Dr. Lucien C. Warner, New York 

Dr. Lucien C. Warner was asked to speak.

Dr. Lucien C. Warner, New York. It has been my privilege to spend about two weeks in traveling through the Sioux Reservation, and I want to speak especially of the Standing Rock Agency, where there are about 4,000 Indians. It is a grazing country, where it is impossible to raise any crops. Grain and vegetables do not succeed oftener than once in three years. There is no water outside the river and wells, and the water of the wells is often so mineral that it destroys the grass. If you were to give land in severalty and fence off the portion next to water, the rest would be worthless. It must be used for grazing in large parcels.

For the Indians to get a living by grazing is not so simple as it might at first appear. I made inquiries as to how much land it would take to keep one cow, and the very best informed men assured me it would take 25 acres. With 160 acres a man could keep 6 cows, but if he had to buy wheat and potatoes, and could raise nothing but meat, that would not be enough to support a family; it would hardly support a single person. Most of the Indians have only 2 or 3 cows, though some have as many as 20 or 30. They realize that only by having large herds can they support themselves. There was talk of leasing this land to herders from outside. The plan was to bring in 15,000 cattle from Texas upon this reservation and to fat-ten them here for market. It would be an excellent business for the railroads, but what would become of the Indians? If you put 10,000 or 15,000 cattle in there they would have to have water, and they would monopolize the streams and sources of water. It would discourage the attempts of the Indians to increase their herds. But it would have another effect more disastrous. It is difficult to tell the ownership of cattle even under the most favorable conditions. Sometimes the owner does not see his cattle for six months. The custom is to round them up and brand them just after calving. Experience shows that if the white man's cattle are among the Indians that the calves get branded a little early, and it is discovered that nearly all the cows that belong to the whites have twins and those that belong to the Indians have no calves. It is no wonder that the Indian becomes discouraged.

This is the economic problem before the Indians. I am not sure that they will be able to make a living on their land. Perhaps it would be better for them to move, but they enjoy raising horses and cattle, and there is a possibility that they may succeed. If, however, the land is leased they will have to leave. They never could succeed in competition with the whites, and the Government would have to supply rations as long as they remain on this land.

I visited many of the Indians at their own houses, living and sleeping among them, and I want to pay my tribute to the progress they have made in civilization. The proportion of those who attended church and were members of the different churches is as large as that of the average community here in the East. I was surprised and delighted to see the impression that the gospel has made upon them. They were living in comfortable log houses, well dressed, and enjoying many of the comforts of civilization. Few of them speak English, but they read Dakota and sing with spirit and melody in their own tongue. The great problem before them is economic. It is to teach them how to save, how to work, how to be thrifty. These are lessons, which they learn very slowly.

Miss Collins. I was delighted to hear what Dr. Warner said, for he knows where of he speaks. I took him over the reservation myself, and he saw the country there. We passed over a large tract where there is no water. Fifty miles from there we went through another district where there is no water, and I did not hesitate to point out to him what our Indians would suffer if they were shut out from the sources of water when they were trying to raise cattle. Before I came away the chiefs came to me, for they thought I was going straight to the Great Father in Washington, and they wanted to send a message to him, and they said: "Tell him not to hurry us; not to go too fast. They are talking about allotting our lands. We trust you to tell the Great Father that if it is necessary to allot us, just to allot our homes, and leave the great grazing land for us to hold together, where we can graze our cattle in common. Tell him we do not wish to lease any part of our land for several reasons." And one of the wise ones said to me: "One reason is that we fear it will be an entering wedge. We could spare some of it for a few years; but by and by, if we succeed, we shall need the whole reservation, but if the white men had been using it, it would not be ours then. We would rather have our land for our own cattle."

I want to say a word about the Indian money. What shall we do with the money that belongs to the Indian? I am one of those Christians who believe that to be a true Christian one should be a true lover of his country. I believe that we have made treaties with these Indians, and that we should keep them. This money in the Treasury belongs to the Indians. Our Indians do not ask for money in cash payment, but they do ask that when students return from school they be given cattle or something to start them in housekeeping. If that is done, and the boy when he comes home has cows given to him, so that he can start a herd, then the whole of Standing Rock Agency will not be too large. It is large, but it is not good for agricultural farming.

President James M. Taylor, of Vassar College, was invited to speak.

