While we know our northern friends may not feel it, in the South, Spring is
here. So we thought we'd share a few of our gardening sites appropriate
for this time of the year. Along with gardening, there's grilling, and getting
ready to diet so that you can fit back into that bathing suit this summer!
Hon. William Dudley Foulke was then introduced as the next speaker.
Indian Agents And The
Spoils System By Hon. William Dudley Foulke.
I cannot conceive of any time more favorable for effective work than the
present. There is now at the head of the Indian Bureau a man whom you know well,
and in whom you have confidence. There is at the head of the Interior Department
a man whom I know to be conscientiously desirous of doing his duty, whether to
his own advantage or disadvantage, in regard to the red man as well as the
white; and there is at the head of our Government the Chief Executive of the
United States a man who has appeared at previous conferences, and shown his
interest in the Indians; a man whose name stands as the synonym for civic
righteousness. So this is the time for work.
The spoils system has been the lion in the way. I had occasion not long ago to
look over the list of changes of Indian agents made during the past three or
four administrations, and I found that in Mr. Cleveland's first administration,
among 60 agents, all were changed but 2; in Mr. Harrison's administration there
were 76 changes, and only 8 were suffered to remain; during Mr. Cleveland's
second term there were 81 changes, and only 4 were suffered to remain; in Mr.
McKinley's first administration, among 88 agencies, there were 79 changes, only
9 being suffered to remain and only 1 reappointed. That would indicate that
Indian agents were a pretty bad set of men to require so many changes, and many
of them have been bad men, but once in a while a good man was turned out to make
way for a bad man.
The reason is, that under the spoils system of distributing offices the fitness
of the man for the place is hardly considered. The thing that is considered is
the number of votes his influence can secure for the Senator or Member of
Congress who secures his appointment. That is a very bad system. Mr. Garrett
spoke of the desirability of doing away with Indian agents, but you can not do
away with them now. No law for that purpose would pass, for the reason that
members of Congress desire to keep the patronage, and would vote against a law
for abolishing agencies.
These numerous changes of agents have an evil effect upon the Indians. If the
Indians are to respect the Government, they should have men representing the
Government permanently, who are worthy of their respect. Moreover, any scheme
for the amelioration of the condition of the Indian are certain to come to
naught if the agent who plans them is dismissed before they can be carried out.
You can not do any good thing while the spoils system remains. There are bad
agents now who perhaps will be removed, but other bad agents may take their
places. It is the system that is wrong.
How, then, shall we get a better system? I would not apply to Congress, because
I do not think we would get the result we desire. Congress is the bulwark of the
spoils system. But the President of the United States does not desire patronage.
I think I can say that the Secretary of the Interior does not care for
patronage. Such men are above it. It is through their instrumentality that the
reform must take place. How can it be done? The Constitution provides that
Indian agents are to be nominated by the President of the United States and
confirmed by the Senate. You cannot escape that. But the President has the
right, in conjunction with the Civil Service Commission, to provide rules for
his own guidance, and to say that he will nominate no man unless that man has
proved his qualifications for the office by prescribed tests. If the President
will adopt rules of this description it will practically eliminate patronage
appointments. If the office were a consulship he could provide that a candidate
should be appointed only after a competitive examination, showing that he
understood the duties of the place better that any of his competitors; but the
office of Indian agent is one where the qualifications are different. An agent
should have tact and business capacity, qualities which can not so well be shown
by competitive examinations. They can be shown, however, by long experience in
the service; and it seems to me that if the rules adopted should provide that
Indian agents could only be appointed by promotion from superintendents of
schools, and from the higher grades of the classified service, or detailed from
the Army, it would exclude all others, and patronage would be extinct. Senators
could no longer recommend their henchmen, because they are not in those places.
We might not always get the best men, but we would get men of experience whose
positions was a guaranty of good character. But even if we did not get any
better men than at present, still, if we could destroy patronage, and thus
eliminate the motive which Congressmen have for opposing good legislation, we
would do a great deal. I have reason to think this may be accomplished. I had a
conversation last week with the President regarding the importance of applying
civil service reform principles to the appointment of Indian agents. I am not
authorized to speak for him, but I am sure his mind is not inhospitable to a
plan something like that suggested.
