Rensselaer Republican, Volume 12, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 13 February 1880 — INDIAN COMMISSIONER HAYT’S REMOVAL. [ARTICLE]

INDIAN COMMISSIONER HAYT’S REMOVAL.

■tepart at the In veaxiga Ung Ceaamittoa kUtluc iu New Yerk Secretary •eknrs’e Order es Removal Approved By the Board of India* CornmlMloner*. ' .”1 > A New York special of the sth to the Chicago TtVmne says: TBe action of Secretary Bchura tn removing Mr. Hnt from tit office of OimmiMionet Indian Affair* was approved by the Board of Indian CommissiOnera yesterday, after the adoption of the report of the committee apS tinted to investigate the charges made by eneral Clinton B. Flak. The protracted discussion and the examination or new witnesses that preceded the final action of the Commissioners did not result in any modification of the report m originally drafted by the committee. Mr. A. (I Barstow, Chairman of the Board, to the only member of the committee who has not signed this report. “On the day of our appointment,” rey the committee, “we visited the Indian Bureau, had a brief interview with the Commissioner, made a hasty inspection of some of the records, returned and reported progress, convinced that a full investigation would require a considerable period of time.” “ The case,” say the committee, “ must generally be divided into two p.urt«—the first concerning the interests of the Indians, and the second the prosecution of an ex-Agent who had left the service in consequence of malfeasance in office. As to the first port our investigation has brought the cothmittce to the conclusion that when the offenses of Agent Hart were discovered proper steps were taken by the authorities in Washington to investigate their nature, to remove the Agent from the service, to remedy the abuses existing at the Agency, to put the Agency under proper control, and to protect the interests of the Indian. The responsibility for the long delay which happened hi turning over the property by A/jent Hart to the one properly authorized to receive it cannot be justly charged to the Indian Office. As to the second part—the prosecution of ex-Agent Hart—we find that a number of affidavits bearing evidence of great misconduct on the part of Hart were delivered to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs by Inspector Hammond iu tbe month of May; that in June Hammond was directed to return to Arizona tor the purpose, among other things, of completing the testimony: that in the meantime these affidavits remained at the Indian Office unacted upon; that in July another case of malfeasance on the part of the ex-Agcnt was sworn to by Colonel J. Biggs, transmitted to the Indian Office by Inspector Hammond, and forwarded to the Department of Justice for the prosecution of Hart; that the affidavits first spoken of remained unacted upon in the Indian Office after Inspector Hammon., had returned from Arizona iu October without bringing any additional testimony; that on tbe S3d of October the Commissioner recommended to the Secretary of the Interior that the Department of Justice be requested to employ an assistant to the District-Attorney in Arizona in the prosecution of Hurt, which request was promptly forwarded to the Department of Justice; that, however; the affidavits communicated to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs by Inspector Hammond in May still remained in the Indian Office until the 7th of January, 1880, when they were sent up to the Interior Department for transmission to tbe Department of Justice, accompanied with a number of letters from Inspector Hammond and various other persons, touching the case.

“ The delay of action on the part of the Com mlaaioner of Indian Affairs on the affidavits last mentioned to explained by him by the allegation that it was best to keep them dntil the facts sworn to in them were supplemented by testimony expected from Inspector Hammond and other sources. It seems to us that thia explanation cannot be considered sufficient, inasmuch as the additional evidence and correspondence transmitted to the Department of Justice, together with tbe affidavits in January, does not aud to the strength of the testimony sufficiently to show why the same affidavits might not have been transmitted before. We cannot avoid the conclusion that while one case against the ex-Agent, Hart, was promptly forwarded to the Department of Justice for prosecution, with regard to the other cases, involving more serious charges, neither the Commissioner nor Inspector were sufficiently in earnest. Inspector Hammond admits that in the spring of 1879 he was personally interested in the proposed purchase of the Washington Mine, and that in A igust, upon the arrival in Arizona of Edward Knapp, the so-called nephew of the Commissioner, ho devoted much time and attention in assisting Mr. Knapp in sccuringthe mine for Mr. Hogencamp. “.Late in the progress of our examination the following facts were elicited: When Mr. Hoeencamp telegraphed Mr. Hammond that he would send out a special agent to purchase the mine, he replied to Mr. Hogencump, ‘ How shall I know him?’ To which Mr. Hayt sent the following answer: 'You know Knapp,’ which circumstance, if true, connects Mr. Hayt with the mining transaction. Mr. Hayt, as hereinbefore stated, does not admit sending such reply. “Another fact was elicited—viz.: that Edward Knapp, the so-called nephew of the Commissioner who figured ao conspicuously in this transaction, was passing under an assumed name, and was really Edward Knapp Hayt, the son of the Commissioner, and (bat he adopted this name at the suggestion of his fatner. These circumstances, coupled with the fact that the Commissioner declined to give his testimony until after General Hammond had testified, his alleged unwillingness to have General Hammond correct his statement concerning the genuineness of his letter to Hart, and the long delay in the prosecution of Hart, though furnishing no positive evidence of oomplicity or guilt in compromising a crime for a consideratipn, as was charged, may be taken as sufficient proof that the Commissioner waa cognizant ot tbe sale of a mine by an ex-Indian Agent, charged with gross offenses, through his own son, under an assumed name, to some of his intimate frl( nds, a fact which can scarcely be relieved by his own assurances that he had no interest in the transaction. “It is proper io state that the Secretary of the Interior has been kept fully and constantly advised during tbe progress of our examination. His desire has t>een repeatedly expressed that we ' should probe this matter to the bottqm/ and promptly notify him of all the important facts that might be developed. It to also but right to state that we have found no traces es any officer, clerk, or employe of the Indian Service in the above transaction except those named.” The report to signed by Albert K. Smit hey and William Stickney, a majority of the oommittee. The resolution adopted by the Board Is as follows: “Rcsolwtr, That, in view of tbe facts developed in the report of the special committee touching the conduct of tbe late Commissioner, this Board approves the action of the Secretary of the Interior in removing Mr. Hayt fiom the office of Commissioner of Indian Affairs.” A. C. Barstow presented a minority report, in which he says: “General Hammond’s testimony which, of all the evidence offered, alone directly connects Commissioner Hayt with the wrong-doing charged, was token January », but was afterward altered. In this alteration his testimony on one important point was entirely reversed. Though there arc many susRictous circumstances which bear against Mr. layt sufficient to justify bis removal, they do not necessarily imply guilt. If these circumstances raise doubts, the accused is entitled to the benefit of them.”