The New York herald., 1878-12-02
sehurz in Reply to sheridan.

Sthurz fn Neply 10 Shefiu"h'
Secretary Schurz has sent to the War De-
partment very able answer to the COM
ments of General Sheridan, which were
strongly indorsed by General Sherman, on
his policy of removing the Kiowas and
Comanchcs from Fort SILL locating them
near the Wichitas, and consolidating the
agencies. Mr.. Schurz shines in controversy
and handles his weapons with great skill
General Sheridan has not had equal train
ing as writer or controversialIst, but he
has spent twenty years in the Indian
country and ought to be a more com-
petent judge of the matters in dispute than
either MI. Schurz himself or any of the
civilians whom he quotes at great length.
But Secretary SchuM is quite right in in
sisting that General Sheridan should sup
port his charges by specific facts, SO lar as
he has charged, malversation against Mr.
Schnrz's subordinates. But he might have
spared the sarcastic observation which he
has put as sting into the tail Of his letter
in hoping '.that General Sheridan will make
his revelations without delay, which he
must be able TO do for it should not be
assumed that ho is under the necessity,
after having announced the verdict first, to
look for the evidence arterward' Si,ch in
nuendos do not tend to soften the asporities
Of controversy and they may provoke re-
forts which will not be quite pleasant for
Mr.. Schurz.
In Judging of this controversy 50 far as it
has gene we must not confound two ques-
tIons which are quito distinct. The main
question is tho eNpediency Of removing the
Indian agency from Fort Sill; the other
question, which is merely incidental, re-
lates to the alleged malyersation of
Indian agents. 1t is only on the
latter or subordinate question that
General Sheridan is bound to furnish def
mite specifications. The expediency Of re-
moving the agency from Fort Sill is mat
ter of opinion. in which the Secretary
weighs the judgment OF certain civilians
against the Judgment Of Generals
Pope, Sheridan and Sherman. Of
course authority, however high, must
yield to valid reasons; but if the ques-
tion were to be decided on mere testimony
and opinion the opinion Of these three
army officers would outweight in public es-
timation that Of civilian subordtnates Of the
Interior Department, whose views are
colored by the notions they took with them
as reformers.
One OF the chief reasons given for the re-
muyal Of the Indians from Fort Sill is the
badness Of the water General Sherman
stated on his own knowledge that the water
is excellent, which Mr. Schurz now admits,
but explains that the stream by which it is
supplied flows through the military camp
and becomes contaminated with its filth
before reaching the Indians. If this be SO
there is only needed a sufficient iron pipe
to convey untainted water from point
above the camp to point below it.
Another point made by Mr.. Schurz
is that the buildings at Fort Sill for
the accommodation of the agency are
dilapidated and liable to tumble down.
Even if there is no exaggerntion in this
statement it would cost no more to replace
them at Fort Sill than at new location.
Another Of Mr.. Schurz's reasons is that
the Indians should be SO located that
the troops Of the fort will be in
terposed between them and the Texas
border But for every purpose of
protection or restraint the Indians can be
! sufficiently watched and guarded when
they are in immediate proximity to the
fort. The charge that the soldiers cannot
be restrained from corrupting the neighbor-
ing squaws will doubtless be answered by
General Sheridan. This controversy will
at least have the good effect of exciting in
terest in the Indian question, which is rising
into great importance.