I remember that once out in Indiana a man and his wife were crossing a rapid
stream. They had a strong horse and a little horse. They were in danger of
floating down the river, and the man was whipping the small horse, but his wife
cried, "John, whip the strong horse." He did so, and they got safely over the
stream. The thing for the friends of the Indian to do is to whip the strong
horse to establish the merit system and destroy the spoils system. If you can do
that, a good deal of the work for the Indian will have been done.
Miss Mary Collins. The question of leasing lands has come to us at Standing Rock
Agency. We had a council of our Indians to consider the question. A great cattle
company wanted to hire the land, and the Indians, without a single exception,
voted against it, and their speeches were very interesting and strong. They
said: "If we begin renting our lands, and depending on the income which we shall
receive in this way, then we begin to pauperize our young men. We old ones have
had to live off the Government, but we do not want our young men to do that."
The vote was unanimous. The Indians were sent back to their homes; but we
received word that there was to be another council, because the thing had to be
put through, as the Indian Commissioner wanted it done. At the next council Dr.
Ward and Dr. Warner of New York were present, and they heard the whole thing.
Again the Indians all were opposed to leasing the lands. Before I came away I
heard a man say that the thing would be put through. I said it could not if the
Indians voted against it, as the Indians had treaty rights. I was answered it
was a very easy thing; that the Indian agent could not lease the land, but he
could permit men to come in with their cattle. The land asked by the agent was
the northwest corner, but the land referred to in the telegram, I understand,
was all land north of Grand River. As that valley is where all our Indians in
the western part of the reservation live, it would practically ruin all their
farms, and drive their cattle from water. There is little water on the
reservation.
Miss Reel. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs is opposed to having the Indians
lease lands. In the Indian Territory land is leased for 30 cents an acre, where
it used to be leased for 3 cents. Cattlemen can not pay 30 cents an acre and
make money. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs is anxious to have the Indians
live on their own lands.
Mr. C. F. Meserve. A word in regard to this matter. I refer, not to what is
termed cattle land, but such as our English friend would call an "agricultural"
farm. I do not believe we shall ever get this problem settled until the Indian
is got upon his land, until he will stay upon it and work upon it; but there are
individual holdings of from 500 to 1,000 acres, and I would have a large portion
of these holdings rented, and not allow the rent to be paid in money, but in
labor, and the Indian should be taught by the white man how to plow, to
cultivate, and to do all kinds of farm work.
The Chair. A note comes to me asking me to inquire why the Indian agent thought
the Commissioner wished to have the land leased to the cattlemen. Miss Collins
will perhaps tell us about it.
Miss Collins. A telegram was received from Washington telling them to put the
thing through, signed by the Assistant Commissioner. I cannot quote the exact
words of the telegram, but that was the substance. The Indians are just
beginning to become accustomed to the idea of allotments, and the speakers at
the council all spoke of the necessity of the young Indians learning to keep
herds. They said: "Our land is large and grass is plentiful, but there is but
little water. We desire to have our herds increased, giving Cows to our young
men out of the money due us."
Dr. Lyman Abbott. I wish some one would suggest a method by which Indian lands
and tribal funds can be allotted so as to benefit, not harm, the Indian. There
is a difference among the Indians as among white people. Some could carry on a
cattle ranch better than I could. I wish some one would tell us what the Indian
is to do who has land, which he does not wish to cultivate. He does not wish to
be anchored to the soil; he wishes to be an engineer, a teacher, a lawyer, a
doctor. What is he to do with his land then? How can he get the benefit of his
land if he has no right to lease it? At the same time, how is the Indian who
leases his land to be guided so that he shall not spend the money he gets from
it in drink?
General Morgan. I am not prepared to answer these questions. This matter was
carefully considered in the Indian Office, and we found that there are many aged
people who can not cultivate the land; a number who are physically unable to do
it; there are a number of minors, infants, children up to 18 years of age, who
could not; there is a large body of women who can not possibly take a farm and
cultivate it. There are quite a number who wish to teach or preach or follow
some other profession or some other business who have no taste for agriculture.
It is impossible that they should take this raw land and make farms of it unless
they abandon all other pursuits. Then there are many to whom land has been
assigned who have no money, no farming utensils, no experience. What shall they
do? What shall be done for those people who own these large bodies of land which
they themselves by no possibility can use? This is the practical question, and
it must be recognized in any scheme adopted by the Government. It makes it
unwise and irrational to condemn the whole leasing system as in itself vicious.
