had a just title to lands within the Canajoharie Patent at the time of the “release”, and that at least one party with legal rights to the lands had refused to sign the said indenture. Thus, the deed of November 22, 1763 was deemed illegal and unenforceable. But the court also ruled that the deeds from the Canajoharie Indians to Klock and Fonda were valid. The opinion of the Courts also stated that even if the Indians were able to sustain a claim that their continued occupation of the lands after they had sold them to the British Crown was sufficient grounds to sustain a claim of adverse possession, the validity of nearly all Indian Deeds issued to the Crown would be laid open to possible revocation as the Indians had continued to remain upon many of the Colonial Patents within the State of New York (SCJ, 3:371). Could there be any wonder why the Johnsons were unsuccessful in having the Canajoharie Patent annulled and in having the government force Klock to vacate his possessions without compensation? Interestingly, the New York State Court cites amongst the authorities in its decision Britain’s Common Law as a basis for their decision. 

            The history of this dispute having been reexamined, it appears that an age tradition of maligning the character of George Klock with a charge of land fraud is unjustifiable. The case of George Klock, Sir William Johnson, and the Canajoharie Patent is truly an instance where historians have shouted: Please don’t confuse us with the facts.