New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-05-27

resume cash payments by the government
Of the United States, which was read . first
and second time, referred to the Committee
on Banking and Currency and ordered to
be printed. He also introduced joint reso-
lusion authorizing the appointment of COM
missi0ners to ascertain on what terms
mutually beneficial treaty of commerce
with Brazil can be arranged; which was
read Q first and second time, referred to the
Committee on Commerce and ordered to be
printed.
The Indian Bureau and the War DEPART
ment.
A late number OF the Charchman con.
tains the following communication from
General Augur. the commander of the De-
partment Of the Gulf:
In the Churchmun of April Is, You con-
clude an editorial on the subject Ut the In
dams by stating
"The news has just reached us that prob
charge of the War Department. 1t must,
indeed, be Q very hopeful sign, since the
late head of that department, and several
more of the army, have given such signal
proofs of theig honesty"
This suppose to be what Artepus Ward
would have called sarcasm. But is it moth
ing more9 Is fippant imputation of dis
honesty against Q number of respectable
officers to be received merely as q pleas
antry7 1t is standing and serious charge
against the secular newspapers of the day
that they too readily give currency to idle
and slanderOus reports against public men
without furnishing the slightest evidence
of their truth.
As recognized evil of the times. is it not
the duty OF our Church papers to endeavOr
to correct this, rather than to fall into the
same practice themselves! The late Secre-
tary Of War was q civil officer purely, and
Whatever his shortcomings, they are in no
way chargesble to the army. He never be-
longed to ths army in any way except as a
volunteer officer during the war of the re-
bellion, when his services were held to have
been at the least very creditable. If you
regard the transfer of the In dian Bureau to
the War Department as injudicious and
wrong, l recognize fully your right to
oppose it, and to strengthen your Opposi-
ton by all the fair arguments you can find.
But in doing go, is it necessary or just to
vilify and mslign officers of the army with
out furnishing some proof or evidence OF
their guilt Who are the several more of
Lno aTmy WHO nave given pfOoAs VI OIs'
honesty, and where is the evidence to sus-
tain such Q charge2
During the prolonged and searching in
vestigstiOns now in progress in Washing
ton, have failed to see any evidence pro-
duced convicting or making even prima
faca case of fraud or dishonesty against
any officer of the army.
If the Churchman is in possession of such
evidence, ought it to have made its charge
of dishonesty without referring to ita
You may ask, What about General Bah
cockl / have Only to answer, that he has
been tried by q competent court, and
acquitted of the charges made against him.
Moreover, what he may have done amiss
is in no way connected with the army.
Although belonging to it, he has scarcely
served with it since the war. Meantime he
has been connected with civil affairs and
associated with civil officers, and his derelic-
tione, if any, relate to the civil departments
of the government, and can not in the re-
motest degree reflect upon the morals Of the
army.
And now, with your permission, eDe word
on the subject of the proposed transfer OF
the Indian Bureau to the War Department.
Recently, all officers OF rank in the army
have been required by committee of Con-
gress to give their views as to the expedi-
ency of such transfer. 1t is stated that,
with single exception, they all advise it
for reason of public good, and in the inter
ests of the Indians themselves. 1t should
be borne in mind that every one of these
officers has served for many years in direct
contact with the Indians, and knows their
needs, their wrongs and their peculiarities
from long and close personal observation
They are also, in the same way, familiar
with the workings Of the present system.
While they have, from q conviction OF it's
expediency and sense OF duty, advised
the transfer, their own personal interests
are all opposed to it.
Should the transfer be effected, they will,
of course, cheerfully and faithfully perform
the additional and exacting labor thus
thrown upon them to the best of their
ability; but they fully recognize the fact
that it will be most thankless labor, and
their only recOmpense will be the conscious
ness that it has been honestly and faith.
fully performed.
In regard to Lieutenant Pratt, who has
charge of the Indian prisoners at St. Au.
gustine, he has had most difficult and
delicate duty to perform in connection
with them, for they are recognized as
among the very worst of our Indians.
Yet good Bishop Whipple says he has
been eminently successful, and accom-
plished deal of good. In the editorial
from which l have quoted, you also
speak approvingly of what he has done
and his manner of doing it. It is unreason-
abls to suppose that other officers who may
hereafter be charged with the care and su.
pervision of Indians, and under more favor
able circumstances, may be equally success.
full and equally entitled to your commenda
tions9 l know Lieutenant Pratt we'll, and
while admitting as true all that good
Bishop Whipple saws of him, / can inform
YOU that he is by no means an exceptional
character in the army. can find you hun
dreds OF officers fully his equal in all re
spects as a "Christian soldier" in devotion
to duty, and conscientious regard for the
Indians, and in whom they, and all theil
interests, would find competent and faith
full guardians.
C. C. AUGUR, Brigadier General.
New Orleans, La, April ls, 1876.