Major Bright. To what extent is the matter of leasing subject to the approval of
the Commissioner of Indian Affairs or the Secretary of the Interior?
The Chair. Absolutely and altogether. No lease on a reservation before allotment
can be made without the authority and approval of the Secretary of the Interior
exercised through the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
Major Bright. Would it not be easy to devise a system by which the proper
information could be given to him?
The Chair Much could be done to check the evils, and our Board has year by year
recommended that this loose way of leasing should be stopped.
Miss Scoville.
Dr. Abbott asks a question that I have been studying for some time, and while I
know there are many details to be considered, it seems to me that the answer
must be found in some system for homesteading Indian lands. In such a plan,
every allotment for tribal land would have to be proved up by the Indian by
three to five years' use of his land before he received his final deed for it.
This would not throw open the reservations as rapidly, but it would teach the
Indian the value of his land and check his roving habits, which are the root of
the harmful form of leasing. The trouble with the Omaha and Winnebago Indians
was that their land was handed over to them whether they wanted it or not. To a
wild Indian it is less than nothing to have 160 acres, since it deprives him of
the right to use many thousands, and he must learn to value land by working for
it. Many an educated Indian, as Dr. Abbott says, may do something better than
"agricultural farming. For such could there not be a time limit set when he must
decide whether he will take it himself or not, say at the age of 30? If he will
not take the land then or finds some other work, there should be a certain
payment to him from the funds of the tribe, or by the leasing of the land, to
help him in his chosen business. When it comes to leasing, there should be a
preference given to leasing to Indians. At Pine Ridge this summer, with
8,000,000 acres of land, white men said there was not enough to support 7,000
Indians. Yet in the White Clay district there were Indians, with good herds of
cattle, who already had in use much more land than any allotment could give
them, and the missionaries say that if you deprive those Indians of the land you
will deprive them of any future in the cattle business. I think they are better
on a cattle ranch than Dr. Abbott would be. There are men who cannot read and
write who would gladly hire a good many acres and use it for cattle; and the
tendency is to bring the Indians into that cattle life as the first step toward
business relations.
Rev. Frank Wright, a Choctaw Indian, was introduced as the next
speaker.
Rev. Frank Wright. With the Choctaws the land question is, When shall we get hold
of our land? All we want is the land. We were the first of the five tribes to
agree to take it in severalty, and we are the last to get our allotments. I do
not know why. So far as making farmers of the Indians, in dealing with a man you
have got to take him as you find him. You cannot make blacksmiths of all the
Indians, and you can not make farmers of them all. Some will turn to the
ministry, some to medicine, and some to law. You can make no hard and fast rule
about it. But the first principle to teach him is that he must labor to take
care of himself. The Indian must become self-dependent. We have been giving them
rations till they are pauperized. It is a scandal and a shame, and I shall be
glad when rations are absolutely cut off and the Indians must work or starve. I
have worked among the Apaches, who were held as prisoners, and have established
missions among them, and I want to tell you what I have found there. These
prisoners were compelled to work, and it had a wonderful influence on them. It
gave them an incentive; it took away their aimless life; it took them away from
gambling; it showed them how to do things. I am in favor of compelling Indians
to work. These Apaches worked eight hours a day; they lived in houses; they had
plenty to eat every day, and I rejoiced with them. They raise corn and cattle,
and are compelled to save their money. They have over 2, 000 head of cattle, and
they are taught to breed and take care of them like any other person. The result
is that they are getting along, and when they are free they will know how to
take care of themselves.
If you could go down to the Cheyenne camp and build a guardhouse and compel the
men to work and teach them how, it would be a good thing. But they must be
taught and helped or they become discouraged. They are not in touch with the
whites. The missionaries build their houses near the railroads. I believe if
farmers would go among them and live near them the Indians would learn to work,
but as it is there is no one to show r them how r . They must be taught to work
and then thrown on their own resources. That alone will give them independence
of character.
Mr. Meserve. Mr. Wright has been a missionary for some time, and has established
missions among the Indians. He had a station where the Mohonk Lodge is. I have
traveled for days with him, and I wish there were hundreds of such missionary
workers.
This site
includes some historical materials that may imply negative stereotypes
reflecting the culture or language of a particular period or place. These
items are presented as part of the historical record and should not be
interpreted to mean that the WebMasters in any way endorse the stereotypes
implied .
Thirty-Third Annual Report Of The Board Of Indian Commissioners,
1901
