Recent events surrounding the New York State/Indian taxation issue have taken on a new and interesting look. Early Monday Gov. Pataki's office issued a press release stating that the St. Regis Mohawks had reached an interim agreement with the state. By 8:35 p.m. that same day, however, the purported Mohawk signatories, Philip Tarbell and Edward Smoke, had sent a letter to Pataki stating that the press release was inaccurate and was mis- representing a draft proposal never ratified through community consultation.

On Sunday a peaceful ceremony and protest attended by approximately 50 people on the Onondaga Nation was attacked by more than 100 state troopers dressed in full riot gear. Those who observed the attack, including members of the Syracuse press, expressed astonishment at the levels of force used by the troopers on a small group that included elderly women and children.

Why is the governor escalating his use of coercion and force against the Indians? The answer may rest in a recent State Supreme Court ruling.

On Wednesday, May 14, 1997, NYS Supreme Court Justice Rose H. Sconiers rendered a decision that effectively dissected and repudiated the movements of the state to structure secret Indian compacts under highly unusual and suspect motives. The State Supreme court ruling declined a request by the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance to confirm a temporary seizure of Indian gasoline, tanker and truck, and further found the state's "Indian Agreements" to be illegal.

Writes Judge Sconiers, in the memorandum decision: "It is ... clear, even to the casual observer, that the real interest underlying this recent extraordinary showing of the State police powers, is the desire, not to collect taxes, but rather to advance the commercial interest of "retail parity" and thereby defeat the previous competitive advantage of Reservation sales.

"This Court is struck by how little has changed for the Indian over the past century and a half and believes that to the Indian respondents herein, it owes a responsibility of more than a simple review of the applicable authority cited by Petitioner [NYS] and must, at the very minimum, acknowledge the underlying inequities of which they complain."

Sconiers further writes that the state's concept of "retail parity" was a nebulous imposition that bears no legislative definition or approval and that only the State Legislature can formally enact "Indian or Reservation Agreements."

This first cogent, intellectual analysis of the NYS and Indian tax conflict by Justice Sconiers goes a long way toward fleshing out the inconsistencies and inequities obscured by state and Indian negotiators in their zeal to first strike a deal and then sell it to the respective publics. But their emphasis on political expediency over the implementation of fully functional democratic processes has come at a great cost to hundreds of Indian workers across the state who were suddenly put out of work and back into the ranks of the unemployed.

When pondering the Indians' discussion of the greater issues involved, Judge Sconiers gets to the roots of the conflict: "Is not the Petitioner [NYS] seeking to impose the will of non-Indian retailers over their Indian counterparts through the coercion of State tax laws to compel entry into price parity agreements which will surely mean the end to most Indian retail businesses?; Is not this 'Indian Agreement,' now pressed by Petitioner upon the Six Nations, only serving to divide one Tribe against another?; Does not this 'Indian Agreement' remove the only economic advantage to Reservation status that has ever been enjoyed by Indians?; Does not this 'Indian Agreement,' once the special interests of retail parity are realized, again promise freedom from the imposition and collection of taxes, the very thing the Indians have argued they were entitled to all along?"

Although answering these questions "perhaps so," Sconiers' ruling is far from ambiguous. The State Supreme court declined the state's request to confirm the seizures of the gas, tanker and truck and further found the state's "Indian Agreements" to be "an unlawful usurption of legislative power, illegal and unenforceable." The court went further, citing that "the police-enforced embargoes of Indian Nations amounts to "selective and unjust enforcement of laws," since these blockades were applied only to those Indian nations that did not sign the unlawful "Indian Agreements."

For the Indian leadership, peace lies in the expansion of their democratic systems so that the beliefs and interests of all their families, not just those of a select few hereditary leaders, are fairly represented in consensus agreements. Amazingly, Sconiers' decision also questioned the socialistic economic structures established by Pataki's "Indian Agreements," whereby Indian economic power is concentrated in select hereditary family lines.

For the state leadership, peace lies in the realization that the special interest lobbying and previous court rulings, upon which they had acted, have lacked objective analysis of the economic, social and governmental realities of the sovereign Indian nations. By structuring deals that did not involve transparent democratic processes the state has also increased the potentials for Indian on Indian violence.

This ruling, the first insightful appraisal of this complicated issue, has the governor and his tax department concerned. They will undoubtedly attempt to ignore the Sconiers decision -- hoping that other Indian nations do not realize its full implications -- until such time that another judge, with lesser insight, rules in their favor.

-- Tim Johnson is executive manager of the award-winning Native Americas Journal, published by the American Indian Program at Cornell Univesity, Akwe:kon Press extension services.