Rensselaer Union, Volume 11, Number 21, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 6 February 1879 — THE INDIAN BUREAU. [ARTICLE]

THE INDIAN BUREAU.

The Question ol Its Transfer to the War Department-The Joint Donsresslouul Committee Kqualljr Divided on the Subject-Report of Those members Favoring the Proposed tliailKC. N . t _ . " Wahbjnotos, Jan. 26. The Joint Congressional Committee appointed to consider the advisability of transferring the Indian Bureau from the Interior Department to the War Department, yesterday morning voted on the subject, with the following result: Against transfer, Senator? Saunders, and Oglesby, and Representatives Stewart ana Voorbees—4. In favor of the transfer, Senator McCrecry and Representatives Scales, Hooker and Boone—4. After the vote, a controverly arose as to which of the two reports should be given precedence in the presentation to Congress. The opponents of the transfer claim that its advocates, failing to obtain a majority, must consider theirs the minority report, as an amendment offered to an existing law fails upon a tie vote. Sonator Saunders and others favored authorizing the President at his discretion to turn over to the War Department the control of any tribe or tribes that might be ih rebellion, or giving trouble, or such tribes as the President might think best at this time, and that he was in favor of the SioUX being transferred at once, with the reservation that such transfer shall not effect the school or farming interests, etc. The report of the four members who favor the transfer has just been completed by Representative Boone, and will be submitted to the House the first opportunity. The principal features of the document are as follows!

The history of ottr management of Indian affairs and our treatment of the Indians isoue of shame and mortification to all Hgllt-thtnk-inp and liberal-minded men. A proper Solution of the “ Indian problem” Is pressing itself more strongly upon the public attention every year, demanding the immediate attention of Congress, and cannot, with either safety to the Indians or honor to the Government, be longer deferred. The failure on the part of our Government to discharge its duty to the Indians is not confined to the last few years. Our wrongful treatment of them is co-equal With our existence, though not to the same extent in the earlier and purer days as at present. During all the years past complaints have beefl made Of Violated pledges, broken premises, and lack of. efficient and responsible management. Indeed, the system of the management of the Indian affairs we have pursued (if we have had a system at all) has been unequal to the demands of our duty. Nor has it met the expectations of its instigators and advocates, and to such an eitent have these wrongs been multiplied, and "to such extent have frauds and peculation crept into the management of Indian affairs, and so glaring and shameful have these frauds become that indignant public opinion will not longer look on with indifference and unconcern, but demands that tht|fc matters be looked into, and The wrongs, so far as possible! he righted, and that a policy be adopted which will conform with the dignity and character of our Government, and secure at the same time full and afliple justice to a suffering and outraged people. That these wrongs atid abuses do flow exist, And to a fearful extent, we think no one at all acquainted with the facts will deny. If proof upon this point were wanting or demanded, we have but to refer to the statements of all who have investigated the question, and those familiar with our management, and to those who are to-day strenuous advocates of the present system, and who ask its continuance, and who seem to believe in Its ultimate success.