President Taylor. There is only one subject on which I can say a word tonight. I was struck by a remark made last night by Mr. Sherman in his interesting address regarding the difficulty in the way of proper reform in many directions, which we are pursuing in the Indian work on account of the treaties that have been made by us, or were made by our fathers with the various Indian tribes. Reference has been made to that subject by one of the speakers this afternoon. I am very sorry to controvert in any way an Impression that a treaty should in all circumstances be maintained, but I raise this question, as a simple, practical question in ethics, Is it always desirable to keep a treaty? I shall not yield to any man or woman here in my reverence for truth, in my abhorrence for untruth, whether on the part of a man or a nation. But it becomes often something more than a simple abstract question of truth and falsehood when we face an issue of this kind. Statesmanship is not, as it was cynically suggested, the property of dead politicians. Statesmanship consists in adjusting ourselves on principles of truth and honor to present conditions. A states-man is a man who dares to put before a nation a course of conduct in harmony with truth and righteousness which may be unpopular today, which may not commend itself to the majority of the people, but which he knows to be for the ultimate good of the nation, and to all concerned with the nation.

I submit this question: If there are treaties with Indian tribes which are standing absolutely in the way of the interests of the Indians, then is it fair, because of the mere abstract love of truth, that we continue to pauperize the Indian, to make less and less a man of him, to threaten him, indeed, with effacement, simply that we may keep a treaty that our fathers made with him?

I do not believe that in any high sense that is truth, nor that in any worthy sense that is righteousness. Our fathers did the best that they knew how, and in many things, perhaps, they did better than their children will ever do. I am not here to discuss that, but it has seemed to me as I have been trained year after year by the Mohonk conference, and as I have read history, that the most vital mistake made was the treating with Indian tribes as separate nations. There was the root of all the evils that have sprung up, and that have been so slowly reforming themselves under the lead of the men and women who have given themselves to the cause in the nation and in Congress. If that be true, it becomes us to remedy the defects of those treaties. The great work of Indian reform has been removing conditions forced upon us by those old treaties.

Let me raise that issue again in the light of concrete facts before us in the very State of New York. There are those on this floor who can speak with fuller knowledge than I can, and who have considered this particular question in connection with Governor Roosevelt's commission; but I have no hesitation in saying that if we should find that by keeping the treaties with the Indians of New York we are bound to maintain a condition that is degrading to the Indian, that is forcing him into pauperism, that is reducing his manhood, that is encouraging social conditions that are vicious in the tribe and dangerous to the surrounding population, I would break any treaty by whomsoever made, in the interests of truth, righteousness, and the welfare of the Indian.

Now, as I said, this is a very unpleasant subject to bring into any discussion, because one is so easily able to say, Why, that is not reverence for truth, and that is not respect for honor. All that you can say is, If you respect honor and truth more than you do the saving of the human soul, then you must have your honor and truth. I would much rather be instrumental in seeming to set aside honor and truth, and helping, thereby, some human soul up to a higher conception of honor and truth.

We must do some straight thinking and straight talking. I am aware that it will be said, Oh, you will endanger society if you set aside the duty to keep treaties, and it will be the introduction of a new element of danger. If we can not be fair in this matter, then probably we would better let them alone; but I am not prepared to admit that there are not able and conscientious men, like the Indian Commissioner, who can adjust these matters precisely as fairly if the treaty were set aside, and it is a simple matter of fact that we have been setting them aside. After fifty years of experience we ought to have gained some wisdom to readjust these matters so that they may meet present conditions.

I do not know that there has been a very loud outcry among the American people against the proposition to set aside the treaty made with Great Britain in regard to the canal at Nicaragua or Panama. At least we have been pushing along those issues until we seem to be in the way of getting a new treaty. Is that right or wrong? It is the only way in which we can adjust such matters between nations. When you take the great body of gifts made to the universities of Great Britain, what comes to pass? When conditions change, then Parliament is asked to meet those changed conditions. For instance, because five hundred years ago a man left money to give a glass of beer to every applicant at St. Cross, shall the bequest be defended when it is found to encourage pauperism and tramps? Parliament says: "Very well, these agreements were made when conditions were very different. To carry out the conditions made with our ancestors would defeat the very purpose of the gift, and Parliament has turned over bequest after bequest, and there is no more conservative body than the English Parliament. It has reinterpreted the conditions, and has put the funds into the hands of the university to administer according to the conditions of today and according to the real meaning of the testator. That, it seems to me, is statesmanship and honoring the truth in the largest possible sense.

President Gates. That is straight talk. We have got to face that thing and to do the honestly best thing for the people who have been our wards.

A formal resolution of thanks was presented on behalf of the business committee by Mr. Foster as follows:

The Lake Mohonk Indian Conference, at the close of its nineteenth annual gathering, gratefully acknowledges its obligations to its hosts, Mr. and Mrs. A. K. Smiley and Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Smiley. Through a long succession of beautiful Octobers the favored members of this conference have been permitted to climb these mountains, to enjoy the generous hospitality of this house, to meet one another in delightful Christian fellowship, to discuss with earnestness, but unfailing kindness of spirit, great philanthropic questions, and to see, as the years have done, one after another of the aims of the conference attained and the measures advocated by it pass into the law of the land. All this we owe to the high purpose and large plans of Mr. A. K. Smiley, heartily seconded by Mrs. Smiley, the gracious lady whose presence at late conferences is deeply missed, and to Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Smiley, whose attention to the details of this gathering contributes so much to its success.

