New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-12-24
SECRETARY SCHURZS APOLOGY

Secretary's letter. in which he reviewed In detaii
the conduct of the Government toward the
Pcncas, labOIiOusly and at great length ex-
planning his own share in it, and ending by
frankly declaring his resolve not to permit
them to return 20 their land in Dakota If he
can prevent it. This statement WAS natural
and proper effort on the part OF Mr.. Schurz
to set himself right in the public estimation
before retiring from office. He is apparently
aware bow universal and strong is the con-
domination OF the Indian Department in this
matter, and was justifyng himself, not to Gov
ernor Long, but to the country. 1t Is only
just, therefore, that he should have fair
hearing. His statement, too, OF the case may
be received as not likely to be partial toward
the Indian side of the story, and we may
therefore give full credit to any recital OF
their wrongs from him. 1t may be well, then, to
recur to that letter.
La defending himself the Secretary does not
contradict single item of the story with
which we are all 80 familiar OF the wrongs
of these people. Ho states that they were
absolute owners Of their land and houses;
that by "a blundern Of the Government this
land was coded to the Sioux that by trick
the Ponca chiefs mot being able to ready
we're cheated into signing petition asking
for their removal to the Indian Territory;
that they were so removed; he does not ueny
that this robbery and summary banishment
of 700 citizens and hOusehOlders from their
homes to malarious district was effected at
the will OF three men: Commissioner at
Washington, an Inspector, and missionary
(whO testified atterward that he recognized
the injustice of the oct, but thought 1t better
to keep up the prestige of the Government In
the eyes of the Indians y; that when the chiefs
who were taken by Kimball to the Indian
Territory to inspect it, seeing that it was I'M
healthy, refused to go to it, they were turned
of panniess and obliged to return on foot;
that Kimball, two Indians, and missionary
(atterward publicly deposed from his holy
Office on account Of damning revelations re-
speeding his moral chaIacter) chose the location
for the tribe; that Kimball, with the aid Of
the military, removed them to it, that over
one-third of their number died in the first
year.
lie also states that while he recognized the
great wrongs they had undergone, ii was
considered expedient by himself and the late
William Welsh not to grant their petition to
be reinstated in their homes bur to remove
where he asserts, they are satisfied to remain.
lie also states that he proposes to keep them
there, giving as the somewhat startling reason
the fact that inroads of lawless white settlers
may shortly be expected on their present reSer-
walton, as well as the whole OF the Indian Ter
rtory, and that any attempt to evacuate the
sland by the Indians would be especially
"unsafe.n
We confess that the Secretary's logic seems
TO be at fault just here. The Poncas. he tells
rs were removed in the first place from their
own land IN Dakota in order to prevent any
attack on them from the Sioux. Yet he pro-
poses to make them remain on land which Is
not theirs and to refuse them removal to the
homes which are theirs, because they are
likely soon TO receive, where they are, attacks
from INSCRIPTIONS and lawless whites. Secrc-
tary Schurz then proceeds in detail 10 justify
his whole Indian policy, his establishment OF
schools, etc, for all of which good intentions
he will receive due credit A good deal OF
space tco is given to his personal opinion of
MIR. Tibbes, ETC., etc, and to the afiabilty
with which he Is not ashamed to say he has
"cOnceived personal regard for certain Indians"
But the Secretary fails to see how utterly
glst of the matter Is here, and the American
people fully understand it, though the Indian
Department does not. The red man living in
Dakota should have the same right to the land he
owns or to the house he has built as the New
Yorker or the German naturalzed on our soil.
He should have the same right, il he is hawaii
ing and peaceable, to live where he sees fit. 1t
is not in accordance with the freedom of o
Republic that Inspector Kmball or Bishop
Hare, or even William Welsh, should have
had the arbitrary power to Danish 700 men or
one man from their homes at their within or
discretion, or now to forbid these banished
men free consultation with their attorneys
With regard to their present location and the
expediency of keeping them there, the Secre-
tary strangely forgets the one important fact
the land in Dakota has been adjudcated theirs
by the United States ourt and the Indian
Depar 'ment has no further discretion in the
matter. 1t is their right to return to it when
they choose. 1t is the duty of the Department,
and it, sole duty to furnish transportation to
them TO their homes. Secretary Schurz has
legally no more right to dctain tho Poncas
longer in the Indian Territory, in order to
keep out lawless whites than he would
have to kidnap peaceable New-York house
holders and to force them to live III Florida
swamps in order to fight the alligstOrs.
While on this subject we must express the
| hope that President Hayes will reconsider his
refusal to allow the interpreter proposed by
the friends of the Poncas to accompany the
Commission which he has appointed to go to
| them and question them as to their
wishes concerning their removal. The OBJ
ject of the Commission is, we presume,
two-fold; to render justice to these much
wronged people. and to satisfy the country
that justice has been rendered. Now, the