To go back Into the history of this question, It will be found that Ottr system of Indian management has always been, firttfally and in effect, the system now in vogue. Even while' It was nominally under the War Department, prior to 1849, the system was very much the samis dS tiOVr. We are aware that the general Impression is, that before that time a different system prevailed, and the change In that year, to the Interior Department, was a radical change in the system; but such Is not the case, and while it is true that Superintendents and Agents, being few injnumber, made reports to the War Office, it la also true that neither the Secretary of War nor any officer In the War Department had anything to do with the appointment of these officers, nor was the War Office charged with the duty of supervising them, Or controlling them In any manner up to 1834, While, by this act of 1834, the Secretary of War tfaa given a sort of geueral superintendence of the conduct of Agents and Sub-Agents (appointed by the President), and while by that act the President was authorized to select military men to discharge the duties of Indian Agents, It Is further true that a large majority of the Agents selected were taken from civil life, and much of the sam e machinery was employed in the conduct of Indian affairs as now. We claim that the Indian management has ever been substantially at least as at the present time. Therefore, whatever failure or wrongs hate characterized our management In the past are justly chargeable to our present system, and Whatever of success has attended that management should be credited to that system. Year after year large amounts of money have beon expended with a view to ■civilizing these people, and yet failure is written upon every page of the past history of our efforts in this direction. The Inauguration of the peace policy in 1868 by President Grant, in the opinion of the undersigned, was a virtual admission that the Indian Bureau was incapable of the proper conduct of Indian affairs, and was compelled, therefore, to delegate much of its authority to other hands. From the show of progress made In civilizing, educating and Christianizing the Indians, to which your committee had their attention called while among them last fall, there Is no room to doubt that we should try some method of dealing with this question different from that now in vogue. The glowing accounts of the' rapid strides of the Indians in the way of civilized life, and their rapid march to the standard ol civilization, are not borne out by facts. Shameful Irregularities and gross frauds have criJptinto every branch of the Indian Service. No one Is found with the hardihood to deny that the history of such frauds is visible on every page of Indian management for the laßt score or more of years. Indeed, so flagrant are the frauds and so defiant have their perpetrators become, that it appears a notorious fact that a ring exists, composed of contractors, employes of the bureau and wealthy and influential persons outside, whose object Is to swindle and defraud both the Government and the Indians. - The opinion entertained by the undersigned fs that these frauds will forever exisveven .with the most vigilant, scrupulous honesty „ which can be brought Into the management of the Indian Bureau, because we believe the method or systemof that department , is inadequate to prevent fraud, however honest the head of the office may be, and for the reason that the system of accountability In the department is not close enough to detect corruption.

We are asked the very pertinent question whether or not the same abuses and frauds would be practiced if the management should be transferred to the War Department We think not, for a fair and very plain and obvious reason, to-wlt: Whatever else may be said of our army officers, they are, as a class, men of high honor and strict integrity. Thef r training hat impressed these high qualities upon them, and their association requires their constant observance. Every officer in the army is a check upon every other officer, and such is the system of accountability in the army that it is nearly if not quite impossible for an officer to act dishonestly without being detected, and upon being detected, punishment follows swiftly and surely. With civil Agents this is not the case. They are appointed generally as partisans and for a limited time, subject at any time to removal, paid small salaries, and can only hope to bold them position a few years at the most, and hence have not the same inducements to act honestly and fairly that an army officer has. We do not undertake to say that the War Department has such perfect management that abuses do not occur in its administration also, hut we think jt compares faC orably with any other department, and that fewer Instances of dishonest practices have,bsan laid to its charge than to almost any other branch ' of the '•* Next to the question of absolute justice to the Indians, comes that of the comparative cost of the two systems, and we are decidedly of the opinion that a large amount of money can and will be saved, if the transfer be made. If, the committee say, it he true that army officers csn perform the duties of Indian Agents as faithfully, diligently and honestly ss civil agents have, and are doing; and if the War Department can purchase ss cheaply as,

the Indian Bureau; and If the means of transportation In the War Department ate much superior: and If the systems of inspection are equal; and if army officers are not so apt to become victims of temptation; and If we can teenra more faithful and. honest administration through such armyofficers, and thereby avoid some, It not all, the Indian wars—we say, If these,, or any number of these, propositions be true, then who can say that we shall not save millions of dollars In our Indian management If this transfer Is made, and at the tame time seoum justice to the Indians, the lack of which hal caused so much trouble! The report concludes: We believe the Interest of the Government and the good of the Indian will be best promoted bv transferring the management of Indian affairs to the War Department, leaving it discretionary with the Secretary of War !o appoint civil Agenta to those agencies which, In bis judgment, the interest of all concerned will be best secured by such Agents, and officers of the army, where the interests of the service require It.