We recognize that the personality of these friends pervades this conference and gives it its character; and if the conference has, as we believe, accomplished some-thing for the good of the Indian and our land, it is due in large degree to the wise forethought, the self-forgetful effort, the tact, and the Christian courage of our hosts.

We are grateful to them, not only for the abundant hospitality they have extended us, but for the opportunity of usefulness they have given us, and for the influences we have here received in the development of our own lives and character.

Rev. Donald S. Mackay, D. D., of New York, seconded the resolution in a few words, and was followed by Dr. Theodore L. Cuyler. Of all these speeches, space has been found only for abstracts of Dr. Mackay's and Dr. Cuyler's.

Dr. Donald Sage Mackay. This conference has been to me a wonderful revelation. Everyone, in these days of pampered luxury, enjoys the experience of a new sensation. It was to me a new sensation when we came out of the darkness the other evening, under the gloom and shadow of Sky Top, and saw the sparkling lights upon the lake. " Here," we said, "is a Venice on the top of a hill." When we came to the door and felt the cordial hand grasp of our host, whom I had never seen, but of whom I had heard so much, his welcome was characteristic of the warmth and cheer of this beautiful spot. Our host is one of the men, all too rarely met with, who knows how to say the right thing in the right way.

Another revelation has come to me with the conference itself. I did not know, to my shame be it said, that there was still a living issue in the Indian question. I had thought that that question had been solved long ago, and that this conference was only a kindly way of giving us a happy holiday. Well, we have had the holiday, but with it we have had also a vast amount of information and inspiration in addition. It has all been wonderful to me.

We have heard much of the colonial policy of Great Britain and of France, and some of us have been justly proud of the way in which Great Britain has carried on her vast colonial empire. But when have you ever heard of a nation inaugurating a policy for its new colonies under circumstances such as those which have brought us together to this place, when men of light and leading have been devoting themselves to devising educational, social, and economic schemes for furthering the progress of these new colonies that have come under the flag? When, for instance, did you ever hear of Great Britain sending for the Egyptians, to teach and train them in the arts and ways of culture, as we have sent for these young Cuban teachers to be trained in the educational system of America? When, in fact, did you ever hear of any nation holding such a conference as this, devoting itself to a thoughtful and exhaustive study of the new problems, which an enlarging territory has created?

We go back to our homes as friends of the Indian some of us, perhaps, to pose as enemies of another kind of Indian in New York city with a deeper sense of our duties as citizens, realizing that after all it is on devotion to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, whose love has blessed this nation so signally in the past, whose presence is the beacon star of our nation's way in the future; it is on devotion to Him that rests the hope of our nation and the honor of its flag.

It is with great pleasure that I second the resolution.

Dr. Theodore L. Cuyler. Good friends, I have been asked to add a few words of parting before we turn our faces homeward, and they must be words of hearty congratulation on the splendid success of this conference. My deafness has prevented me from drinking in your streams of eloquence, but my very much better half has quick ears to hear, and she has told me that your speeches have been a perpetual feast, and that all the proceedings have been on the highest plane of effectiveness and usefulness. If I have not ears to hear, I have eyes to see the noble company of men and honorable women, not a few, who have been gathered during these few days. Let me tell you what a source of sorrow it has been to have come here and missed two of the most conspicuous figures that have been in times past the joy and glory of your conference. I had hoped to look into the honest face and grasp the honest hand of Massachusetts grand old Christian statesman, Henry L. Dawes. Thank God the grand old man is with us in spirit. Let us hope that we may hear him in meetings yet to come.

And that other most conspicuous figure the handsome and the holy-hearted bishop of Minnesota never will enter this hall again. He has been translated into the innumerable company of the white robed and the crowned conquerors in glory. Permit me, ere we close, to offer a word or two of personal tribute to my beloved old friend.

