The Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. Territory) 1849-1855, 1854-03-23

have unanimously acquitted Gov. Ramsey Of any
crimnaliiy or impropriety in his official conduct in
the disbursement Of the money under the Sioux
ties of 1851. We have uniformly maintained that
Gov. Rs conuc, not only jus,iable, but that be
faithfully performed his dnty in the transaction
fened 10, and felt confident that he, and those
who attempted to be implicated with him, wou'd
be amply indicated by the action Of the Senate,
from all injurious impu,atons. Now that these
questions which have heretofore elected so much
feeling in midst, have been definitely settled by
the unanimous vote Of the u. s. Senate, leave
them to The oblivion from which they should never
have emerged, heartily congratulairg Gov. r. up
on the result. Democratic Senate has done itself
honor by rendering justice TO political opponent.
! The following is a copy Of the report Of the
mittee on Indian Affairs. made on the 18th ult
Tie Committee Indian Affairs to whom was re-
| ferred the testimony taken BY The commissioners
appointed by the President Of the United States TO
investigate certain charges preferred against Alex
ander Ramsey, late Governor of, and Supcrinten-
! dent Of iudiam Affairs for the Territory of Mime
sofa, in relation to the payments made to the In
dams and others, pursuance OF the treaties of
| Traverse DIES Sioux and Mendoza; and also the
testimony taken by said Committee the last
session OF the Senate, beg leave to report
I That they have carefully examined all the tes-
mony taken by the commissioners, during nearly
three months which they were 10 session at Saint
Paul, ia the Territory of Minnesota, and have
rived al the cOncu ion, that the ryanduct of Cover
nor Ramsey only free from blame, but highly
commendabe and mcritoriUus. Not one o.! the char
ges preferred against him has been sustained by the
testimony. On the contrary, the witnesses Of the
compainants themselves, in almost every instance,
have negaUyed thein-proving concnsively, that he
neither violated the spulaons Of the treaties, az
understood by the parties to them, governed
in his conduct by motives other than such eniile
him commentator both a man and and off,
GER.
In the disbursement Of the funds arising under
the treates he acted in accordance with the under
standing between the commissioners who negotiated
them the Indians, and the traders or whom provis-
ion had been made. The payments Of the moneys
WIS made by him undcr the direction OF, aud in
strict accordance with the views and instructions Of
the Commissioner Of lndian Affairs.
The payments, the propiiety oil which have been
questioned, were those made Of that portion Of the
money which was appropriated in pursuance of the
first clause OF the fourth article OF the treaties Of
Traverse DIES Sioux and Mendoza respectively. At
the time the treaties negotiated, at the pressing
instance of the Indians themselves, appears from
the testimony, the Commissioners, Gov. Ramsey and
Luke Lea, consented To aside the Of $685.
600 mainly for the payment OF the debts due by them
to their traders. The indebtedness of the Indians to
their traders has never been denied and, indeed,
they refused 10 treat unless irOVlStuNs,Wefe maze
the treaty for the payment of their deb,s.
, That the Indians fully understood the nature Of
the provisions made in behalf OF the traders, and
satisfied afterwards with the payments made to
them, Is clearly apparent from the testimony. Ii
NAV be true that subsequently to the time the pay
nents made, indv luas amongst the chiefs ,ex-
cited by the hope which interested people
them to cherish, that their Complaints would lie list
ened TO by the government, may have stated that
their debts not large the traders preten-
ded But, however this may be, the claims Of the
traders verified by their oaihs, and previously
admitted to De jus, by the Indians themselves. I'M
der these circumstances, ii the duty Of Governor
Ramsey, and he would have been cupAbe had he
neglected. to pay The money to the traders for whose
benefit the stipulation contained in the first clause
the fourth article OF the treaty principally IN
tended. Had the money been paid to the Indians
who At all acquainted with ther habits, and the in
fuences surrounding them, doubts that it would have
been inproviden;y used Indeed. the commissioners.
( Mr. Young, admits that this would necessarily have
been the IL was therefore, in the Judgment Of
the COMMITTEE the duty OF Gov. Ramsey |, prevent,
az far as in his power, these funds from being
diverted from their legitimate object.
Amongst the accounts Vouchers Sc, OF Governor
Ramsey referred To the comiai,tee, those OF the
Chiefs authorizing the payment Of the money to the
2 traders. These vouchers ST. ned by The proper
chiefs Of the respective bands, and conferred ample
power on Gov. Ramsey to appropriate the money
> he did. The committee cannot, therefore perceive
r wherein his conduct has been any respect Ltaml-
bic. No wrong was done 10 the Indians III this
spect but if the funds designed by the treaties fer
the benefit OF the traders hal b'eu paid the In
J., dams themselves, he would have subjected himself
= to the Just animadyers;on of his sIpeiiors.
That provision made IN the treaties foT the
pay Of the debts dae by the Indians to the ua-
dcrs was known 10 everybody ronverSant with the
matter. IL the subject of remark in the s;enae,
when the bill making appropriations To carr, the
treaties into effect under oil.ide.aion; and no
"A IA lS tee ON med
r the p.oprieiy Of such prov ison; the COM
nee see any improperly now, either III the prov,s
, IONS OF the treaties, or the manner in which they
i were carried into effect By Gov. Ramsey.
One Of the charges preferred 10y the compl inants
against Gov. Ramsey was. that in deposi,ins the
money received. from The reasiry certain banks
g, in the city of New York and rsew here, he had vi
oated the provisions of the act passed August 9th,
1916, commonly called the sub-trcasury act. 1t
would be sufficient 10 say in reply 10 this part oi
the charge, that Gov. Ramsey, IN receiving from the
u Treasury the funds des,,ed for the payment of a
debt accidental in its character, AID connected IN
nowise with his ordinary duties governor
perintendent Of Indian affairs, IN officer IL,
contemplation OF the above-naned act, subject ia
its provisions. The committee have, however, a
word to say to the facts connected with this branch
Of the case.
, While it is true that Governor Ramsey received a
draft on the Treasury for which he might have OBJ
tanned gold, is also truc that he paid neither the
Indians traders IN funds below par, which the
creditors themselves did not axe choice Of For
convenience aud security he deposited the draft which
he had received AT the Treasury, in New York. and
took certificate OF deposi, for il. Drafts OH New
= York and the New York banks, we've :,
premium in Minnesota at the time the payments were
made. The Indians we've paid IN gold, while most
Of the traders preerIing paper paid either by
drafts New York in par funds Of New York
banks. In making the deposit in New York, Gov.
Ramsey could have had in view nothing but the
| safety of the money and his convenience Com
mandins, as New York paper did, a premium! IN
Minnesota he could have derived no advantage from
exchanging gold for paper is it shown, even
pretended that he realized expected to real
ze cent of profit by the Transaction. But he has
been justified il Justification necessary, BY the
uniform practice Of government officers since
the passage Of the act Of August 9th 1916. A wear
before, in another Transaction, that excellent officer,
Mr.. Comptroller WbIitesey, authorized him to
place funds intended to be paid out in Minnesota in
such repositories as he might think proper; an d
the authority given him to do then, no doubt led
him TO suppose that he would be justified in doing so
in the instance under consideration.