Bishop Whipple and myself were almost exactly the same age, born only a few days apart, not far from the interior of this State. His native place was Adams. During the last forty years the Episcopal Church has not produced, nor has the ministry, a more picturesque and powerful personality. I do not wonder they loved him and lionized him over yonder in Britain. I do not wonder that the Queen had him come and pay her a visit, and gave him a book as a keepsake. I do not wonder that in the Isle of Wight they had him pronounce the memorial address on the poet Tennyson. But wherever he went he was the same fearless, Abraham-Lincoln-like man in the ministry. An illustration I can give you shows the point and pith and plainess of speech the grand old man possessed. He was visiting a family of rank in England, and when he went to the station he was accompanied by a young nobleman of high rank, who had also been a guest. When they got to the station this young nobleman vented a most horrible amount of oaths at his valet, because he had done something to displease him. When he discovered that the Bishop had heard him, he said, "I beg your pardon, but the fact is I have always called a spade a spade." "Indeed," said the Bishop, "I rather think that instead of a spade you have called it a damned old shovel." In a few days that young nobleman sent a letter to the Bishop, saying that he had always been profane, but promising that he would never swear again. That was Bishop Whipple, every inch of him. The honors from royalty and nobility never for an hour let him forget that peculiar service to which his Master had called him, being the friend and helper of the poor red man. And the glory of Bishop Whipple is this that since the days of John Eliot he stood out as the most impressive, effective, holy-hearted, and successful apostle to the Indians in all our American history. Let the red men put up a tablet to him, and write on it the name of old "Straight Talk."

Then let them write under that the name of Armstrong, founder of the Hampton Institute; and under that the name of grand old Senator Dawes, who for so many years, in a different connection, has been serving the highest interest of the Indian. But if they want to make that tablet complete they must add another name to the names of these benefactors of the wronged and the wretched and the downtrodden brothers and sisters; beneath their names let the Indians write the good, honest name of Albert K. Smiley. Out of his big, warm heart was born this conference, which has become one of the established institutions of our land. I do not exaggerate when I say that, outside of the Capitol in Washington and the White House and the Government departments, there is nowhere in this land a scene of such far reaching influence and power on the destiny of the Indian as within this annual conference, to which we come up with joy and gladness. From this lighthouse of Mohonk have flashed bright rays that have gladdened the face of the vast West, and lightened the destiny of the wronged and neglected Indian.

And then, too, our brother has done it all with such wonderful adaptation to the instincts of human nature. He has made it so delightful and attractive. I had occasion to say in one of the earlier conferences that he had wrought a great revolution in the line of benevolence. In former years a reformer was a persecuted man. The philanthropist was often the butt of jeers and ridicule, and sometimes the victim of mob violence. My dear Brother Smiley has changed all that. Up here at Mohonk, for the first time, philanthropy is fed on peaches and cream, and rides out every afternoon in a coach and four. Who need wonder that 200 men and women rejoice every year to be philanthropists? So let us thank our dear friend for the privilege of coining and serving the Master in such an exceedingly delightful way; meeting and mingling our salutations and our prayers, then going yonder to Sky top to take in all this magnificent general assembly of the mountains that the Almighty has painted so gloriously; gathering here to sing hymns of praise, to clasp each others hands, and then go home, as we shall on the* morrow, the better and stronger, and carrying away in our heart of hearts the names of these two brothers. God bless them. If all the people in our broad land that know and love Albert and Daniel Smiley could travel up yonder hill and gather on that lake shore, you would see such a mighty assembly as you have seldom seen, and you would hear uprising shouts of thanksgiving to God that he had put it into their hearts to establish this institution, and permit us to come together and be his guests. And so I am going to take your hearts into my own, beloved friends, and say God bless you on and on; with long life satisfy you, until your eyes shall behold the splendors of the full salvation.

Mr. A. K. Smiley was the last speaker. He said that he had tried to persuade the committee to omit these resolutions of thanks, but they would not do it. He thanked the speakers for all their kind words, and assured his guests that the two most blessed times of the year were when the conference on arbitration met and when the Indian conference was in session. He closed in the following words:

"I have made up my mind that this work shall go on. My brother, Daniel Smiley, who will take entire charge of this place hereafter, shares in this purpose. If the Indian problem be solved (and I hope it will be soon), the agencies abolished, the Board of Indian Commissioners dismissed, the Indian Bureau a thing of the past, and the Indian taken into the body politic as a citizen, there will be no Indians as a race, but all will be American citizens. If all that comes to pass then there will be something else needing discussion the Philippines, Porto Rico, Cuba, Hawaii, and perhaps the Danish Islands. It is only a question of time when all these matters will come up. So this hilltop I hope will be a sort of Mecca for philanthropists for a hundred years to come; a place to discuss problems of national interest.

We have had a good conference, exceedingly gratifying to me, and I thank you most heartily for coming. We have had a fine executive committee, an excellent presiding officer, good secretaries, a faithful treasurer; and I am going to put them together, and ask you to give them and Mrs. Hector Hall, for her music, a vote of thanks.

The vote of thanks was passed, and the conference was closed by singing God be with us till we meet again."

Report of Board of Indian Commissioners

Notes About this Publication:

Source: Thirty-Third Annual Report Of The Board Of Indian Commissioners, 1901,  Government Printing Office.

Online Publication: The manuscript was scanned and then ocr'd. Minimal editing has been done, and readers can and should expect some errors in the textual output.

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.